Produced by ellinora, John Campbell and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)









  TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.

  A superscript is denoted by ^x or ^{xx}, for example 5^e or 2^{me}.

  Footnote anchors are denoted by [number], and the footnotes have been
  placed at the end of each chapter.

  Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.




[Illustration: (Logo of the American Geographical Society of New York)]




  THE FRONTIERS OF
  LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY
  IN EUROPE

  BY
  LEON DOMINIAN

  [Illustration: (Colophon of the publisher)]

  PUBLISHED FOR
  THE AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY
  OF NEW YORK
  BY
  HENRY HOLT AND COMPANY
  1917




  COPYRIGHT, 1917,
  BY
  THE AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY OF NEW YORK

  THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS
  RAHWAY, N. J.




  To my Alma Mater
  Robert College of Constantinople




PREFACE


This book is submitted as a study in applied geography. Its
preparation grew out of a desire to trace the connection existing
between linguistic areas in Europe and the subdivision of the
continent into nations. The endeavor has been made to show that
language exerts a strong formative influence on nationality
because words express thoughts and ideals. But underlying the
currents of national feeling, or of speech, is found the persistent
action of the land, or geography, which like the recurrent motif
of an operatic composition prevails from beginning to end of
the orchestration and endows it with unity of theme. Upon these
foundations, linguistic frontiers deserve recognition as the
symbol of the divide between distinct sets of economic and social
conditions.

The attention bestowed on the Turkish area has been determined by
the bearing of the Turkish situation on European international
affairs and in the earnest belief that the application of
geographical knowledge could provide an acceptable settlement of
the Eastern Question. Never has it been realized better than at the
present time that an ill-adjusted boundary is a hatching-oven for
war. A scientific boundary, on the other hand, prepares the way for
permanent goodwill between peoples.

My effort has been directed to confine the work to a presentation
of facts, as I have felt that the solution of the boundary problems
involved could not be reached satisfactorily by individual opinion.
Should these pages afford a working basis, or prove suggestive,
in the settlement of European boundary conflicts, I shall feel
compensated for the time and labor bestowed on the collection of
the material herein contained.

My thanks are due to the American Geographical Society for the
liberal spirit displayed in promoting my efforts and particularly
for the colored maps which illustrate the text. I am under
special obligations to Councilor Madison Grant of the Society
for new views and a better insight into the significance of
race in European history. To Dr. Isaiah Bowman, Director of the
Society, the extent of my debt would be difficult to estimate,
as his interest in my work has been unfailing in spite of the
pressure of his many duties. I owe him many alterations and
suggestions which have greatly improved the text. Neither can I
allow the volume to go to press without thanking the American
Oriental Society and the Geographical Society of Philadelphia
for the reproduction of portions of my articles printed in their
publications. Acknowledgment of important criticism on two articles
forming the nucleus of the present volume and published in Vol. 47
of the Bulletin of The American Geographical Society is also due
to Professors Palmer, Le Compte and Seymour of Yale as well as to
Professors Gottheil and Jordan of Columbia. Many friends, whose
work has helped mine, I have never seen. To them also I extend
thanks.

  LEON DOMINIAN.

  THE AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY,
  New York.




SPECIAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR ILLUSTRATIONS


  Figs. 1, 4, 23, 24, P. L. M. Railways of France.

  Figs. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, Swiss Federal Railroads.

  Figs. 36, 37, American Scandinavian Review.

  Figs. 40, 42, 46, Travel.

  Figs. 45, 56, 58, Messrs. Sébah & Joaillier, Constantinople.

  Figs. 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, Photos by Dr. E. Banks.




CONTENTS


  CHAPTER                                                       PAGE

         INTRODUCTION                                           xiii

     I.  THE FOUNDATIONS                                           1

    II.  THE BOUNDARIES OF FRENCH AND GERMANIC LANGUAGES IN
             BELGIUM AND LUXEMBURG                                19

   III.  THE FRANCO-GERMAN LINGUISTIC BOUNDARY IN ALSACE-LORRAINE
             AND SWITZERLAND                                      35

    IV.  BORDERLANDS OF ITALIAN LANGUAGE                          59

     V.  SCANDINAVIAN AND BALTIC LANGUAGES                        93

    VI.  THE AREA OF POLISH SPEECH                               111

   VII.  BOHEMIAN, MORAVIAN AND SLOVAKIAN                        141

  VIII.  THE LANDS OF HUNGARIAN AND RUMANIAN LANGUAGES           154

    IX.  THE BALKAN PENINSULA AND ITS SERBIAN INHABITANTS        174

     X.  LANGUAGE PROBLEMS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA               192

    XI.  THE GEOGRAPHICAL CASE OF TURKEY                         221

   XII.  THE PEOPLES OF TURKEY                                   271

  XIII.  SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS                                314


  APPENDIX A.  GERMAN SETTLEMENTS IN RUSSIA                      343

  APPENDIX B.  THE BALKAN STATES BEFORE AND AFTER THE WARS
                   OF 1912-1913                                  345

  APPENDIX C.  CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN EUROPE      346

  APPENDIX D.  A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY                           348

  APPENDIX E.  KEY TO PLACE NAMES                                357

  INDEX                                                          367


LIST OF PLATES

     I.  The Franco-Flemish linguistic boundary                   22

    II.  The Franco-German linguistic boundary in
         Alsace-Lorraine                                          46

   III.  Austria-Hungary and parts of southeastern Europe
         showing languages                                        82

    IV.  The area of Polish speech                               118

     V.  Railroads In Turkey showing their connections and
         extensions 248

    VI.  European spheres of influence and territorial claims
         in Turkey                                               266

   VII.  Part of Asiatic Turkey showing distribution of peoples  274

  VIII.  Distribution of Armenians in Turkish Armenia            294

    IX.  Part of Europe showing languages having political
         significance                                            334




INTRODUCTION

BY MADISON GRANT


Mr. Dominian’s book on “The Frontiers of Language and Nationality”
is the logical outcome of the articles written by him in 1915
in the Bulletin of the American Geographical Society under the
titles of “Linguistic Areas in Europe: Their Boundaries and
Political Significance” and “The Peoples of Northern and Central
Asiatic Turkey.” In the present work the problems arising from the
distribution of main European languages and from their relation to
political boundaries are discussed with clearness and brilliancy.
The text embodies a vast collection of facts and data laboriously
collected by the author, who has applied to the subject his
familiarity with Eastern languages, as well as an impartial vision
which is hard to find in these days when our judgments are so
warped by the tragedy of the Great War.

The difficulty of depicting conditions geographically in colors
or with symbols is of necessity very great. The peasants who form
the majority of the population of most European states often speak
a different language or dialect from that of the educated upper
classes, and such lines of linguistic cleavage frequently represent
lines of race distinction as well. For example, in Transylvania the
language of about sixty per cent of the inhabitants is Rumanian,
while the literary, military and land-owning classes speak either
Magyar or German, and these Hungarians and Saxons, in addition
to forming everywhere the ruling class, are gathered together in
many places in compact communities. A similar condition of affairs
exists along the eastern boundary of the German Empire, except that
here the speech of the peasants is Polish and that of the dominant
classes German.

The preparation of the maps which accompany this volume has been a
task of peculiar difficulty. It is an easy matter to show by colors
the language spoken by actual majorities, but such a delineation
frequently fails to indicate the true literary language of the
nation. Mr. Dominian’s solution of these difficulties has been a
very successful one, and the resultant maps are really of great
value, especially where they deal with little-known frontiers and
obscure lines of demarcation, such as the eastern and western
frontiers of the German Empire.

In spite of exceptions, language gives us the best lines for the
boundaries of political units whenever those frontiers conform
to marked topographical features such as mountain systems. In
many cases where the boundaries of language and nationality
coincide they are found to lie along the crest of mountains
or a well-defined watershed, often along the base of plateaus
or elevated districts, and very seldom along rivers. But the
boundaries of nationality and of language, when they do coincide,
seldom correspond with those of race, and political boundaries are
more transitory and shifting than those of either language or race.

There are a few nations in Europe, chiefly small states, which
are composed of sharply contrasted languages and races, such as
Belgium, where the lowlands are inhabited by Flemish-speaking
Teutons, and the uplands by French-speaking Alpines. Belgium is
an artificial political unit of modern creation, and consequently
highly unstable. The Belgian upper classes are bilingual, a
condition which precedes a change of language, and unless Flanders
becomes united to Holland or Germany it is more than probable that
French speech will ultimately predominate there also.

Among the Celtic-speaking peoples, we have in the highlands of
Scotland, in the mountains of Wales, in western Ireland and in the
interior of Brittany, remnants of two distinct forms of Celtic
speech. These diverse populations have, in common, only their
Celtic speech, and are not related, one to the other, by race. As a
matter of fact, the Scotch, the Welsh and the Bretons are excellent
representatives of the three most divergent races of Europe. The
Armorican-speaking Bretons are Alpine by race, the Cymric-speaking
Welshmen are Mediterranean, while the Gaelic-speaking Scots are
Nordic. In short, there is today neither a Celtic race nor any
recognizable remnant of it. If one of these three peoples be
Celtic in bodily characters, the other two must of necessity not
be Celtic, and furthermore, if we designate any one of the three
as Celtic by race, we must include in that term other distant
populations which by no stretch of the imagination can be so
regarded.

The literary revival of some Celtic dialects may be interesting,
but it will only serve to keep the Celtic-speaking populations
still more out of touch with the march of modern progress. In the
long run the fate of Erse, Gaelic, Cymric and Armorican is certain.
They will be engulfed by the French language on the continent, and
by the English speech in the British Isles, just as Cornish and
Manx have become extinct within a century.

In eastern Europe, the Slavic tongue of Bohemia and Moravia, known
as Czech, was fifty years ago on the point of utter collapse, but
the literary revival of Bohemia has been successful because it
had for support on the east a solid mass of Slavic speech and the
political power of Pan-Slavism, and in consequence was able to hold
its own against the encroaching German. These Slavic dialects all
through eastern Europe and the minor tongues elsewhere are greatly
handicapped by the lack of books, newspapers and good literary
forms. In the case of Erse and Cymric the difficulties of the
spelling are an almost insuperable obstacle. The French language
in Quebec and the various languages spoken among newly arrived
immigrants in the United States will ultimately meet the same fate,
since a few million illiterate and poverty-stricken habitants of
Canada and a few million laborers in the United States must in the
long run inevitably succumb to the overwhelming power of the world
language of the English people.

Although race taken in its modern scientific meaning--the actual
physical character of man--originally implied a common origin,
it has today little or nothing to do with either nationality or
language, since nearly all the great nations of Europe are composed
of various proportions of two and sometimes all three of the
primary European races. The population of England owes its blood
to the Mediterranean and to the more recent Nordic race. Germany
is composed of a combination of Nordic and Alpine, Italy of a
mixture of Alpine and Mediterranean, while France unites within
her boundaries the Nordic in the north, the Mediterranean in the
south and the Alpine in the center. Spain and Portugal, however,
are overwhelmingly of Mediterranean blood, while the Scandinavian
races are purely Nordic. Thus it is quite evident that nationality
and language are independent of race, and in fact the meaning of
the word “race” as used not only by the man in the street, but
also by the historian, is based on the spoken language. So far as
race is concerned in its scientific sense, there exists no such
thing as a “Latin,” a “Celtic,” a “German,” a “Slavic,” or even an
“Aryan” or “Caucasian” race. These are linguistic terms, and are
not correlated to bodily characters.

Throughout Europe, as pointed out by Mr. Dominian, there is,
however, a close correspondence between topographical and
geological land features, on the one hand, and the extent and
spread of language on the other. A similar close connection
has been noted between geographical features and race. Man’s
topographical surroundings are among the most potent elements
of environment, and have operated powerfully in the selection
and development of man, but they do not transform or change one
race into another. We have now discarded the old conception that
blondness has anything to do with latitude, or altitude. Where two
distinct races compete in a given environment, it generally happens
that one or the other is better adapted to its surroundings, and
that race tends to increase at the expense of its rival, with
the result that one ultimately replaces the other. The races of
Europe were originally adjusted to a certain fixed habitat, and
when through conquest or commercial expansion they moved out of
their native surroundings into unfamiliar ground, they tended
to disappear. In short, race supplies the raw material, and
environment is the molding force, or to use another simile, “the
oak tree and the poplar tree are both wood, but the one can be
polished by rubbing, while the other cannot.” In other words,
the Greek genius and Hellenic culture were not created by the
irregularity and broken configuration of Greece, and if the Greeks
had been transplanted at an early time to Arabia, it is hardly
conceivable that the world would have seen classic civilization
in its most typical form. On the other hand, we have no reason to
believe that if the Arabs had settled in Greece, they would have
produced either Homer or the Parthenon. If England had remained
exclusively in the hands of its original Mediterranean inhabitants,
and if the Teutonic Nordics had not conquered it, or even if the
Nordic Normans had not reinforced the Saxon strain, it is more
than probable that the British Empire would not have achieved its
triumphs.

Geographical situation, conditions of soil and of climate, mountain
barriers, navigable rivers and abundant seaports have a powerful,
even a controlling environmental influence on the raw material
supplied by heredity, but in the last analysis it is race that
manifests itself by characteristic achievement.

The prevailing lack of race consciousness in Europe compels us to
disregard it as a basis for nationality. In the existing nations,
races are generally scattered unevenly throughout the map, and are
nearly always grouped in classes, as originally race was the basis
of all class, caste and social distinctions. Race therefore being
not available as a test of nationality, we are compelled to resort
to language. As a matter of fact, language is the essential factor
in the creation of national unity, because national aspirations
find their best expression through a national language.

At the close of the Great European War the question of national
boundaries will undoubtedly come to the front and the data
collected and set forth in this book will be useful to a thorough
understanding of the problems involved. There is reason to
believe that if, at the termination of the Franco-Prussian war,
the international boundary in Alsace-Lorraine had been run in
conformity with the linguistic facts, much of the bitter animosity
of later years might have been avoided. Similar problems will press
for solution during the next few years, and if a permanent peace
is to be assured neither the Allies nor the Central Empires can
afford to create new Alsace-Lorraine or Schleswig-Holstein problems
by disregarding national aspirations as expressed and measured by a
common language or literature.

In the Balkan states the difficulty of finding any political
boundaries that in any way correspond to race or language has
heretofore been insuperable, but when the Congress of the Nations
convenes, whether this year or next, or the year after, every
member of it should be familiar with all facts that bear on the
case, and above all with the meaning of such facts, and there
exists today no book which covers these questions so fully, so
accurately and so impartially as Mr. Leon Dominian’s “Frontiers of
Language and Nationality.”




THE FRONTIERS OF LANGUAGE AND NATIONALITY IN EUROPE




CHAPTER I

THE FOUNDATIONS


The site of populous cities and of trim little towns was once wild
waste or sunless woodland. Our rude forefathers, wandering upon
uninhabited tracts, converted them into fair fields and domains
which their descendants rounded out eventually into nations.
Humanity has prospered and today we often think of countries in
terms of their characteristic landscape and scenery. But the
thought naturally suggested by the name France or England is that
of a nation whose people speak French or English. To separate the
idea of language from that of nationality is rarely possible.

To say that a man’s accent betrays his nationality is another way
of stating that every language has a home of its own upon the
surface of the earth. A word or an accent will thrive or wither
like a tree according to region. In the earliest forms of Aryan
languages, words for fish or sea appear to be wanting--a want which
points to inland origins. The natives of the scorching equatorial
lowlands have no word for ice in their dialects. A further glimpse
into the past is required for a proper estimate of these facts.
Man’s conquest of a region is achieved in two distinct stages. The
first settlers rarely accomplish more than a material hold. Their
task is exclusively that of exacting sustenance from the soil.
Intellectual possession is taken at a later stage. The land then
becomes a source of inspiration to its dwellers. Having provided
for his material wants, man is now able to cultivate ideals and
give free rein to his artistic propensities. Instead of brooding in
gloomy anxiety over future support or becoming desperate through
sheer want he is able to bestow a leisure hour on a favorite
recreation. In both of these stages, his thoughts and the words
used for their utterance are in harmony with their surroundings.

We therefore turn to the land for intimate acquaintance with man
and his culture. His very character is shaped in the mold of his
habitual haunt. And language is little more than the expression
of his character. The earnest Scotchman and the steadfast Swede,
both hardened by the schooling of a vigorous climate, contrast
strikingly with the impulsive Andalusian or the fitful Sicilian
trained to laxity and carelessness in the midst of plenty. The
revengeful Corsican is the native of an unblest island, while the
Russian, bred in the vast and monotonous steppe, cannot avoid
injecting a strain of melancholy into the literary treasures which
he contributes to the human brotherhood.

The emotional ties which bind man to his country or to his mother
tongue are the same because they are rooted in the past. A citizen
of any country is conscious of his nationality whenever he realizes
that he has a common origin with his compatriots. Language is
merely the outward form of this feeling. But without its unifying
influence national solidarity cannot be perfected.

The growth of modern European nations and the spread of their
languages have been parallel developments. This parallelism
is founded on the material ties no less than on the spiritual
affinity which bind men to the earth. To furnish evidence of this
relationship lies within the province of geography. Historical
testimony is also at hand to show that political and linguistic
frontiers have tended to coincide during the past two centuries,
except where artificial measures have been brought into play.
Broadly it may be submitted that the advance of civilization in
most countries has been marked by the progress of nationality,
while nationality itself has been consolidated by identity of
speech.

Language areas, in common with many other facts of geography,
have been largely determined by the character of the surface or
climate. Occurrences such as the extension of Polish speech to the
Carpathian barrier or the restriction of Flemish to the lowland
of northwestern central Europe, are not the work of mere chance.
An investigation of linguistic boundaries, therefore, implies
recognition of the selective influence of surface features. But
the influence of region upon expansion or confinement of language
is far from absolute. The part played by economic factors will be
shown in the following pages to have been of prime importance.

Considered as political boundaries, linguistic lines of cleavage
have two-fold importance. They are sanctioned by national
aspirations and they conform to a notable degree with physical
features. Every linguistic area considered in these pages bears
evidence of relation between language and its natural environment.
A basis of delimitation is therefore provided by nature. Eastern
extension of French to the Vosges, confinement of Czech to a
plateau inclosed by mountains, uniformity of language in open
plains and river basins, all are examples of the evidence provided
by geography for statesmen engaged in the task of revising
boundaries.

Europe may be aptly regarded as a vast field of settlement where
the native element has, again and again, been swamped by successive
flows of immigrants proceeding from every point of the compass.
The wanderings of these invaders have been directed, in part, into
channels provided by the main mountain ranges of Eurasia. Valleys
or plains which favored expansion of nationality were, at the same
time, the avenues through which languages spread. The barrier
boundary of the Mediterranean basin contains a number of important
breaches on the north[1] which facilitated the mingling of the
Nordic race with Mediterranean men after it had mixed with Alpine
peoples. Within historic times men of Celtic speech have been
driven westward by Teutons, who also pressed Slavs in the opposite
direction. The consequence is that few Frenchmen or Germans of our
day can lay claim to racial purity. Northern France is perhaps
more Teutonic than southern Germany, while eastern Germany is,
in many places, more Slavic than Russia. To ascribe political
significance to race is therefore as difficult today as it was when
Roman citizenship meant infinitely more in comparison.

Nationality, however, an artificial product derived from racial
raw material, confers distinctiveness based on history. It is the
cultivated plant, blossoming on racial soil and fertilized by
historical association. In the words of Ossian: “It is the voice of
years that have gone; they roll before me with all their deeds.”
Men alone cannot constitute nationality. A nation is the joint
product of men and ideas. A heritage of ideals and traditions held
in common and accumulated during centuries becomes, in time, the
creation of the land to which it is confined.

Language, the medium in which is expressed successful achievement
or hardship shared in common, acquires therefore cementing
qualities. It is the bridge between the past and the present. Its
value as the cohesive power of nationality is superseded, in rare
instances, by ideals similarly based on community of tradition,
hope, or in some cases religion. In speech or writing, words give
life to the emotion which nationality stirs in the heart or to the
reasoning which it awakens in the mind.

The distinction between the conceptions of race, language and
nationality should, at the very outset, be clearly established.
Race deals with man both as a physical creature and as a being
endowed with spiritual qualities. Tall, blond men constitute a race
distinct from their fellows who combine stockiness and brunetness.
The basis of differentiation in this case is anatomical. Hence,
to talk of an English or Persian race is erroneous. Every nation
contains people endowed with widely different physiques, owing
to the extensive intermingling of races which has taken place in
the course of the million years during which the earth has been
inhabited. To be precise, our conception of racial differences must
conform to classifications recognized by modern anthropologists.
We shall therefore consider the Mediterranean, Alpine and Nordic
races--to mention only those composed of white men--and we shall
find that they all blend in European nationalities.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 1--View of the “route d’Italie” or road to Italy at the
  extreme southeastern border of France and well inside the small
  area of Italian language lying within the French political
  boundary.]

Take, as an example, the racial elements entering into the
composition of French nationality. The dominating type, in northern
France, belongs to the tall, narrow-headed Nordic race, with blue
eyes and fair hair. Frenchmen with these characteristics are
descendants of Franks and Gauls who settled in the northern plains
of the Paris basin. In Brittany and the Massif Central, however, a
round-headed and dark type, short and stockily built, is scattered
over the two main piles of Archean mountains which still remain
exposed to view. In the Aquitaine basin, as well as in the Lower
Rhone valley, the narrow-headed Mediterranean race, with dark eyes
and hair, is everywhere evident in the short, brunet inhabitants.

Ripley adheres to the racial segregation of European man in
the three groups enumerated above. But a further reduction can
be established on a purely geographical basis, with the result
that Europeans may be classed primarily either as highlanders or
lowlanders. Anthropological classification fits admirably in this
dual distinction, since the inhabitants of European mountain lands
belong to the round-head type while the dwellers of the depressions
north and south of the central uplifts have long heads.

From the conception of race we attain that of people by considering
the second as derived from the mingling of the first. Intercourse
between the three great races of Europe has always existed as a
result of migratory movements. The impulse to wander, however much
it differed in each known instance, can usually be traced to a
single determining cause, definable as the quest after comfort.
This was the motive which led men of the Nordic race to abandon
their uncomfortable habitat in the north. The same feeling was
experienced by Alpine mountaineers as they descended towards
attractive lowlands north and south of their rough mountain homes.

Nordics moving to the south and Alpines crowding toward the lowland
converged upon one another. No meeting of human beings, in the
entire history of mankind, has been fraught with consequences of
wider reach than the contact between members of these, the two
hardiest races which the world has produced. European nationalities
and Aryan languages were born in those momentous meetings. The
zone of contact extended from the northwestern, lowland fringe of
continental Europe to the saucer-shaped land of Polesia. Along the
depressed margin of western Europe a heavy flow of Mediterranean
men, moving constantly northward, introduced a third element in
the racial constituents of French and British populations. Each
of the three races contributed a characteristic share of physical
and moral traits to the spirit of nationality in Europe. The
Nordics left the impress of their northern vigor wherever they
passed. Their native restlessness, the joint product of cold
weather and a hard life, became converted into a magnificent
spirit of enterprise whenever it blended with Alpine hardiness
or Mediterranean ambition. The Alpines, often considered as the
intellectual type, also imparted the virility of highland physiques
as they migrated to the lowland. Last, but not least, Mediterranean
men contributed the softness of their native character as well as
the fine qualities due to a keen artistic sense. The fusion of the
three races was accompanied by the creation of the three great
groups of European peoples, known as Celts, Teutons and Slavs. The
differentiation of these peoples from the fused group occurred at
an early period and was probably in full swing towards the close of
the Neolithic.

We are thus led to picture the early home of Celtic dialects on
territory now falling under French, Dutch and German rule. It is
not unlikely that England and Ireland are areas of expansion of
this language. Eastward, it is known that the Celtic territory
extended at least as far as the Elbe. Beyond, in the same
direction, an ever widening wedge of Teutonic area interposed
itself between Celts and Slavs. The prehistoric home of the
Teutons will be found in the region around the western extremity
of the Baltic Sea. It comprised southern Sweden, Jutland, the
German Baltic coast to the Oder and the Baltic islands as far
as Gothland. The Slav’s original homeland had its site on an
imperfectly drained lake-bed extending westward from the middle
Dnieper valley to the Niemen and Priepet marshland.

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Brown Bros._

  FIG. 2--Schwarzwald scenery. A region of transitional dialects
  between High and Low German.]

From east to west on the Eurasian land mass the three main forms
of language occupy strictly geographical settings. Monosyllabic
Chinese lies rigid and lifeless within its barriers of high
mountains and vast seas. The static condition of Chinese
civilization is reflected in the changeless form of its language.
A new idea requires a new word and a corresponding symbol. In
the wild and wide-stretching steppes of Siberia, communication
of thought or feeling is maintained through the medium of
agglutinative forms of speech. Grammatically, this marks an
improvement over the monosyllabic language. In the case considered
here it expresses the restlessness and mobility of steppe life. At
the same time inferiority of civilization is revealed by poverty
of ideas and consequently of words. In the west, however, whether
we consider western Asia or Europe, we deal with the world’s best
nursery of civilization. In those regions are found the highly
inflected and flexible languages of the Aryan and Semitic families.
The grammar of these languages--a mere adaptation to superior
requirements of order and method--renders them particularly
responsive to the constant improvement in thought which
characterizes western countries.

Aryan languages are spoken all the way from northern India to
Europe’s westernmost confines. This territory comprises the
western extension of the central belt of high Eurasian mountains
together with its fringing lowlands. In its elevated portion it is
the domain of the Alpine race and of the Nordic in its depressed
northern border. On the other hand, that portion of the northern
Eurasian grasslands which extends into Europe forms part of the
area of Uralo-Altaic languages. It is sometimes contended that the
original home of Aryan languages was situated in northern Europe,
where full-blooded northerners now speak languages belonging to
this family. But the weight of evidence in favor of a central
European origin will seem almost decisive when we remember that
culture and civilization have invariably proceeded from temperate
regions. The Aryans issued at first from the contact of northern
European lowlanders with the highlanders of central Europe,
subsequently mingled with the inhabitants of the Mediterranean
basin. As they migrated southward they must have changed
continually in race. Every absorption of southern elements tended
to modify their racial characteristics. A given type therefore
corresponds to a definite period and place. The vagueness conveyed
by the term Aryan, whether applied to language or people, is to be
explained by the inherent instability of the subject.

A theoretical representation of the operation of this change may be
offered by assuming that NA is the offspring of the first Nordic
N having come in contact with an Alpine A. The tendency for NA is
to migrate southwards. His offspring may be represented as NAA
as the likelihood is that NA will have taken an Alpine wife to
himself. This is the prelude to a long series of generations to
each of which an A strain is added. At the same time the steadily
maintained migration of Nordics in a southerly direction towards
and beyond the territory occupied by the Alpines tends to bring
new N strains to the mixed product. At a given stage contact
with Mediterranean races becomes established and the process of
obliterating Nordic traits is intensified.

We thus see that as the northern invaders pressed southward they
became more or less absorbed in the indigenous populations. Their
physique changed and their individuality vanished. However great
the strength of the invaders, they could bring relatively few women
in their train. This was especially true whenever they operated in
a mountainous country. The passes through which their advance was
made were open only to the more vigorous in the bands of fighting
men or adventurers.

At the end of the Neolithic, about 5,000 years ago,[2] Europe
was the home of a type of man physically similar to any average
European of our day. This type is the product of long-continued
contact between the original human product of Europe, Asia and
Africa. The dawn of history finds him speaking Celtic in western
central Europe. An immense variety of dialects must then have
been spoken on the continent, since intercourse was slight. Their
fusion into modern languages has been the work of centuries. Out
of the linguistic sifting of the past two millenniums, three great
groups of languages have emerged: the Romanic, Germanic and Slavic,
distributed over Europe from west to east. In these three groups
French, German and Russian occupy respectively the leading rank.

The distinction between the languages spoken in northern and
southern France was highly marked in early medieval days. The
langue d’oïl in use north of a line starting at the mouth of the
Gironde River and passing through Angoulême, L’Isle-Jourdain and
Roanne eventually acquired ascendancy over the langue d’oc spoken
to the south.[3] The dialect of this northern language which
prevailed in Ile-de-France was the precursor of modern French. It
spread rapidly throughout the country after the acquisition of
Aquitaine by French kings and the consolidation of France by the
annexation of Burgundian lands. The French of Paris thus became a
national language whose linguistic and literary prestige is still
strongly felt over the rest of the country.

The Roman conquest of Gaul brought Latin to the country because the
civilization of the south was superior. At the time of the coming
of the Franks, the Latinized Gaulish language was taken up by the
conquerors because it also was the symbol of superior intellectual
development. The conversion of barbarian invaders to Christianity
helped to maintain Latinized forms of speech. The Latin of the
Romans was modified, however, by the different local dialects. Thus
the patois of langue d’oc and of langue d’oïl acquired resemblance
through the leavening influence of Latin.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 3--Sketch map of France showing mountain areas and basins.]

As long as southern France exercised a preponderating influence
in national affairs, the langue d’oc occupied the first place in
the country. In the eleventh century it was spoken by the leading
classes in the north, as well as by the masses in the south. Such,
at least, is the testimony of manuscripts of this period. But with
the passing of power into the hands of northern Frenchmen, the
langue d’oïl came into wider use, until one of its patois gave
rise to the French which was subsequently to become the medium of
expression for the genius of Molière and the notable host of his
literary countrymen.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 4--St. Seine l’Abbaye near Dijon lies in the area of langue
  d’oïl. The fair land of Burgundy, of which the view is typical,
  has been open to northern invasions on the northwest and the
  northeast.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 5--A farmhouse in the Black Forest, a typical habitation in
  districts in which High German is spoken.]

Between the langue d’oc and the langue d’oïl the difference was
that of north and south. The southern idioms expressed feeling
and harmony, hence they were preferred by poets. The troubadours
favored them exclusively during the Middle Ages. The “parlers”
of the north, on the other hand, were endowed with the staying
qualities of lucidity, order and precision. The beauty of modern
French, as well as the attraction it exerts on cultivated minds, is
due to its well-balanced blend of northern and southern elements.
French of our day is the shrine in which the treasured remains
of earlier centuries are still preserved. In it the sunshine of
the south pierces with its warm rays the severity of northern
earnestness. No other European language can boast of an equally
happy composition. In this respect it is a true mirror of the
French mind as well as of French nationality.

As spoken at present, French is derived in direct line from a
sub-dialect of the Picard patois formerly spoken in Paris and
Pontoise and which spread throughout all Ile-de-France. This
province may be aptly described as the bottom of the bowl-shaped
area of northern France. It owes its geographical distinctiveness
to the convergence of a number of important valleys which empty
the products of their fertility into the Paris basin lying in its
very center. Five of these irregular furrows, the Seine, Loing,
Yonne, Marne and Oise, radiate outwardly from the low-lying Paris
center. The ebb and flow of national power and language sped its
alternate course along their channels until, from being the heart,
Paris, always inseparable from its language, became also the head
of France.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 6--Part of France showing the contact between “langue d’oc”
  and “langue d’oïl” countries. The shaded area represents the
  “langue d’oïl” or northern language. “Langue d’oc” prevailed in
  the unruled area. Between these two regions a transitional zone,
  shown by broken ruling, intervened, in which a mixture of the two
  languages was spoken.]

The Frankish dukedom founded on such a site grew naturally into
a kingdom. And along with the establishment of a royal court,
the language of the region acquired part of the kingly prestige.
Herein we find the explanation of the derivation of the name
French from that of Frankish as well as of the language from the
local sub-dialect of the Picard patois. Already in the thirteenth
century, from this magnificently situated base as a center, both
language and nation had absorbed additional territory by a process
of steady outward growth. It was French unity in the early making.
As early as the twelfth century, no northern nobleman dared appear
at the French court without having previously acquired familiarity
with its language and manners. The precious literary monuments of
this century show that this court language was already known as
“François.” A hundred years later, about 1260, French had acquired
so much polish and importance that we find Italian writers using
it in preference to their own dialects. So in 1298, Marco Polo,
a Venetian, gives out the first account of his eastern travels
in French, while Brunetto Latini, who was Dante’s tutor, writes
his Tesoreto in the same language, explaining his preference by
remarking that French “est plus délitaubles languages et plus
communs que moult d’autres.”[4]

German was to become the language of central Europe. Interposed
between the territories of Romanic and Slavic languages, the area
of German speech occupies a magnificently commanding position.
Originally the language spoken west of the Elbe and Saale rivers,
it had advanced considerably to the east in the first century of
the Christian era. The imposition of Teutonic language on Slavic
populations is one of the results of this ancient expansion of
Germanic peoples. During the past thousand years very little change
in the distribution of the main German dialects is believed to have
taken place.

Modern German is generally divided into three sub-branches,
Low, High and Middle German. Low German, Niederdeutsch or
Plattdeutsch,[5] the language of the plain, is restricted to the
extensive northern lowland. Dialects spoken in the northeastern
corner of Rhenish Prussia, Holstein, Mecklenburg, Brandenburg
and Prussia enter into its composition. High German, Oberdeutsch
or Hochdeutsch, is the German of the highland. It comprises the
Bavarian, Swabian and Alemannic dialects of Bavaria, Württemberg
and Baden. Its use as the literary language of all German-speaking
people became well established in the Middle Ages. Luther’s
translation of the Bible written in Saxonian dialect, a combination
of High and Middle German, contributed no mean share to the
diffusion of the language. Its use has been favored by Germany’s
most noted writers since the seventeenth century. Schools and
newspapers tend to convert it eventually into the only speech that
will survive within German boundaries.

A fact of special importance can be traced among the causes leading
to the supplanting of Low German, the language of the German
plain, by High German as the national tongue. The superiority of
the highland dialect is due to its greater assimilation of Celtic
words. This civilizing influence of Celtic culture is by no means
a modern development in Germany. In the proto-historic period it
was mainly through contact with the Celts that the Teutons became
civilized. This intellectual dependence of the Germans is revealed
for the period about 300 B.C. by the then existing civilization,
which was entirely Celtic. The history that spans the intervening
years naturally brings to mind the influence which French language
has always had in Germany. Voltaire’s sojourn at the Prussian court
does not rank among forgotten episodes and it was not so long ago
that Leibnitz had to resort to French or Latin as the medium of his
written expression.

The transition from the northern plain of Germany to the high
central regions is represented, on the surface, by a zone of
intermediate uplands in Saxony, Lusatia and Silesia. This area
is characterized linguistically by a transitional form of speech
between Low and High German.[6] The similarity, however, of this
midland German to High German is observable to the extent to which
the rising land over which it is distributed presents analogy to
the mountainous region towards which it trends. The transitional
dialects include East, Middle and Rheno-Franconian, as well as
Thuringian. They occur in the middle Rhineland, the banks of the
Moselle, Hesse, Thuringia and Saxony.

A bird’s-eye view of the area of German speech shows that the
language prevails wherever a well-defined type of dwelling is
found. This representative habitation consists of a frame house
with an entrance in the middle of one of its long sides. The hearth
generally faces the threshold. Barns and outlying buildings do not
connect with the main house, but form with it the sides of an open
inner yard. German houses can furthermore be subdivided into three
distinct sub-types which correspond to the linguistic divisions of
Low, Middle and High German. The Saxon sub-type, which rarely rises
above a single story, prevails in the northern lowlands, while the
Bavarian sub-type dots the mountain districts which resound to High
German. Between the two an intermediate sub-type of construction
exists in the zone of Middle German.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 7--Sketch map showing relative position of the three main
  areas in which the dialects of German language are grouped.]

Russian language while Slavic, and as such Indo-European, is at
the same time the transition speech between the Indo-European and
Uralo-Altaic groups. Its inflections connect it with the western
group. But the dominant use of vowels bears impress of the strong
influence exerted by Asia in the formation of the language. The
very consonants in Russian are liquid and softened so as to shade
insensibly into vowels. These are characteristics of Turkish and
Finnish. The singular charm with which the melodious sounds of
the Russian language greet a stranger’s ears is derived from this
Asiatic strain. In spirit also the fundamental fatalism of Russians
increases in the eastern sections of the country. The trait can
hardly be characterized as Slavic. In the case of the Poles or
Bohemians, it gives place to buoyant hopefulness which helps to
color life and the world in roseate hues. The fatalism of the
Russian is a relic of past habitat in the interminable steppes of
central Eurasia. The Turks whose former roaming ground was the
same are also imbued with this spirit. It is the sophism of the
level land. No matter how far the horseman urged his mount, the
same monotony met his gaze. No effort on his part could ever change
the prospect.

As late as the twelfth century the peoples of the basin of the
Volga spoke purely Tatar dialects. The wide and open steppes of
Siberia, extending without break into eastern Europe, poured the
overflow of their populations into the valleys of the Russian
rivers which flow into the Black Sea. The great Russian cities
of the borderland between Europe and Asia were either founded or
Slavicized after the eleventh century. About that time the Slavic
dialects of the Vistula and the Dnieper began to blend with the
Asiatic languages of the Oka, Kliasma and Volga valleys. Modern
Russian, a mixture of Slavic and Tatar or Mongolian words, was born
of this blending. In a broader sense it is the expression of the
union of Europe and Asia to create a Russian nation, for Russia is
the product of the ancient Russ or Ruthenian principalities and
the old Muscovite states. The former were Slav and lay in Europe.
The latter were Tatar and belonged physically to Asia. As a nation
the Russia of our time sprang into existence at the end of the
seventeenth century. Prior to that period, its western section is
known to history as the land of Russ or Ruthenia. Its eastern part
was Muscovy. Through the union of the eastern and western sections
the Russian Empire of modern times came into being. No literary
monuments antedate the birth of its nationality.

In Russia the Slav who is free from Asiatic contamination is rarely
met east of the 35th meridian. A line from Lake Ladoga to Lake
Ilmen and along this meridian to the mouth of the Dnieper forms the
divide between the Russians of Europe and of Asia. The parting of
the waters belonging respectively to the Don and the Dnieper is,
from a racial standpoint, the boundary between the two groups. The
Tatar in the Russian appears east of this frontier. The Oriental
customs which permeate Russian life, the Tatar words of the Russian
language, all begin to assume intensity east of this dividing
line, while to the west the spirit of the vast stretch of
north Asiatic steppes disappears. Thus the commonly accepted Ural
frontier of European and Asiatic Russia is unwarranted in the light
of ethnic facts. The inhabitants of the Volga lands are essentially
Asiatics among whom the numerically inferior Slav element has
become dominant.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 8--This group of Russian officers conveys an idea of the
  excessive racial mingling in Russia. Alpine and Tatar features
  can be recognized as dominant.]

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_

  FIG. 9--The heart of Moscow with the buildings of the Kremlin in
  the background.]

Asia’s linguistic contribution to Europe is the gift of its
unwooded steppelands. The immense tract of monotonous country
extending west of the Altai Mountains to Europe is the home of a
family of languages known as the Uralo-Altaic. Among these the
highly vocalic branch of Finno-Ugrian traveled west with the
nomadic herdsmen who used it. In Europe it acquired the polish
which brought it to the forms recognized respectively as Finnish
or Suomi and Hungarian. Both enjoy the distinction of being the
most cultivated of the great northern Asiatic family of languages.
The case of Finnish is especially remarkable owing to its high
development without loss of its original agglutinative character.

The picture of this linguistic evolution can be painted only with
the colors of geography. The well-defined individuality of the
Hungarian Puszta has its counterpart in the Siberian steppe region.
The one is the reproduction of the other in small--a miniature.
Both consist of undulating land, devoid of mountains or hills, and
covered by deep sand. In Finland too a remarkably level stretch
of granite land, marked by gentle swelling, lies under a sandy
glacial mantle. The two European regions have only one advantage
over their Asiatic type. They are better watered. The furthest
penetration of Eurasian lowlands into Europe is obtained through
them. The approach to Hungary is made without a break, through
the valley of the Danube. To Finland access is equally easy once
the Urals are crossed. That this range proved no obstacle to the
westerly spread of central Asiatic peoples is indicated by their
presence west of its axis and their settlement in the Volga valley
prior to Slav inroads. But neither in lake-dotted Finnish lands
nor within the limited and mountain-hedged area of Hungary could
the Asiatic invaders find room for expansion or nomadism. From
herdsmen they became farmers. The change is the dawn of their
history as a European nation, and of the development of every
manifestation of their culture. A more advanced language became the
measure of the increasingly complex character of their needs--that
is to say, of higher civilization. The whole story, traced from
its origin, illustrates the superior civilizing power vested in
European geography. In the sterile steppes of the northern half
of Asia man led an easier life than in the cramped regions of
diversified Europe. On the broad flatlands of the east he roamed
with little thought of the morrow and without incentive to improve
his condition. In the west he was spurred to activity by the very
limitations of his homeland.

In our day about seventy different languages are spoken in Russia.
In this fact is found a serious drawback to effective national
unity. Fortunately the spread of the dialects belonging to the
Slavic group of languages is steady. The thorough Slavicization of
the peoples of the basin of the Volga is not yet ended, but Great
Russian is gradually uprooting the native Uralo-Altaic tongues.
It is also imposing itself upon Asiatic languages in Caucasia and
Transcaspian territory. Wherever there has been a thorough blending
of dialects into Russian, nationality has sprung into existence.
Elsewhere unity is in process of formation. The problem before
the governing class consists in hastening the assimilation of the
different elements to the original Slavic nucleus. Not until this
consummation has taken place will the country have developed its
full strength. And the measure of progress will be indicated by the
growing replacement of the numerous dialects by a single national
language.

Looking back over the stormy centuries during which French, German
and Russian nationalities were elaborated, we behold the formative
influence of language everywhere. Aspirations which precede the
period of free and unfettered national life give way to achievement
when national hopes are crowned. This we shall find in greater
detail in the succeeding chapters.

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_

  FIG. 10--View of Nizhni-Novgorod and the Fair across the Oka
  River.]

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_

  FIG. 11--Plain of the Dnieper at Kiev.]


FOOTNOTES:

[1] E. C. Semple: The Barrier Boundary of the Mediterranean Basin
and Its Northern Breaches as Factors in History, _Ann. Assoc. Amer.
Geogr._, Vol. 5, 1915, pp. 27-59.

[2] The Neolithic lasted longer north of the Alps.

[3] The dialects or patois spoken today in France all fall under
one of these two languages. They can be classified as follows:

  LANGUE D’OC

  _Patois_          _Spoken in the Departments of_
  Languedocian      Gard, Hérault, Pyrénées-Orientales, Aude, Ariège,
                      Haute-Garonne, Lot-et-Garonne, Tarn, Aveyron,
                      Lot, Tarn-et-Garonne.
  Provençal         Drôme, Vaucluse, Bouches-du-Rhône, Hautes- and
                      Basses-Alpes, Var.
  Dauphinois        Isère.
  Lyonnais          Rhône, Ain, Saône-et-Loire.
  Auvergnat         Allier, Loire, Haute-Loire, Ardèche, Lozère,
                      Puy-de-Dôme, Cantal.
  Limousin          Corrèze, Haute-Vienne, Creuse, Indre, Cher, Vienne,
                      Dordogne,
                      Charente, Charente-Inférieure, Indre-et-Loire.
  Gascon            Gironde, Landes, Hautes-Pyrénées, Basses-Pyrénées,
                      Gers.

  LANGUE D’OÏL

  Norman            Normandie, Bretagne, Perche, Maine, Anjou, Poitou,
                      Saintonge.
  Picard            Picardie, Ile-de-France, Artois, Flandre, Hainaut,
                      Lower Maine, Thiérache, Rethelois.
  Burgundian        Nivernais, Berry, Orléanais, Lower Bourbonnais,
                      part of Ile-de-France, Champagne, Lorraine,
                      Franche-Comté.

[4] The terminal _s_, a distinctly Latin form, is seen to persist
in this early stage of the language.

[5] Niederdeutsch is derived directly from Old Saxon, the language
which enters into the composition of the Anglo-Saxon current in
England at the time of the Norman Conquest.

[6] Cf. Sheets 12a, Europe, Flusz-Gebirgskarte, and 12c, Europa,
Sprachen- und Völkerkarte, both 1:12,000,000, in Debes: Handatlas.




CHAPTER II

THE BOUNDARIES OF FRENCH AND GERMANIC LANGUAGES IN BELGIUM AND
LUXEMBURG


The western section of the Franco-German linguistic boundary
extends over Belgian territory through a country in which the
formation of nationality has been exceedingly laborious. Flemish
and Walloon, two languages within a single political boundary,
represent the obstacles which stood in the way of national
growth. Physically Belgium also consists of diversified regions.
Its history is the long drawn-out struggle between two powerful
neighbors. Over and over again its inhabitants have found
themselves drawn into foreign quarrels against their will.

The country is a marshland in which the mountains and plains
of Europe meet. The main divisions which correspond to this
background have inherited the names of Flanders and Wallonia. The
clashing-ground of men of the Alpine and Nordic races, Belgium
received wave after wave of northerners who came to colonize its
broad flatlands. At the time of the conquest, the Romans came upon
long-established colonies, but found to their cost that Teuton
invasions were not ended. In the fifth century of our era the
northern lowland was cleared of Romans by the Franks; but to this
day the dualism of its people has not been obliterated. To whatever
extent inbreeding has destroyed racial purity, the Fleming of our
day represents the Nordic race, while the Walloon is mainly Alpine.
Of the two, the fair-complexioned product of the north speaks a
Teutonic language, whereas the swarthy highlander is both the user
and disseminator of French.

At the partition of the Carolingian Empire in 843,[7] the Schelde
became the dividing line between Lotharingia and France. Flemings
and Walloons, who had been thrown together for centuries, were
separated into an eastern and a western group. Nevertheless their
struggle for unity and independence continued to fill Belgium’s
history. In the ensuing period of national trials, the political
disruption of the country is manifested by the growth of civic
communities. Belgium became in turn a Burgundian, an Austrian and a
Spanish province. The golden age of the Burgundian period brought
prosperity to the land, but economic decadence accompanied the
prolonged strife between Hapsburgs and Bourbons. It was Belgium’s
misfortune to be the scene on which the rivalry was fought out.
With a population reduced by the horrors of war, Belgium emerged
from under the heel of Spanish oppression only to fall successively
under Austrian, French and Dutch domination. But the seed of
nationality, planted upon its uncertain soil when the valley of
the Schelde became part of Burgundy, sheltered a smouldering
vitality which, finally, in the nineteenth century was fanned to
independence.

The line of contact between French and the languages belonging
to the Germanic group begins at the sea on French soil. Starting
a few miles west of Dunkirk,[8] the linguistic divide follows a
direction which is generally parallel to the political boundary
between France and Belgium until, a few miles east of Aire, it
strikes northeast to Halluin, which remains within the area of
French speech. From this point on to Sicken-Sussen, near the German
border, the line assumes an almost due east trend.

This division corresponds broadly to the mountainous and depressed
areas into which Belgium is divided. The upland has always been
the home of French. Walloon is but a modified form of the old
langue d’oïl.[9] Flemish, on the other hand, is a Germanic language
which spread over Belgian lowlands as naturally as the Low German
dialects to which it is related had invaded the plains of northern
Europe. This east-west line also marks the separation of the tall,
blond, long-skulled Flemings from the short, dark, round-skull
Alpine Walloons.

The remarkably straight course of the linguistic divide, in Belgian
territory, is generally regarded as an effect of the plain over
which it extends. Whatever ruggedness it may have once possessed
has been smoothed away in the course of centuries by the ease
with which either Flemish or French could spread in the low-lying
flatland. The two languages have now been facing each other for
about four centuries. Place names indicate that the variations of
the line have been slight. It is a rare occurrence to find Roman
village names north of its present extension. Teutonic roots,
in locality names to the south, are likewise unusual. A few can
be traced. Waterloo, Tubize, Clabecq, Ohain were once Flemish
settlements. Tubize was originally known as Tweebeek and became a
Walloon center in the fifteenth century. Ohain likewise is known in
the form of Olhem in twelfth century documents.

Belgium’s linguistic dualism prevailed throughout the five
centuries of the Roman occupation. Intercourse at that time between
the Belgae dwelling south of the Via Agrippa, and the Romans who
were pushing steadily northwards was frequent and intimate. The
Latin of the Roman invaders, modified by the Celtic and Germanic
of native populations, gave birth eventually to the Walloon of
subsequent times.[10] The Belgae of the lowlands farther north,
however, successfully resisted the efforts made by the Romans
to conquer them. The marshes of their nether country, and the
forested area which was to be laid bare by the monks of the Middle
Ages, constituted a stronghold in the shelter of which Germanic
dialects took root. This forested area--the Sylva Carbonaria of the
Romans--was the chief geographical feature which prevented thorough
fusion of Flemings and Walloons. It was the westernmost extension
of the Ardennes forests and its gloomy solitudes covered the
largest part of the territory which has since become the province
of Hainaut. Beyond its northern boundary lay the lands of Teutonic
culture and language. To the Flemings, living north of the wooded
curtain, the Gallo-Romans, who became known as Walloons, were the
Walas or “foreigners” who dwelt south of the tree-studded barrier.
A sharply defined line of separation intensified, in this manner,
all pre-existing racial differences.

At a later date, the growth of the temporal power of the Roman
Church resulted in the establishment of a number of bishoprics over
districts segregated irrespectively of linguistic differences.
Perhaps one of the most striking features of Belgian history is
found in the fact that its linguistic and political boundaries have
never coincided. Every century is marked by renewal of the age-long
clashes between the northern and southern races which have been
thrown in contact along the western end of the line which separates
the plains of northern Europe from the mountainous southland of the
continent.

It may be gathered from all this that the linguistic line of
cleavage has undergone very little modification in the course of
centuries.[11] It now divides the country into a northern section,
the inhabitants of which consider Flemish as their vernacular,
but who also generally understand French, and a southern section
peopled by French-speaking inhabitants, who adhere to the use of
Walloon dialects in the intimacy of their home life. To the east,
the political frontier between Belgium and Germany does not divide
the two countries linguistically. Within Prussian territory,
Malmedy and a group of fifteen villages are inhabited by a
French-speaking folk. As though to offset this intrusion of French
speech on Prussian soil, a corresponding area of German speech
is found in the Belgian province of Luxemburg around Arlon.[12]
Altogether about 31,500 Belgians employ German as a vernacular.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. I_

THE FRANCO-FLEMISH LINGUISTIC BOUNDARY]

The figures of the last (Dec. 31, 1910) Belgian census[13] show
that the Flemish provinces are bilingual, whereas the Walloon
region is altogether French. Knowledge of French as an educational
and business requirement accounts for its occurrence in Flanders.
The Romance language, therefore, tends to supersede the Germanic
idiom as a national vernacular. The utter absence of Flemish in the
Belgian Congo constitutes perhaps the strongest evidence in favor
of French as Belgium’s national language.

In northwestern France, the language of the plain has, since the
thirteenth century, steadily receded before the uplander’s speech.
At that time Flemish was spoken as far south as the region between
Boulogne and Aire.[14] The area spreading east of the Atlantic,
between the present linguistic boundary and a line connecting these
two cities, is now bilingual with French predominating. It might be
noted here, however, that Boulogne has been a French-speaking city
since Frankish days.

The use of Flemish in France is restricted to the two
arrondissements of Dunkirk and Hazebrouck as well as to a few
communes of Lille. Dewachter’s studies[15] in this locality
have been summarized by Blanchard.[16] According to these
investigations, the arrondissement of Dunkirk contains 41
Flemish-speaking communes, four of purely French language and
20 of dual speech. Of the last, only five reveal a majority of
Flemish speakers. In Hazebrouck there are 36 Flemish communes,
eight French and nine bilingual. Five of the latter show French
predominance. In the arrondissement of Lille, Flemish is spoken
only in six bilingual communes, four of which have a majority of
French-speaking residents. Furthermore a few Flemish-speaking
families are found in the suburbs of St. Omer as well as in a
commune near by. About one-third of the inhabitants of Tourcoing
understand Flemish. This is also true of one-half the population
of Roubaix. In each of the cities of Lille and Armentières, the
ratio falls to one-quarter. Outside of the Flemish-tainted communes
of the arrondissement of Lille, the boundary of this language is
indicated by the course of the Aa, the canal of Neuffossé and the
Lys.

The progress of French, in the Flemish-speaking districts of
France, may be followed through the growing invasion of French
words in the local vernaculars. The Flemish spoken in Dunkirk or
Hazebrouck is an archaic dialect which is growing further and
further away from the Flemish of Belgium, as this language tends to
identify itself with Dutch in order to acquire literary form. As a
rule, French is gradually replacing the Germanic idiom throughout
the line of linguistic contact. The Frenchifying of the communes
between the Aa and Dunkirk has taken place within the last fifty
years. In the same period, Flemish has almost entirely disappeared
from the suburbs of St. Omer, and the progress of French towards
Cassel and Hazebrouck becomes yearly more apparent. The bilingual
aptitude of the inhabitants in all of these localities is on the
increase in the sense that many of the Flemings are acquiring
proficiency in French. Business requirements in a large degree
account for the change.

The only opposition to the advance of French is found in the
Flemish immigration which brings fresh linguistic energy in its
train. Fortunately for the Romance language, the tide of this
immigration is weak and the newcomers are easily assimilated by the
French-speaking element. A locality in which the decline of French
is noticeable is found in the vicinity of Menin on the Lys river.
The number of Flemish immigrants is particularly heavy in this
region. Communes which have been French since immemorial times are
fast becoming Flemish. Everywhere else, however, French is steadily
encroaching upon the domain of Germanic speech.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 12 is a view of the low-lying plain of Flanders in the
  vicinity of Waterloo.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 13--Shows the environs of Chaudfontaine and gives an
  excellent glimpse of the hilly country in which Walloon language
  has held its own. These two photographs show the contrast between
  the areas of Walloon and Flemish in Belgium.]

Brussels typifies the bilingual character of the country of
which it is the capital. French and Flemish are spoken both in
its precincts and suburbs. The distribution of inhabitants,
according to communes or wards, showed French predominance on
December 31, 1910, as follows:

                                                            Speaking
  COMMUNES                Number of   French-    Flemish-  French and
   (wards)               inhabitants  speaking   speaking    Flemish
  Bruxelles                177,078     47,385     29,081      85,414
  Anderlecht                64,157     11,211     24,320      23,486
  Etterbeck                 33,227     11,107      6,596      13,166
  Forest                    24,228      7,975      5,247       8,756
  Ixelles                   72,991     39,473      6,733      19,799
  Jette                     14,782      1,811      7,775       4,191
  Koekelberg                12,750      1,770      5,702       4,378
  Laeken                    35,024      4,720     12,702      15,230
  Molenbeek-St. Jean        72,783     11,663     24,910      31,331
  Saint-Gilles              63,140     24,376      5,928      27,497
  Saint-Josseten-Noode      31,865     10,547      3,349      14,859
  Schaerbeek                82,480     20,975     13,677      40,525
  Uccle                     26,979      5,818      9,074      10,169
  Woluwe--St.-Lambert        8,883      2,035      3,839       2,262
                           -------    -------    -------     -------
     Totals                720,367    200,866    158,933     301,063

Although Brussels is generally placed on the Flemish side of the
linguistic divide, it is interesting to note that the city may
appropriately be considered as the northernmost extension of the
area of Romance languages in Belgium. Only two villages of Flemish
speech intervene between the capital and the Walloon area. They are
Rhode-Saint-Genèse and Hoeylaert. Were it not for these two small
communities, Brussels would not be an enclave of French speech in
Flemish territory. But the two villages are separated by the forest
of Soignes which extends in an elongated band, all the way south of
Uccle and Boitsfort, to within reach of Waterloo. This wooded area
acts as a link which connects Brussels with the ancient area of
Romance speech. It tends to restrict Flemish in this section to the
lowland to which it really belongs.

Within the city limits the canal, which now replaces the
natural water course flowing on the site, divides Brussels into
Flemish-speaking quarters and districts entirely given up to French
language. West of the waterway, the native vernacular prevails
predominantly. This section of the Belgian capital is the site of
its industries. Its population consists mainly of laborers. As
early as the twelfth century, the members of the city’s guilds
found it convenient to reside along the banks of the stream which
watered the heart of their settlement. In our day, this part
of Brussels presents similar advantages to factory owners and
operators of industrial plants.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 14--Sketch map of the environs of Brussels showing the
  forested patch of Soignes intervening between the Brussels area
  of French language (shown by dots) and the adjacent part of the
  area of the French language in Belgium (also shown by dots). The
  blank area is territory of Flemish speech. (Based on a map by P.
  Reclus in _La Géographie_, Vol. 28, 1913, p. 312.)]

The rising ground east of the canal has always been favored as a
residential site by the leaders of the community. In the Middle
Ages the counts of Brabant erected their palace on the summit of
this eminence. Since then the well-to-do residents of Brussels have
built their homes on this side of the canal. The bourgeois class
followed the lead of the aristocracy as soon as their commercial
and industrial revenues equaled those of their titled countrymen.
French, the language of culture in the land, naturally took root in
this eastern section of Brussels. The tendency of the privileged
classes to select this part of the city for their residence is as
strong today as in the past. The bracing air of the heights and of
the forest of Soignes near by affords an inducement which cannot be
found in the bottom of the valley. Spacious avenues enlivened by
elaborate residences extend along the crest lines. The intervening
blocks are tenanted by the middle classes. Educational institutions
also flourish in these eastern wards of Brussels. French prevails
overwhelmingly in all their nooks and bypaths.

The growth of French in Brussels is strongly brought out by a
comparison of the following census figures for the years 1846 and
1910:

                                 _1846_   _1910_
  French-speaking inhabitants    70,000  480,000
  Flemish   “          “        130,000  280,000
                                -------  -------
                  Totals        200,000  760,000

The gradual replacement of Flemish by French in Brussels may
often be traced to recent changes in the growth of the city.[17]
In the faubourgs of Woluwe, Boitsfort and Uccle the number of
users of French is on the increase each year. The growth proceeds
with sufficient regularity to forecast a thorough spread of the
language by 1935. In some cases it is easy to foresee that some
of the outlying villages will be Frenchified sooner than certain
wards of the western part of the city. Tervueren and Linkebeek, for
instance, are both noted for the charm of their scenery. Both are
centers of attraction for the well-to-do Belgians and as a result
tend to lose their Flemish character.

In recent years a keen struggle for predominance between Flemings
and Walloons has been observed in every province of the country.
Each element aspires to impose its racial traits, customs and
ideals on its rival. The contest sometimes degenerates into
extreme bitterness. The university, the street, the theater, even
the government offices are converted into scenes of polemical
wrangling. News items in the dailies reveal a constant state of
tension between “Flammigants” and “Fransquillons.” In this racial
struggle, language has been adopted as the rallying standard of
both parties. Each faction consistently aims to eliminate the study
of the rival tongue in the primary schools of its territory.

The Walloons now represent a true blend of northern, central and
southern European types. The mingling was attended by the clash
and contest which has always marked racial fusion. As a language
Walloon forced itself into existence out of the confusion which
followed a long bilingual period and by the sheer obstinacy of
an humble Belgo-Roman people whose ears had been attuned to
vernacular speech at church and school. It was no mean feat for the
inhabitants of the principality of Liége to have retained their
language, surrounded as they were by Germanic peoples on all sides
but one. The ancient state had the shape of a triangle whose base
abutted against a land of French speech. Its sides, however, on
the north and the east penetrated like a wedge into districts of
Flemish and German.

The language became prevalent in the principality of Wallonia after
the tenth century. It was then still in a state of infancy and the
literature of its early period is relatively poor.[18] Contrasted
with official and aristocratic French the Walloon was a dialect of
little account prior to the eighteenth century. Since that time,
however, genuine interest has been manifested in its folk-tales
and literature by educated Frenchmen. But it remained for Dutch
presumption to give a final impetus to the revival of Walloon. By
the terms of the treaty of Vienna, Belgium and Holland had been
assembled into a single state known as the Netherlands. The Dutch
represented the dominant element in the union. Their endeavor to
impose their language on the Flemings and Walloons was vigorously
resisted by the latter. The streets of Belgian towns resounded
with the hatred of the Dutch expressed in Walloon words.[19] The
separation of Belgium from Holland in 1830 was in a sense the
expression of the linguistic diversity which had characterized the
kingdom of the Netherlands.

Fusion of the two elements of the Belgian population is observable
in the Brabant country, in the vicinity of the linguistic frontier.
Flemish laborers tend to invade Walloon settlements with the
result that the number of inhabitants of Flemish speech is on
the increase. A counter immigration of Walloons into Flemish
villages also exists, with a corresponding addition to the number
of French-speaking inhabitants wherever it takes place. The fact
remains, however, that while Flemings acquire the French spoken by
Walloons, it is an extremely rare occurrence for the latter to take
up Flemish. In the course of time the Flemish immigrant in Walloon
villages learns French, while the Walloon newcomer in Flemish
villages manages to impose his language on his new neighbors. The
net result is a gain for the French language.

Today, after almost a hundred years’ quiescence, the Belgian
question enters upon another critical stage. The problem is one
of language in so far as the two languages spoken in the country
represent the aims and interests of two different peoples. The
Belgian question dates, in reality, from the treaty of Verdun
of 843 and the partition of Charlemagne’s empire. Belgium then
became the westernmost province of the transition state known as
Lothringia. It was the hedge-country artificially created to act as
a barrier between the peoples of Romanic and Teutonic speech. Its
population, drawn from both elements, has been the alternate prey
of French and German powers. But all of Belgium’s troubled history
has been affected by the shape of the land. The only frontier with
which the nation has been supplied by nature is the sea on the
west. On the other three sides land features merge gradually with
the main types in their neighborhood. Within Belgian territory, the
lowlands of northern Europe join with the outliers of the uplifts
of central Europe and their extension into France. Nowhere is the
break sharp. The basin of the Schelde itself trespasses on the
neighboring basins of the Rhine, the Meuse and the Somme.

Aggravation of the feud between Walloons and Flemings may lead to
secession. The Flemish provinces might then cast their political
lot with the Dutch, with whom their intercourse has been marked
by a degree of friendliness which has never characterized their
relations with other neighbors. This extreme course might not
unreasonably be adopted as a measure of self-preservation.[20]
The languages spoken in Holland and Flanders are practically
identical. Religious differences alone have stood in the way of
political fusion in the past. Flemish princes, swayed by religious
scruples, had refused to side with the Protestant communities
whose political connection had been established by the Union of
Utrecht in 1597. The menace of absorption by Germany may yet drive
the Flemings to union with their close kinsmen of the lowlands
on the north. Walloons would then naturally revert to French
allegiance. The coincidence of political and linguistic boundaries
in the westernmost section of central Europe would then become an
accomplished fact.

The language of the Duchy of Luxemburg is a Low German dialect
in which a strong proportion of Walloon French words is found.
French is taught in schools and is the language of the educated
classes. It is also used in tribunals, and in many places as the
official language of governing and administrative bodies. The use
of French is largely due to intimate intellectual ties which bind
Luxemburgers and Frenchmen. It is estimated that at least 30,000
natives of the Grand Duchy, or about one-eighth of its population,
emigrate to France for business reasons. Many marry French women.
Maternal influences prevail with the children born of these unions
with the result that, upon returning to their native land, the
families bring French speech along.

But French as a commercial language is on the wane throughout the
Grand Duchy. German has been replacing it gradually since 1870.
This is one of the results of the small state’s admission into
the ring of German customs. Prior to that period business was
transacted mainly in the French dialect of Lorraine. The spread
of German is furthermore the result of a systematically conducted
propaganda carried on with well-sustained determination. German
“school associations” and “Volksvereine,” established in every city
of importance, help to spread German speech and thought. Lectures
of the type entitled “The beauty of Schiller’s and Goethe’s speech”
are delivered by orators who are in reality skilled pioneers of
empire engaged in the work of reclaiming populations to Germanism.
The efficiency of their methods is proved by the results they have
obtained. Out of a population of about 21,000 inhabitants, hardly
4,000 natives of Luxemburg speak French exclusively, while of the
six or seven papers published in the capital, two alone are issued
in French.

This closing of the German grip over the land stimulated the growth
of national feeling among the inhabitants. They were reminded by
their leaders that, from having formerly been one of the seventeen
provinces of the Netherlands, the duchy acquired the status of a
sovereign state in 1890, on the accession of Queen Wilhelmina to
the throne. Henceforth the maintenance of Luxemburg’s independence
rests on the European powers’ observance of the pledges by which
they guaranteed national freedom for this little state.[21] The
natives are free from the burden of onerous taxation imposed
on inhabitants of the neighboring powerful countries. Peaceful
development of their commerce and industry is thus facilitated.
Their land is richly endowed by nature. The wine produced in the
Moselle valley and the extensive deposits of high grade iron ore
found around Etsch make the community one of the most prosperous on
the European continent.

Nevertheless the country seemed predestined by nature itself
to form a part of Germany. The broken surface of the Ardenne
hilly region and the extension of the plateau of Lorraine are
drained by the Sauer and Moselle into German territory. The life
of the inhabitants of the entire state is influenced by this
easterly drift and tends yearly to greater dispersal in the same
direction. This is the danger which prompts them to cling to their
independence with patriotic tenacity. Their feelings are reflected
in their national hymn, which begins with the words “Mir welle
bleiwe wat mer sin” (We wish to remain what we are). These are
the words of the tune rendered daily at noon by the chimes of the
Cathedral of Luxemburg.

Some fifty miles north of Luxemburg, and at the point of contact of
the French, German and Dutch languages, lies the neutral territory
of Moresnet, barely three and a quarter square miles in area.
This forgotten bit of independent land is claimed by both Prussia
and Belgium on account of the exceedingly valuable zinc deposits
which it contains. It has a population of some 3,000 inhabitants
who, alone among Europeans, enjoy the inestimable privilege of not
paying taxes to any government. A Burgomaster, selected alternately
from among Prussian and Belgian subjects, rules this diminutive
state in conjunction with a Communal Council.

The survival of such a relic of medieval political disorders was
due to the impossibility of making a settlement between the two
claimants of its territory. In the fifteenth century its mines were
the property of the Dukes of Limburg, who had leased them to Philip
the Good, Duke of Burgundy. Shortly after the French Revolution,
they were declared national property by the French Republic and
were operated by the government.[22] With the fall of Napoleon,
the estate passed under the management of both Prussia and Holland.
After the Belgian revolution of 1830, however, the entire property
became part of Belgium’s share. A demand for rents in arrears
from the lessee by Prussia, although recognized as valid by the
courts of Liége, was not approved by the new Belgian state and the
only compromise that could be reached was a declaration of the
neutrality of the territory.

The Belgian question as well as the related Luxemburg and Moresnet
problems, the latter being of slight significance, present
themselves today as economic settlements no less than political
adjustments. The inner reason which had led German hope to dwell on
the annexation of Belgium is the knowledge that such an addition
in territory would convert Germany into the dominating industrial
nation of Europe. This position of superiority would be firmly
established if, in addition, the French basins of Longwy and
Briey could be turned into Reichslands, as had been done with
Alsace-Lorraine in 1870. Fortunately for Europe, the developments
of the armed contest begun in 1914 proved that the threat of this
economic vassalage is no longer to be feared. Incidentally it is
worth remembering that its realization would obviously have been
followed by the loss of Holland’s independence.

Belgium’s political independence is therefore a necessity for
the fine adjustment of the balance of European industrial life.
And there are quarters where such economic considerations carry
greater weight than national sentiments. The main point to be made,
however, is that Belgian nationality is entitled to survival,
whether it be examined from a material or a moral standpoint.
Changes, if any, of its frontiers are indicated in the east, where
Malmedy and its environs in Rhenish Prussia constitute a domain of
French language. The exchange of this territory for districts of
German speech in Belgian Luxemburg and the strategic reinforcement
of this eastern frontier, as a safeguard against future aggression,
are desirable for Belgians as well as for Germans.


TABLE I

FRENCH- AND FLEMISH-SPEAKING INHABITANTS OF BELGIUM

Census of December 31, 1910

                                                     Speaking
   PROVINCES    Number of     French-    Flemish-   French and
               inhabitants   speaking    speaking     Flemish
  Antwerp         968,677      12,289     762,414     113,606
  Brabant       1,469,677     382,947     603,507     381,997
  E. Flanders   1,120,335       9,311     934,143     116,889
  W. Flanders     874,135      31,825     669,081     123,938
  Hainaut       1,232,867   1,113,738      17,283      49,575
  Liége           888,341     748,504      14,726      50,068
  Limbourg        275,691       9,123     218,622      29,386
  Luxemburg       231,215     183,218         153       1,393
  Namur           362,846     342,379         733       4,436
                ---------   ---------    --------     -------
     Totals     7,423,784   2,833,334   3,220,662     871,288

This table shows French predominance for the entire country. The
arrangement given immediately below brings out this fact more
clearly.

  Inhabitants speaking French only                      2,833,334
       “          “    French and Flemish                 871,288
       “          “    French and German                   74,993
       “          “    French, German and Flemish          52,547
       “          “    German only                         31,415
       “          “    German and Flemish                   8,652
       “          “    Flemish only                     3,220,662
       “          “    None[23] of the three languages    330,893
                                                        ---------
                                                        7,423,784


FOOTNOTES:

[7] The importance of the treaty of Verdun of this date with regard
to the conflict between the French and the German languages is
pointed out in the next chapter.

[8] G. Kurth: La frontière linguistique en Belgique et dans le nord
de la France, _Mém. couronnés, Acad. R. Sci. Let. et Beaux-Arts de
Belg._, XLVIII, Vol. 1, 1895, Vol. 2, 1898, Brussels.

[9] Cf. Map, “Ausbreitung der Romanischen Sprachen in Europa,”
1:8,000,000, in Gröber: Grundriss der Romanischen Philologie,
Trübner, Strassburg, 1904-1906.

[10] The Belgae of Caesar are probably represented by the Teutonic
populations of northern France--Flanders and Batavia--rather than
by the Walloon. They are a Germanic tribe who made their appearance
in Belgium about the third century, B.C.

[11] G. Touchard: Les langues parlées en Belgique, _Le Mouv.
Géogr._, May 11, 1913, pp. 226-229.

[12] N. Warker: Die deutsche Orts- und Gewässernamen der Belgischen
Provinz Luxemburg, _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 8, 1909, pp. 99, 139.

[13] Statistique de la Belgique, Recensement Général de 1910, Vol.
2, 1912, Vol. 3, 1913, Brussels.

[14] G. Kurth: op. cit. Kurth’s work is based partly on place
names. See also L. De Backer: La langue flamande en France, Samyn,
Ghent, 1893.

[15] Le flamand et le français dans le nord de la France, 2^{me}
Congrès international pour l’extension et la culture de la langue
française, Weissenbruch, Brussels, 1908.

[16] Le flamand dans le nord de la France, _Ann. de Géogr._, Vol.
20, Dec. 15, 1909, pp. 374-375.

[17] P. Reclus: Les progrès du Français dans l’agglomération
Bruxelloise, _La Géogr._, Vol. 28, No. 5, Nov. 15, 1913, pp.
308-318.

[18] M. Wilmotte: Le Wallon, histoire, littérature des origines à
la fin du XVII^e siècle, Rosez, Brussels, 1893. J. Demarteau: Le
Wallon, son histoire et sa littérature, Liége, 1889.

[19] J. Demarteau: op. cit., p. 134.

[20] Germany’s violation of Belgian neutrality in 1914 has been
followed by systematic endeavors to induce Flemings to favor
annexation of their land to Germany on the plea of ancestral
kinship.

[21] Luxemburg’s neutrality was guaranteed by the treaty of London,
May 11, 1867, to which Britain, Austria, Prussia, France, Belgium,
Holland, Italy and Russia were signatories.

[22] The Neutral Territory of Moresnet, Riverside Press, Cambridge,
1882, p. 14.

[23] Children under two and foreigners are included under this
heading.




CHAPTER III

THE FRANCO-GERMAN LINGUISTIC BOUNDARY IN ALSACE-LORRAINE AND
SWITZERLAND


With the exception of a few districts in Alsace-Lorraine,
the political boundary between France and Germany is also
the linguistic line between French and German languages.
This condition is a result of the modifications which French
frontiers have undergone since the treaty of Utrecht in 1714.
Unfortunately the Napoleonic period and its disorderly train of
political disturbances brought about an unnatural extension of
the northern and eastern lines. France departed for a time from
the self-appointed task of attracting French-speaking provinces
to itself. Between 1792 and 1814 almost all of the territory of
Belgium and Holland was annexed and the eastern frontier extended
to the Rhine. Teutonic peoples in Holland, Flanders, Rhenish
Prussia and the western sections of Hesse and Baden passed under
French control. But their subjection to Napoleon’s artificial
empire was of relatively short duration. The German-speaking people
in 1813 united in a great effort to drive the French across the
Rhine. They were merely repeating the feat of their ancestors
who, at an interval of eighteen centuries, had defeated the
Latin-speaking invaders of their country led by Varus. Success in
both movements was largely the result of the feeling of kinship
based on language. In 9 A.D. the Romans were forced back to the
Rhine from the line they occupied on the Weser. The treaty of
Vienna restored French boundaries to the lines existing in 1790.
French territory was once more confined to the normal boundaries
which inclose members of the French-speaking family. A natural
frontier thus became determined for the country. The union of
Frenchmen into a compact political body was shattered, however, by
the treaty of Frankfort in 1871, when France was obliged to cede
the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine to Germany.

The part to be played by the province of Lorraine in the history of
Franco-German relations was laid out by nature itself. The province
had always been a wide pathway connecting highly attractive regions
of settlement. It lies midway between the fertile plains of the
Rhine and the hospitable Paris basin. It is also placed squarely in
the center of the natural route leading from Flanders to Burgundy.
Physically the region was part of France; its inhabitants have
therefore always been Frenchmen, but the lack of a natural barrier
on the east provided a constantly open door for Teutonic invasion.
In particular, the Moselle valley has always facilitated access
into Lorraine. The province was thus a borderland disputed first by
two adjoining peoples and, subsequently, by two neighboring nations.

As a duchy, Lorraine had attained a state of semi-independence in
the tenth century. It then included the three bishoprics of Metz,
Toul and Verdun. From the eleventh to the eighteenth century, the
house of Lorraine furthermore exerted sovereign power over Nancy
and Lunéville. The loosening of the ties of vassalage which united
it to the German Empire grew as centuries passed.

This long period of conflict was necessarily accompanied by
modifications of linguistic boundaries. Glancing back to the end of
the Middle Ages, a slight westerly advance of the area of German
speech may be ascertained for the period between the tenth and
sixteenth centuries.[24] From that time on, however, the regional
gain of French has been in excess of previous German advances.
Toponymic data afford valuable clues to early distribution of
languages in the region. Occurrences of the suffix “ange” which is
the Frenchified form of the German “ingen,” in names lying west of
the present line, show the extent of territory reclaimed by the
French language.[25]

The linguistic boundary in Lorraine assumes a general
northwest-southeast direction as it winds onward according to the
predominance of German and French. About 65 per cent of the area of
Lorraine, at present under German rule, contains a French-speaking
majority.[26] From Deutsche-Oth, the line crosses the Moselle south
of Diedenhofen and extends towards Bolchen and Morhange. The entire
lake district farther south is in French-speaking territory. About
two miles southwest of Sarrebourg the line traverses the Saar.
The Lorraine boundary is attained close to the headwaters of the
same river. A German enclave occurring at Metz is the only break
in the unity of the area of the French language. A large frontier
garrison and a host of civilian officials account for the numerical
superiority of German in this provincial capital.

The fluctuations of French in Lorraine since the eleventh century
have been studied with great minuteness by Witte.[27] Basing
himself on the text of documents examined in the archives of
Strassburg, Metz, Nancy and Bar-le-Duc this scholar succeeded
in plotting the linguistic divide for the years 1000 and 1500.
To these two lines he added the present language boundary as
determined from his own field observations. His method consisted
in traveling from village to village, usually on foot, and
ascertaining personally the predominance of French and German in
each locality he visited.

Between the eleventh and sixteenth centuries changes along this
linguistic boundary appear to have been unimportant. The five
intervening centuries are characterized by a slight westerly
advance of German. From the sixteenth century to our time, however,
the easterly spread of French has been considerable. This change is
particularly noticeable in southern Lorraine, as if to show that
the gap between the heights of the Moselle and the northern Middle
Vosges had provided an outlet for the overflow of the language on
German soil.

Compared with Lorraine, Alsace has the advantage of greater
definiteness as a geographical unit. It is the region of the valley
of the Ill which ends at the wall of the Vosges Mountains on the
west. Its easterly extension attains the banks of the Rhine. This
elongated plain appears throughout history as a corridor through
which races of men marched and countermarched. The Alpine race
provided it with early inhabitants. Barbarians of northern lineage
also swarmed into its fields. Romans subjugated the land in the
course of imperial colonization. The province subsequently passed
under Germanic and Frankish sway.

The entry of Alsace into linguistic history may be reckoned
from the year 842, when the celebrated oaths of Strassburg were
exchanged in Romance and Teutonic languages by Louis the German
and Charles the Bald, respectively. This solemn function was a
precautionary measure taken by the two brothers to safeguard their
territory against the coveting of their senior, Lothaire, to
whom Charlemagne had bequeathed the area which, for a time, was
known as _Lotharii Regnum_, and which comprised modern Lorraine,
Alsace, Burgundy, Provence and a portion of Italy. The main point
of interest in the territorial division which marked the passing
of Charlemagne, lies in the fact that the future division of
central Europe into nations of French, German and Italian speech
was outlined at this period. Strassburg, the chief city of the
borderland between areas of French and German speech, was a
bilingual center at this early date. The versions of the oaths
taken on February 18, 842, by the royal brothers, as handed down by
Nithard, Charlemagne’s grandson and a contemporary historian, show
a formative stage in French and German. The document has been aptly
called the birth certificate of French. Louis the German spoke the
following words in the _lingua romana_, which was then the speech
of Romanized Gaul:

  Pro Deo amur et pro christian poblo et nostro commun salvament,
  dist di in avant, in duant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si
  salvarai io cist meon fradre Karlo, et in adjudha, et in cadhuna
  cosa, si cum on, per dreit, son fradre salvar dist, in o quid il
  mi altresi fazet; et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai qui,
  meon vol, cist meon fradre Karlo in damno sit.[28]

Charles the Bald used the _lingua teudisca_ as follows:

  In Godes minna ind in thes christianes folches ind unser bedhero
  gealtnissi, fon thesemo dage frammordes, so fram so mir Got
  gewizci indi madh furgibit, so haldih tesan minan bruodher, soso
  man mit rehtu sinan bruodher scal, in thiu, thaz er mig sosoma
  duo; indi mit Ludheren in non-heiniu thing ne gegango the minan
  willon imo ce scadhen werhen.

Ever since this event Alsace has occupied the European historical
stage as a bone of contention between German-speaking peoples and
their rivals of French speech. A year had hardly elapsed after
this exchange of pledges, when the division of the Frankish Empire
between the grandsons of Charles the Great was formally settled by
the treaty of Verdun. Lothaire, the eldest brother, was awarded
Alsace and Lorraine. From this time on, Alsace became a part of
the lands of German speech which form a compact block in central
Europe. In 1469, however, Sigismund of Austria mortgaged his land
holdings in Upper Alsace to Charles of Burgundy who thereby assumed
jurisdiction over the districts affected by the mortgage. The
treaty of St. Omer which contains the terms of this transaction
paved the way for subsequent French intervention in both Alsace and
Lorraine. Accordingly, a few years later, by the treaty of Nancy
(1473), Charles of Burgundy was recognized by René II of Lorraine
as the “protector” of Lorraine.

It was only in the seventeenth century, however, that France
obtained a definite foothold in Alsace and Lorraine. In 1648,
the country won by treaty settlement her long contested rights
in Alsace. The treaties of Nimwegen (1679) and Ryswick (1697)
confirmed Louis XIV in his possession of the major portion of
Alsace. By that time French influence had acquired a paramount
share in both of the border provinces. Lorraine, however, was not
formally ceded to France until the treaty of Vienna was signed in
1738. French sovereignty over Alsace was confirmed again by the
treaty of Lunéville, in 1801, and by the Congress of Vienna in
1815. It was to last until 1871. In that year Alsace and Lorraine
became part of the newly constituted German Empire, the cession
being determined by Arts. I to IV of the treaty of Frankfort.

The preceding paragraphs show that the earliest form of French
and German nationality assumed shape immediately after the treaty
of Verdun and at about the time when the language spoken in these
countries began to present similarity to the forms used at present.
In the partition of Charlemagne’s empire only two of the three
divisions were to survive. The western evolved finally into modern
France. The easternmost became Germany. Lying between the two,
Lothringia naturally became the coveted morsel which crumbled to
pieces in the struggle waged for its possession.

A highway of migration cannot be the abode of a pure race. Its
inhabitants necessarily represent the successive human groups by
which it has been overrun.[29] The Alsatian of the present day is,
accordingly, a product of racial mingling. But the blending has
conferred distinctiveness, and Alsatians, claiming a nationality
of their own, find valid arguments in racial antecedents no less
than in geographical habitation. The uniform appearance of the
Alsatian region strikes the traveler at every point of the fertile
Ill valley, where the soil is colored by a reddish tinge which
contrasts strongly with the greens and grays of surrounding
regions. By race also the Alsatian represents a distinct group
in which the basal Alpine strain has been permeated by strong
admixtures of Nordic blood. The confusion of dark and fair types
represent the two elements in the population. In a broader sense
the Alsatians are identical with the Swiss population to the south
and the Lorrains and Walloons to the north--in fact, they are
related to the peoples of all the districts which once constituted
the Middle Kingdom of Burgundy.

Although sharply defined by nature, Alsace never acquired
independence. Its situation between the areas peopled by two
powerful continental races was fatal to such a development. But the
influence of its physical setting always prevailed, for, despite
its political union with Frenchmen or Germans, the region has
always been recognized as an administrative unit defined by the
surface features which mark it off from surrounding regions. The
influence of topographic agencies has even been felt within the
province. The separation of Lower from Higher Alsace originated
in a natural boundary, formed by a marshy and forest-clad zone
extending from the Tännchal and Hochkönigsberg mountains to the
point of nearest convergence between the Rhine and the Vosges.
This inhospitable tract first separated the two Celtic tribes
known as the Sequani and the Mediomatrici. Later, it afforded a
convenient demarcation for the Roman provinces of Maxima Sequanorum
and Tractus Mediomatricorum. The two archbishoprics of Besançon
and Mayence, both of Middle-Age fame, were similarly divided. The
coins of Basel and of Strassburg point to the subsistence of this
line during the Renaissance, when two distinct territories of
economic importance extended over the region. In the administrative
France of modern days, the departments of Bas-Rhin and Haut-Rhin
again reveal adherence to the dividing line provided originally by
nature. Finally after the German annexation of 1871 the “districts”
constituted under German authority, with Colmar and Strassburg as
their chief towns, conformed once more with the historical line of
division.

The Vosges[30] uplift has been until recent times the means of
barring intercourse between the plains facing its eastern and
western slope. The chain has prevented communication on account
of the height of its passes, its thickly forested slopes and the
sterility of its soil. The influence of these mountains on European
history deserves contrast with that of the Alps where nature’s
provision of passes and defiles has at all times facilitated land
travel in and out of the Italian peninsula. Primitive wandering
tribes found but scant inducement to settle in the mountainous area
of the Vosges. Pastoral Celts settled in its environing plains long
before they attempted to occupy the rocky mass itself. The Teutonic
tribes which followed the Celts likewise found little to attract
them to the Vosges, and generally migrated southward around its
northern and southern extremity, the former route being that of the
Franks while the Goths, Burgundians and Alemanni invaded France
through the Belfort gap.

Alsace was a province of German speech throughout the Middle
Ages as well as after Louis XIV’s conquest of the land. French
took a solid foothold mainly after the revolution and during the
nineteenth century. An enlightened policy of tolerance towards
Alsatian institutions cemented strong ties of friendship between
the inhabitants and their French rulers. Alsatian leanings towards
France were regarded with suspicion by the victors of 1870, who
proceeded to pass prohibitory laws regarding the use of French
in primary schools, churches and law courts. These measures of
Germanization were attended by a notable emigration to France.
In 1871 there were 1,517,494 inhabitants in Alsace-Lorraine. The
number had decreased to 1,499,020 in 1875 in spite of 52.12 per
cent excess of births over deaths.

Nancy, by its situation, was destined to welcome Alsatians who had
decided to remain faithful to France. The number of immigrants
to this city after the Franco-Prussian war was estimated at
15,000.[31] Pressing need of workingmen in the city’s growing
industrial plants intensified this movement. Alsatian dialects
were the only languages heard in entire sections of the urban
area. Peopled by about 50,000 inhabitants in 1866, Nancy’s
population jumped to 66,303 in 1876. Metz, on the other hand, with
a population of 54,820 inhabitants in 1866, could not boast of more
than 45,675 in 1875. The census taken in 1910 raised this figure to
68,598 by the addition of the garrison maintained at this point.
Altogether it was estimated that, in 1910, French was spoken by
204,262 inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine, out of a total population
of 1,814,564.[32]

The present line of linguistic demarcation in Alsace-Lorraine
rarely coincides with the political boundary. Conformity between
the two lines is observable only in stretches of their southernmost
extension. East and southeast of Belfort, however, two well-defined
areas of French speech spread into German territory at Courtavon
and Montreux. In the elevated southern section of the Vosges, the
line runs from peak to peak with a general tendency to sway east
of the crest line and to reveal conspicuous deflections in certain
high valleys of the eastern slope. Its irregularity with respect to
topography may be regarded as an indication of the fluctuations of
protohistoric colonization.

From Bären Kopf to about 10 miles beyond Schlucht Pass, the
mountainous divide and the linguistic line coincide. Farther north,
however, French prevails in many of the upper valleys of the
Alsatian slope. This is true of the higher sections of the Weiss
basin, as well as of the upper reaches of the Bruche. At a short
distance south of the sources of the Liepvre, parts of the valley
of Markirch (Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines) are likewise French. Here,
however, the influx of German miners, who founded settlements as
far back as the seventeenth century, converted the district into an
area linguistically reclaimed by Germans.

The linguistic boundary in the valley of the Bruche corresponds to
the dividing line between houses of the Frank-Alemannic style and
those of the purely Alemannic.[33] Villages of the Frank-Lorrainer
style, in which narrow façades, flat roofs and close lining-up of
houses are observable, belong to the period of French influence
which followed the Thirty Years’ war and should not be confused
with the former types. In Lorraine the houses are built with their
longest sides parallel to the street. The entrance leads into the
kitchen; rooms occupy the left wing of the building, the right
providing stable space. In some respects this structure recalls
the Saxon houses met east of the Elbe valley. The characteristic
feature of the Lorraine dwelling, however, is found in the
construction of the entrance on the long side, whereas in the
German type of house it lies under a gable on the short side. As
a rule the Alemannic type of house prevails in the mountainous
sections and attains the valleys of the Meurthe. In the Vosges,
Black Forest and Swabia these dwellings are distinguishable by
their characteristic inclusion of all outhouses and barns under
a single roof. In the densely peopled valley of the Bruche the
most important settlements rest on the alluvial terraces of its
affluents. In the upper valley the villages are scattered on rocky
amphitheaters, and here the Celtic type of settlement is oftener
met.

Witte’s studies show that, in Alsace,[34] the delimitation of the
Germanic and Romanic domain is somewhat more complicated than
in Lorraine. Valuable clues are generally afforded by toponymic
data. The Alemanni are responsible for the suffix “heim.” Towns
and villages with names bearing this suffix are restricted to the
plain. The dividing line extends on the west to the sub-Vosgian
foreland and attains the forest of the Haguenau on the north. This
last section corresponds to the beginning of an area of Frankish
colonization having its center at Weissenburg. The suffix “ingen,”
which occurs in place names of southern Alsace, is likewise
Alemannic. It is supposed to correspond, however, to a later
period of settlement. The ending “weiler” accompanies the names of
villages found on the heights.

These data led Witte to assume that the Celto-Roman natives of the
plains were thrust back towards the mountains by the Alemannic
invasion proceeding from the east. The designation “weiler,”
which is also spelled “weyer,” “weyr” and “wir,” indicates the
mountain sites to which the population of the plain was repelled
by the Germanic flow. The Vosges mountains have thus been a place
of refuge against Germanic aggression. Witte’s researches point
to the probable peopling of the Alsatian slopes of the Vosges by
tribes speaking a Romanic language during the invasions of Teutonic
barbarians. The so-called Welsh element appears to be a Celto-Roman
remnant of the population of the locality.[35]

The character of Alsace-Lorraine as a connecting region between two
great European nations is shown also by demographic studies.[36]
Life in the provinces is accompanied by conditions which prevail
in Germany or France. The excess of births over deaths, which
maintains itself on an average at about 10 per 1,000, is lower
than in any other part of the German Empire. The rate of birth
has decreased from 36 to 28 per 1,000 in spite of an increase in
the population. The tendency of the inhabitants to emigrate is
evinced by the large number of uninhabited houses. The decrease
in the native population is largely due to the desire of many of
the inhabitants to emigrate to French soil. In 1875 the proportion
of native-born inhabitants amounted to 93 per cent of the total
population. In 1905 it did not exceed 81 per cent. The strictly
German element had grown from 38,000 in 1875 to 176,000 in 1905.
Fully 90 per cent of these are native-born Prussians. Among them
the teaching of French to children has increased. Molsheim, in
Lower Alsace, and Ribeauvillé, in Upper Alsace, are centers for the
study of French. In recent years German immigrants have become the
preponderant element of the province.

Two methods of indicating the presence of a French element in
Alsace-Lorraine are given in the accompanying map (Pl. II) of
this region. The method of showing percentages according to
administrative districts[37] has been contrasted with the plan of
representing the actual extension of French predominance.[38] In
one respect the map is illuminating. It shows the concordance of
French and German authorities regarding the German character of
the language spoken in Alsace, as well as the French nature of
a substantial portion of Lorraine. The Rhine valley, a natural
region, appears throughout as an area of German speech. The
startling preference of Alsatians for French nationality cannot
therefore be substantiated by geographical evidence. It suggests
the persistent influence of the human will swayed by feelings of
justice and moral affinity rather than by material considerations.

To primitive societies, a river as large as the Rhine provided
almost as impassable a frontier as the sea itself. It had the
advantage of being defined by nature. The boundary was actually
marked on the ground. As frontiers of the Roman Empire, the Rhine
and the Danube proved their practical value by the long period
during which they marked the extent of imperial or republican
domain. The history of oversea colonization indicates the
partiality of colonial powers for rivers as boundaries. It is
likely that in the very early period of man’s habitation of the
earth, the tribes settled on either side of watercourses had little
or no intercourse. As they advanced in civilization relations were
developed. The divisive influence of running waters was therefore
exerted most strongly at the dawn of human history. Later the river
may become a link and finally may attain the stage when it is a
rallying line for the activity and thought of the inhabitants of
its entire valley.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. II_

THE FRANCO-GERMAN LINGUISTIC BOUNDARY IN ALSACE-LORRAINE]

The Gallo-Teutonic line of the Rhine was the scene of many a
struggle during the reign of Clovis. In the days of Charlemagne
the dwellers on the right bank of the Rhine were the “gens atroces
et féroces” of French chroniclers. They represented northern
barbarians, the foes of Christianity and of the civilization which
Rome had given to the world. Before becoming a German river the
Rhine flowed in a valley peopled by inhabitants of Celtic speech.
The name it bears is of Celtic origin. When men of Teutonic speech
began to press westward, the river supplied a natural moat which,
for a long period, had formed part of the system of defense
devised by the earlier inhabitants of the land. The strength of
the position is attested by the slowness of Germanic infiltration
on the left bank of the river. To this day the valley province
owes more to France in thought and ideals than to any other
country. The Alsatian temperament has much of that mental sunshine
which Mirabeau calls the “fond gaillard.” This is assuredly not
derived from Germany. His wit is of the true Gallic type--mocking,
and tending to the Rabelaisian; its geniality is reserved for
France and French institutions, its caustic side for Germany and
Germans. It could never have proceeded from the ponderous Teutonic
mentality. Alsatians are French in spirit because they know how to
laugh well, to laugh as civilized men with the cheer that brightens
the good and the irony that draws out in full relief the ugliness
of evil.

The spread of the French language in Alsace after the conquest
of Strassburg by the soldiers of Louis XIV was slow. The French
governors of the province never compelled the Alsatians to study
their language. Up to the time of the French Revolution, French
served as the medium of intercourse in official circles and among
the nobility. The mass of the people, however, retained their
vernacular. Freedom, granted by the French civil administration,
was equally maintained by the official representatives of French
ecclesiastical authority. Religious tolerance in Alsace was felt
notably at the time of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, the
province being probably the only one in which Protestant Frenchmen
were unmolested. Moral ties with France were thus cemented by the
extremely liberal character of French rule.

The French Revolution was enthusiastically welcomed by the
democratically inclined Alsatians. This event in fact consolidated
Alsace’s union with France. French military annals of the period
contain a high proportion of Alsatian names. A community of ideas
and interests had come into being. The study of French was taken
up with renewed enthusiasm in Alsace because the language was the
agency by which the new spirit of the time was propagated. It
became the medium of communication among thinkers. The revolution
of 1848 accentuated this tendency. By that time every Alsatian who
could boast of any schooling knew French. This linguistic conquest
of Alsace was the result of sympathy with French thought and ideals.

The German method of imposing the rival tongue was distinctly
different. All the brutality which attends misconceptions of
efficiency among petty officials was given free rein in the process
of replacing French by German. A stroke of the pen on April 14,
1871, suppressed teaching of French in the primary schools of the
annexed territory. In other educational establishments the study of
the language was relegated to the position of minor courses. It is
worth mentioning that Alsace and Lorraine are the only territorial
units of the German Empire in which the study of French has met
opposition on the part of the government. The interest shown for
the Romance language elsewhere in the Kaiser’s land contrasts with
the efforts made to root it out of Alsatian soil.

The unrelenting activity of the Prussian officials stationed in
Alsace-Lorraine has borne fruit, for the use of French by the
inhabitants is on the wane. This is partly due, however, to the
emigration of a large number of native-born Alsatians and the
swarm of settlers brought from other sections of Germany. In one
respect the results of the Germanizing propaganda have differed
from expectations. They have tended to foster the development of
Alsatian dialects as well as the spirit of nationality among the
people. Alsatians preferred to become proficient in their own
tongue rather than in German. At the same time, if Alsace is to
be German, they are united in the desire to see their native
province form part of the Empire on a footing similar to that of
other German states. They apprehend eventual absorption by Prussia
as much as the prolongation of the present “Reichsland” status of
their native land.

The European war brought its train of trials to Alsatians no
less than to other European peoples. French papers contain the
complaints of natives of Alsace and Lorraine serving in German
regiments to the effect that their officers exposed them to the
worst dangers of war with undue harshness. It is not unlikely that
at the cessation of hostilities the number of native-born Alsatians
will have dwindled to insignificant proportion. A plebiscite on the
fate of the province, taken then, might help German designs. But
since a revision of the Franco-German boundary seems inevitable, a
preliminary solution might be found in the abrogation of the treaty
of Frankfort. The final settlement of the problem will be equitable
only when the desires of native-born Alsatians shall have been
taken into consideration.

Beyond Alsace, French and German languages meet along a line which
extends across western Swiss territory to the Italian frontier.[39]
Its present course has been maintained since the fifteenth
century.[40] Beginning at Charmoille, north of the Bernese Jura,
the linguistic frontier strikes east towards Montsevilier,[41]
after which it makes a sharp turn to the southwest as it follows
the strike of the Jura mountains. In this region the historical
division between Teutonic and Latin civilization occurs in the
valley of Delémont through which the Sorne flows. Teutonic invaders
never succeeded in penetrating beyond the Vorburg barrier. East of
the Jura, the line passes through Bienne, Douane and Gléresse. At
Neuveville the valley is French. The line follows thence the course
of the Thièle. With the exception of its northeastern shore all
Lake Neuchâtel is surrounded by French-speaking communities. The
parting next coincides with the line of the Broye river and extends
across the waters of lake Morat. The western and southern shores
of the lake are likewise French. It then skirts the banks of the
Sarine until it reaches Fribourg, which it cuts into two portions.
A strenuous struggle for linguistic supremacy is maintained at
this urban edge of French-speaking territory. Inside the city’s
line, German is spoken principally in the quarters tenanted by
the laboring classes. With the middle classes both language and
tradition are largely French.

In the twelfth century Fribourg had been turned into a fortified
outpost of German power by the Dukes of Zähringen.[42] The city’s
position between the Alps and the Jura favored its selection
for this aggressive purpose. German language flourished under
the shadow of its castles and probably would have taken deeper
root among its citizens but for one fact. At the time of the
Reformation, the Fribourgers decided to stand with the Roman
Church. This decision converted the city into a haven to which the
Catholic clergy of French-speaking Switzerland repaired; and the
Bishopric of Lausanne was transferred to Fribourg, where it became
the headquarters of active French propaganda.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 15--The shady arcades and sunny streets of Lugano in the
  Swiss area of Italian languages recall the typical aspects of
  Italian cities.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 16--The basin of Lake Geneva is an ancient domain of French
  language in Switzerland.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 17--Basel in German Switzerland recalls German cities. The
  Marketplace and the Government House (on left) are seen in this
  view.]

It should not be taken for granted from what has been said that
the cause of French in Switzerland is related to Catholicism.
The case of Fribourg is an isolated one. At Bienne, another of
the cities on the linguistic divide, the growth of French has an
entirely different origin. This city is the center of an important
watch-making district. The growth of its native industry favored
rapid increase in its population. But the new citizens were drawn
principally from the mountainous region of which Bienne is the
outlet. The French-speaking highlanders swelled the ranks of the
city’s French contingent to such an extent that, from numbering
one-fourth of the population in 1888, it had grown to one-third in
1900. The German-speaking farmers of the plains surrounding Bienne,
however, were never attracted by the prospect of factory work.
At present Bienne’s population is believed to be equally divided
between the two tongues.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 18--The boundary between French and German in Switzerland.
  Scale, 1:1,435,000.]

From Fribourg the line takes a straight course to the Oldenhorn.
Here it elbows eastward to Wildstrubel and attains the Valais
country. In the upper valley of the Rhone, the line becomes
well defined as it coincides with the divide between the Val
d’Anniviers and Turtman Thal. In the Haut Valais the construction
of the Simplon tunnel appears to have affected German adversely and
to have caused an extension of French speech in the region. The
recession of German from the Morge valley to the east of Sierre
lies within the memory of living natives. The linguistic line
finally cuts across the Rhone valley above Sierre and strikes the
Dent d’Hérens on the Italian frontier. In southeastern Switzerland,
French surrounds the uninhabited massif Mont Blanc. One would
naturally expect to find this language confined to the western
slopes of the uplift only. But the inhabitants of Bas-Valais
districts and of the Aosta valley speak French as fluently as the
population of the elevated valleys of Savoy.

The prevalence of French has been shown to be due to the direction
of travel in this mountainous region. The two St. Bernard Passes,
the “Col du Grand St. Bernard” and the “Col du Petit St. Bernard,”
have determined the route along which human displacements could be
undertaken with a minimum of effort.[43] The road encircles that
famous Alpine peak. It has acted as a channel through which French
has flowed into areas of Italian and German speech. This instance
may well be adopted as a classical example of the influence of
geography in the distribution of linguistic areas.

The origin of linguistic differences in Switzerland may be traced
to the dawn of the period that followed Roman conquest. At the
time of Caesar’s invasion of Helvetia, the mountainous land was
peopled by men of Celtic speech. Barbarian invasions put an end
to the uniformity of language prevailing in the country. Romance
language survived in the highlands of the Jura and throughout the
western sections of Switzerland. The Celtic and Latin languages
spoken in the first five centuries of our era gave birth to French.
The Burgundian conquerors themselves adopted this language at the
time of the foundation of the first kingdom of Burgundy. German,
on the other hand, is a relic of Teutonic invasion of eastern and
central Switzerland. In the sixth century, the Alemanni took
advantage of the weakening of the Burgundian Kingdom to spread
beyond the Aar and overrun the attractive lake district. By the
eleventh century they had succeeded in imposing their language on
the native populations of the Fribourg and Valais country. The
reunion of the two states under the reign of Clovis failed to unify
the language of Switzerland. A split occurred again after the
partition of Charlemagne’s dominions, followed by another period of
joint political life until the death of Berthold V of Zähringen.
After this event the consolidation of languages became impossible
in Switzerland. The rivalry of the Alemanni and Burgundian kingdoms
was maintained among Swiss populations. In feudal days, German
Switzerland acknowledged the suzerainty of Hapsburg counts. Romanic
Switzerland, on the other hand, leaned towards the House of Savoy.

That the area of French speech has receded during our era cannot
be doubted. There was a time when French was spoken on the left
bank of the Aar, from its headwaters to below Berne. At three
different periods of history the German language made notable
strides in Switzerland. Its earliest forward move occurred between
the fifth and ninth centuries. Another advance took place between
the eleventh and the thirteenth. The language made further progress
during the religious struggles of the Reformation. Each of these
periods was followed by partial regain of lost territory by French
language. But the French gains fell short of the Germanic advances.
Since the eighteenth century very little variation in the line has
been recorded. A slight advance of French in the nineteenth century
can be traced.

In the minds of Pan-Germanists a significant proof of the progress
of French is seen in cases of the replacement of the word
“Bahnhof” by “gare” at railroad stations--as for example along the
mountainous tract between Viège and Zermatt. They also complain
of the introduction of French words and expressions in the German
spoken by Swiss citizens. To the tourist’s eye the advance of
German in the Swiss villages of the Grisons Alps is indicated by
the red-tiled roofs in the midst of gray shingled roofs. This is
noticeable in the Albula valley where Romansh was formerly the only
language of the natives. Now the old Romansh dwellings with their
low roofs, white walls and narrow windows are disappearing before
the wooden houses of the German settlers.

According to the census of 1910 there were 796,244 inhabitants
of Switzerland who spoke French. This was about one-third of
the country’s total population. Of this number, 765,373 were
dwellers in French Switzerland, which comprises the cantons of
Geneva, Vaud, Neuchâtel, a portion of the cantons of Valais and
Fribourg and the Bernese Jura. The remainder were scattered in the
German and Italian districts of the Republic. Notable colonies of
French-speaking Swiss in the midst of the area of German speech are
found at Berne and Basel. In all, three of the twenty-two cantons
are of French speech. Fribourg and Valais contain French-speaking
majorities.[44] The canton of Tessin with its 140,000 inhabitants
is Italian in language. In Berne the majority of the city’s
population speak German, only 120,000 inhabitants out of a total of
600,000 using French.

The history of Switzerland shows that at bottom neither language
nor physical or racial barriers suffice to constitute nationality.
Human desire to achieve and maintain national independence, or to
establish liberal institutions, depends on will or purpose far
more than on physical facts. Diversity of language never impaired
Switzerland’s existence as a sovereign nation. Racial heterogeneity
in its population likewise failed to weaken national feeling.
Over such natural drawbacks the indomitable determination of
free-born Helvetians to maintain their country’s sovereignty has
prevailed. Frenchmen and Germans have always been warring elements
in Switzerland, but animosity bred by racial differences invariably
disappeared in matters where national existence was at stake. A
bond of patriotism based on common religious and democratic ideals
proved strong enough to overcome divergencies due to natural
causes.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 19--View of Dissentis in the section of Switzerland where
  Romansh is spoken. This view is taken looking toward the Oberalp
  Road. The famous Benedictine Abbey stands out conspicuously on
  the right.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 20--The town of Zermatt, which lies within the area of
  French language in Switzerland. The Matterhorn appears in the
  background.]

The Swiss Confederation originally consisted of the three
German-speaking cantons of Uri, Schwyz and Unterwalden,[45]
clustering round Lake Lucerne, in the very heart of the mountain
state. The desire to rid their land of Hapsburg tyranny had drawn
together the inhabitants of this region as early as in 1291. In the
ensuing twenty-five years, these mountaineers succeeded in making
their democratic ideas dominant in their home districts. This led
to the gradual adherence of adjoining territories. By the middle of
the fourteenth century an “Everlasting League” had been securely
established in this orographic center of the European continent.
At the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, twenty cantons of the present
confederation were finally rounded out. Of these, fifteen are now
predominantly German.

French Switzerland receives a large number of German immigrants.
In 1900 the number of Germans, both from German cantons and
from the German Empire, was estimated at 164,379. In 1910 this
foreign element had grown to a community of 186,135. The tendency
of these newcomers is to become assimilated. Intermarriage and
social intercourse favor French influence. As a rule the second
generation of these Germans cannot speak the paternal vernacular
and become lost in the mass of its French-speaking neighbors.
The assimilating power of the French Swiss is also observable at
Delémont and Moutier, in the Bernese Jura, where the piercing of
the Weissenstein has brought a heavy flow of German immigrants.

The only localities in which German gains were recorded in the
census of 1910 were Porentruy and the northern part of the canton
of Fribourg. A counter advance of French at Bienne tends to
maintain the balance even. This city had 8,700 inhabitants of
French speech in 1910, as against 7,820 in 1900. In Fribourg itself
the stronghold of Swiss Germanism is found in the university.
The cultural influence of this institution radiates far into the
mountain villages of Switzerland, but its work is offset by the
campaign carried on in favor of French at the universities of
Geneva, Lausanne and Neuchâtel.


NOTE ON CELTIC LANGUAGE IN FRANCE AND ITS RELATION TO ITALIC

A parent language for Celtic and Italic may have flourished at a
yet undetermined point in the Western Alps. Meillet[46] points
to the possibility of a period of common development of their
dialects in view of similarities in the highly ancient forms of
the two groups. In that case, westerly and southerly divergences
eventually led to modern French and Italian. Of the two branches
in which Italic dialects are represented at the dawn of history,
namely, Latin-Faliscan and Oscan-Umbrian, the former alone survived
in noteworthy degree, under the guise of Latin. Oscan-Umbrian
dialects, known by inscriptional remains, gave way before Latin at
the beginning of the Christian era.

Celtic, at that period, had been supplanted by two important
derived languages: Gaelic and Breton, which prevailed for many
centuries. Gaulish, the gaulois language of French writers, was
disappearing fast. The case of Breton deserves particular mention
in the study of the migrations of languages. This form of Celtic
belongs to the British subdivision of its linguistic family. Its
persistence in Armorica is due to immigration from British soil
which intensified the preëxisting Celtic character of the mountain
speech. The inflow of emigrants to France was particularly strong
during the period of Saxon invasions.

Celtic, the earliest language of Gaul, was spoken by the Celts,
whose original home was in northwestern Europe. The British Isles
and continental Europe from Hanover southward to the Pyrenees and
the basin of the Po were colonization areas of the Celts. The fact
that Celtic stands linguistically in the closest relation with
Italic and Germanic may be taken as a proof of its intermediate
geographical position between the two. In the middle of the first
pre-Christian millennium the Teutons’ nearest neighbors to the
south were the Celts. In 400 B.C. Bohemia was probably occupied by
a Celtic people. This country is the easternmost colony of this
group. In these early periods the Elbe marked the boundary between
Teutons and Celts. About 200 B.C. Teutonic speech first attained
the Rhine, having reached the river from the northeast.

Celtic became Romanized after the Roman conquest in the first
century of our era. The _lingua vulgaris_ used by the soldiers
and traders sent to colonize the country gradually displaced
native vernaculars. By the end of the fourth century Celtic as a
language had practically disappeared from the entire country. The
new Romance language had taken such strong root in the land that
successful invaders of French soil were henceforth to adopt it and
abandon their native tongue. Thus Visigoths, Burgundians and Franks
who invaded Gaul in the fifth century forsook their own language
and employed the speech of the people they had conquered. This was
a result of the superior intellectual qualities of the conquered
race. The Franks in particular, a Teutonic people, established
themselves firmly enough in northern Gallo-Roman territory to
confer the name of France to the whole region, although their
endeavors to settle in southern France had been unsuccessful. It
required fully six centuries for the language of the Roman colony
of Gaul to become definitely differentiated from Latin. By the
seventh century the idiom spoken in France was known as Romance or
Romanic.


TABLE I

DISTRIBUTION OF LANGUAGES IN SWITZERLAND ACCORDING TO THE CENSUS OF
1910

    CANTON         German    French   Italian  Romansh  Others
  Aargau          222,571     1,532     6,197      72      389
  Appenzell A/R    56,505       134     1,285      27       68
  Appenzell I/R    14,469        32        97       4        6
  Basel City      127,491     3,601     4,021     138    1,062
  Basel            72,809     1,124     2,548      27      114
  Berne           528,554   104,412    12,247     172    2,198
  Fribourg         42,634    94,378     1,911      42      586
  Geneva           17,456   120,413    12,641     196    5,058
  Glarus           31,733        66     1,306      69      120
  Graubünden       58,465       838    20,963  37,147    2,441
  Lucerne         161,083     1,316     4,808     126      365
  Neuchâtel        17,305   111,597     3,747      50      816
  Nidwalden        13,329        31       319       5        6
  Obwalden         16,738        66       330      28       23
  St. Gall        282,722     1,099    17,584     456      967
  Schaffhausen     43,795       379     1,712      18      193
  Schwyz           56,311       258     1,612      64       60
  Soleurne        111,373     2,818     2,570      21      179
  Tessin            5,829     1,008   147,790     131      457
  Thurgau         125,876       593     8,328      89      291
  Uri              20,937        80     1,053      56       15
  Valais           37,351    80,316    10,412      16      165
  Vaud             34,422   264,222    16,694     220    8,194
  Zug              26,406       217     1,454      26       71
  Zürich          472,990     5,714    19,696     634    4,601
                ---------   -------   -------  ------   ------
  SWITZERLAND   2,599,154   796,244   301,325  39,834   28,445


TABLE II

PERCENTAGE OF LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN SWISS CANTONS[47]

    CANTON       French    German    Italian   Romansh   Others
  Aargau           0.7      96.4       2.7                  0.2
  Appenzell A/R    0.2      97.4       2.2        0.1       0.1
  Appenzell I/R    0.2      99.0       0.7                  0.1
  Basel City       2.6      93.5       3.0        0.1       0.8
  Basel            1.5      95.0       3.3                  0.2
  Berne           16.1      81.6       1.9                  0.4
  Fribourg        67.6      30.6       1.4                  0.4
  Geneva          77.3      11.2       8.1        0.1       3.3
  Glarus           0.2      95.3       3.9        0.2       0.4
  Graubünden       0.7      48.8      17.5       31.0       2.0
  Lucerne          0.8      96.0       2.9        0.1       0.2
  Neuchâtel       83.6      13.0       2.8                  0.6
  Nidwalden        0.2      97.3       2.3        0.1       0.1
  Obwalden         0.4      97.4       1.9        0.2       0.1
  St. Gall         0.4      93.3       5.8        0.2       0.3
  Schaffhausen     0.8      95.0       3.7        0.1       0.4
  Schwyz           0.4      96.6       2.8        0.1       0.1
  Soleurne         2.4      95.2                  2.2       0.2
  Tessin           0.6       3.8      95.2        0.1       0.3
  Thurgau          0.4      93.1       6.2        0.1       0.2
  Uri              0.4      94.6       4.7        0.2       0.1
  Valais          62.6      29.1       8.1                  0.2
  Vaud            81.6      10.6       0.1        0.1       2.5
  Zug              0.8      93.7       5.2        0.1       0.2
  Zürich           1.2      93.9       3.9        0.1       0.9

  SWITZERLAND     21.1      69.0       8.0        1.1       0.8


FOOTNOTES:

[24] H. Witte: _Forsch. z. deut. Landes- u. Volkeskunde_, Vol. 10,
1897, No. 4, pp. 299-424.

[25] L. Gallois: Les limites linguistiques du Français, _Ann. de
Géogr._, Vol. 9, 1900, p. 215.

[26] P. Langhans: Sprachen Karte von Deutsch-Lothringen,
1:2,000,000, _Deutsche Erde_, 1909, Pl. 3.

[27] Das deutsche Sprachgebiet Lothringen und seine Wandelungen,
etc., _Forsch. z. deut. Landes- u. Volksk._, Vol. 8, 1894, pp.
407-535.

[28] Translation: By the love of God and that of Christian people
and of our common salvation, from this day on, in so far as God
shall grant me knowledge and power, I will support my brother Karl,
here present, by every manner of help, as one must, in duty bound,
support one’s brother, provided he acts in the same manner with me;
neither will I ever make agreements with Lothaire which, through my
own will, shall prejudice my brother Karl here present.

[29] Anthropologic data for the southwestern section of Alsace are
instructive. The generation of a transition type between the short
and sturdy Alpine type and the “sesquipedal” Teuton is observable.
Cf. Ripley: The Races of Europe, New York, 1899, pp. 225-226.

[30] The name has been traced to the generic meaning of forest
through its consonants v-s-g, which are convertible into b-s-k,
the latter corresponding to bosquet, busch, bush, etc. Cf. J. C.
Gerock: Die Benennung und Gliederung des linksrheinischen Gebirges,
_M. Philomath. Ges. Elsass-Loth._, Vol. 4, 1910, pp. 251-274.

[31] R. Blanchard: Deux grandes villes françaises, _La Géogr._,
Vol. 30, Nos. 2-6, 1914, pp. 120-121.

[32] The Statesman’s Yearbook, 1915, p. 972.

[33] J. B. Masson: Die Siedelungen des Breuschtals Elsass,
_Monatschrift Gesch. u. Volksk._, 1910, pp. 350-373 and 479-498.

[34] Zur Geschichte des Deutschtums in Elsass und im Vogesengebiet,
_Forsch. z. deut. Landes- u. Volksk._, Vol. 10, No. 4, 1897.

[35] H. Witte: Romanische Bevölkerungsrückstände in deutschen
Vogesentälern, _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 6, 1907, pp. 8-14, 49-54,
87-91.

[36] DuMont Schanberg: Die Bevölkerung Elsass-Lothringen nach den
Ergebnissen der Volkszählung vom 1 Dezember 1905 an der Früheren
Zählungen. _Stat. M. über Elsass-Lothringen_, Vol. 31, Stat. Bur.
f. Elsass-Lothringen, Strassburg, 1908.

[37] After the language map of Alsace-Lorraine in Andree’s
Handatlas, pp. 67-68, 6th ed.

[38] After Gallois’ map, _Ann. de Géogr._, Vol. 9, 1900, Pl. 4.

[39] P. Langhans: Die Westschweiz mit deutschen Ortsbenennung,
1:500,000, _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 5, 1906, Pl. 5.

[40] E. Gallois: Les limites linguistiques du Français, _Ann. de
Géogr._, Vol. 9, 1900, p. 218.

[41] P. Clerget: La Suisse au XX^{me} siècle, Paris, 1908, p. 55.

[42] L. Courthion: Le front des langues en Suisse, _Mercure de
France_, Vol. 112, No. 420, Dec. 1, 1915, pp. 636-646.

[43] J. Brunhes: La géographie humaine, Paris, 1912, pp. 599-601.

[44] The French-speaking population of the Valais is estimated at
70 per cent of the inhabitants of the canton.

[45] M. L. Poole: Historical Atlas of Modern Europe, Oxford, 1902,
Pl. 44.

[46] Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues
indo-européennes, Paris, 1915.

[47] Graphisch-statistischer Atlas der Schweiz, Bureau des eidgen.
Departements des Innern, Berne, 1914, Taf. 7.




CHAPTER IV

BORDERLANDS OF ITALIAN LANGUAGE


Italy’s early history is molded by the shape of the land and its
natural divisions. In the beginning, each valley was a tribal
seat. The basin of the Po was the home of Celtic-speaking Gauls.
Etruscans, whose early language cannot fit into the Indo-European
group, peopled Tuscany. Greeks settled in southern Italy in
numbers sufficiently large to bestow the name of Magna Graecia
on the districts they occupied. The welding of these territorial
elements into the Roman state was attended by the spread of the
Latin language within the land. Rome’s Latin eventually reached far
beyond peninsular frontiers.

Modern Italian nationality did not, however, acquire concrete
expression before the nineteenth century. For fully two hundred
years prior to that time the Hapsburgs had steadily encroached
on Italian territory. It remained for the democratic ideals of
the French Revolution to become the moving force in the shaping
of Italian nationality. Unity of language favored its rapid
development. Beginning with Piedmont in the first half of the
nineteenth century Italy grew to its present extent by the addition
of territory to the south. Lombardy was added in 1859, Tuscany and
the kingdom of Two Sicilies in 1860, Venetia in 1866 and the Papal
States in 1870. Prior to these years Italian national aspirations
had found solace in a Venetian saying, expressive of Austrian
covetings, “Carta tua, montagna mia,” which may be rendered as
“Yours is the map, but mine the land.” Since then, a people
speaking the same language has become united into a single nation
on the Italian peninsula. The land frontier of Italy, however, has
remained to this day a zone of linguistic mingling.

Districts of non-Italian languages are occupied by populations
made up of descendants of immigrants from beyond the Alps or
from beyond the seas. Six foreign linguistic groups can be
distinguished, to wit: (1) Franco-Provençal, (2) German, (3)
Slovene, (4) Albanian, (5) Greek, (6) Catalan.[48] The political
significance to be attached to these settlements is slight, as they
contain a negligible proportion of the kingdom’s population. The
foreign languages are used only in the home. Beyond the threshold
Italian prevails everywhere.

Franco-Provençal dialects are in current use among the dwellers
of the Stura, Orco and Doire Baltée valleys. In the province
(_circondario_) of Aosta the foreign language was current in over
70 villages (_communi_) at the time of the census of 1901. The
province of Pignerol boasted of the two communi of Praly and San
Martino di Perrero in which the same French dialects prevailed.
The names of the communi of Beaulard, Bousson, Champlas du Col,
Clavières, Fenils, Mollières, Rochemolles, Salbertrand, Sauze
d’Oulx, Solomiac and Thures, all in the circondario of Suse,
likewise indicate the presence of French-speaking inhabitants. It
was computed that the language was used in the daily life of 18,958
families out of the 30,401 recorded in the census of that year.
The average number of individuals to a family being 4.22 in those
districts, it follows that about 80,000 subjects of the king of
Italy speak a French dialect. In 1862, French was spoken by 76,736
inhabitants of the valley of Aosta. The importance of the language
has hardly changed since then, as it has remained the medium of
church, school and general culture. Nevertheless the use of French
dialects is on the wane in the circondarii of Pignerol and Suse
since the reconstitution of Italy.

Planted between France and Italy, Piedmont became a connecting
province in which the transition from one country to the other can
be followed. Its rôle is analogous to that of Alsace-Lorraine on
the confines of the French and the German languages. French taste
and mode of living prevail in many sections of Piedmont. Turin
strikes travelers proceeding from southern Italy as being in many
respects a city of French customs. The French spoken in Italy also
represents a transition speech between the langue d’oïl and the
langue d’oc. It has close analogy with the patois spoken in French
Switzerland, the Dauphiné, the Lyonnais and the valley of Aosta.
All these regions once formed part of the kingdom of Burgundy.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 21--Map showing some of the important localities of French
  speech in Northwestern Italy.]

The French vernacular of thousands of Piedmontese is furthermore
related to the cause of Protestantism, which has taken solid root
in this mountain land in spite of the persecutions to which it had
been formerly subjected. As used by the natives of the region the
local dialect consists, more properly, of a modern form of an old
langue d’oc dialect similar to the patois of various districts
in the French High Alps. To the Protestant inhabitants of these
mountain communities French has served as the only medium of
intercourse with their co-religionists in Switzerland and France.

The little village of Torre Pellice, on a small mountain railway
leading into one of the main valleys of Piedmont, offers
the strange contrast of being peopled by inhabitants whose
language is French, while their customs are Italian, and their
religion Protestant. The austerity of their manners recalls at
first impression the natural gravity of mind observable among
French-speaking Swiss who belong to the same faith. Ampler
acquaintance with the simple mountaineers will draw out their pride
of being descendants of Protestants whose religious views antedate
Luther’s preaching by fully three centuries.

History and geography have concurred in the preservation of
religious and linguistic individuality in the three Valdese
valleys. Their inhabitants are sons of twelfth and thirteenth
century heretics known by the names of Albigenses, Lollards,
Cathars or Vaudois, against all of whom the persecution of the
Roman church was directed. Massacres and forced conversions
uprooted heresies everywhere in Europe except in the high valleys
of Piedmont. Here the arduous character of the region afforded
defense against the organized bands sent to conquer early adherents
of reformed doctrines. The narrow gorges became the theater of
bloody affrays in which victory would sometimes favor the attacking
foreigners and sometimes the besieged. No definite conquest of the
mountain zone was ever made by the Catholic armies. The surname
of Israel of the Alps, bestowed locally on the village of Torre
Pellice, is a memorial of this period of religious struggle.

An episode in this long contest, which is not unrelated to the
current prevalence of French, took place in 1630. The operations
of the army sent by Richelieu in that year were followed by an
epidemic of plague to which thousands of natives succumbed. Many
of the community’s religious leaders were carried off by the dread
disease. Their places were taken by pastors and preachers who came
from Geneva or the Protestant towns of France. From this period on
religious services were carried on in French. The influence of the
language spread beyond the rough mountain sanctuaries to which it
was at first confined. In such retired valleys cultural influences
generally emanate from the church, a fact observable particularly
in the mountainous portions of Asia. Today along with the memory of
former struggles the language, which was partly a result of their
bitterness, has survived. To the highlander of western Piedmont,
French is the symbol of successful resistance against religious
oppression. He clings to it and will not tolerate Italian in its
place. His mountain villages are in fact the nursery of hundreds of
teachers of French employed in Italian schools.

The Franco-Italian linguistic boundary starts at Monte Rosa and
extends south, past Gressoney, into the valley of the Doire Baltée,
to the town of Settimo Vitone. French has always predominated in
this region. It is at present the vernacular of the well-to-do
inhabitants and is taught in schools concurrently with Italian.
Thence to the west the linguistic boundary passes south of Grand
Paradis Peak and attains the political boundary at the sources of
the Orco river. Linguistic and political boundaries coincide in the
next 27 miles, the line passing through a mountainous and scantily
settled region.

North of Suse, linguistic and political lines diverge from each
other. The former crosses the Doire Ripaire at about five miles
east of the town. It then extends in a southerly direction to
Pérouse on the Ghison river and traverses the Pellice where the
river leaves the highland. The Po is attained near Monte Viso and
the political frontier. From the latter peak the line reaches
Sampeyre, beyond which it crosses the Stura at Vinadio. The
Franco-Italian boundary is reached once more at a few miles east of
Lantosque. From here on to the sea Italian speech invades French
territory.

The structure of the Alps has contributed powerfully to the
peopling of a part of the basin of the Po by a Celtic-speaking
race. In Turin the name of the Taurins, a Celto-Ligurian tribe,
has been preserved to this day. Alpine valleys converge towards
the east and diverge towards the west. Human migrations have,
therefore, been more intense from west to east than in the opposite
direction. Western Piedmont thus passed under French influence
after the Middle Ages. At that time the counts of Savoy obtained
possession of the country around Suse and Turin. Later they added
all of Piedmont to their domain. The upper valley of the Doire
Ripaire was part of the French kingdom until the treaty of Utrecht
in 1715.

From the Mediterranean northward, the last section of the
Franco-Italian linguistic boundary traverses French soil and
coincides roughly with the crest of the eastern watershed of the
Var. This region is known administratively as the Département des
Alpes-Maritimes. Linguistic unity within its boundaries has been
determined mainly by the relief of the land.[49] Practically every
one of the high Alpine valleys debouches into the Var. Connection
between the sea and the mountain districts is obtained through
the channels of this basin. Intercourse among the inhabitants of
the département has thus been reflected towards France rather
than Italy. The langue d’oc prevails in the entire Var system,
but Genoese dialects of Italy, or the “si” languages, appear
immediately to the west. The linguistic divide can, therefore, be
located between the valley of the Var on the one side and those
of the Roya and Bévéra on the other. It should be made to pass,
according to Funel,[50] at the very point in La Turbie where
Augustus, a Roman emperor, erected a monument to mark the boundary
between his domain and Gaul. The inhabitants of the eastern
section of this line appear, however, to be content with French
nationality in spite of their Ligurian dialects. At the time Of the
rectification of this frontier in 1860, their French leanings were
proclaimed in a referendum which set forth their desire to acquire
citizenship under the French tricolor.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 22--The dotted line indicates the divide between the areas
  of French and Italian language. Black dots near the Swiss border
  show Italian villages where German is the vernacular of the
  natives.]

The city of Alghero and its environs in the island of Sardinia
contain a colony of Catalonians whose language is identical with
the vernacular in use on the Balearic islands. This group consists
of 9,800 individuals out of a total of 10,741 inhabitants of the
commune of Alghero. In 1862 this small community comprised 7,036
individuals. This rooting of a Spanish dialect on an Italian
island is traced to the year 1354 when the Aragonians conquered
Sardinia. The long period of Spanish rule over the island accounts
for the survival of the language to this day.

The southern boundary of German speech abuts against Italian
from Switzerland[51] to the Carinthian hills.[52] The intrusion
of the Romanic tongue within the Austrian political line lacks
homogeneity, however, for it is Italian proper in western Tyrol
and Ladin in its western extension. But of the 400 odd miles of
boundary between Austria and Italy a bare 60 will coincide with the
linguistic divide between German and Italian. Moreover a number of
enclaves of German speech exist within the area of Italian language
spreading over Austrian territory. Some of these German settlements
are found near Pergine and Fersina. Close to the Italian frontier,
the town of Casotto in the Lavarone region is likewise peopled by
German-speaking inhabitants.[53]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 23--The rearland of Nice as typified by this view of the
  Mediterranean Alps contains numerous bilingual settlements. The
  bridge in the photograph is the Pont du Loup.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 24--Nice with its pleasant approach and its Alpine
  background is built on the transition area between French and
  Italian language.]

German is the vernacular of two small districts within Italian
boundaries which adjoin the Swiss frontier and lie in the Alpine
valleys of Piedmont. The most important of the two is situated
south of Monte Rosa. It comprises the three adjacent valleys
of Gressoney, Sesia and Macugnaga. The other is found in the
Val Formazza or upper valley of the Toce. Both of these groups
are extensions of the area of German speech which spreads over
the eastern portion of the canton of Valais. This section of
Switzerland was swamped between the ninth and sixteenth centuries
by a flood of Teutonic invaders consisting mainly of Alemannic
tribes[54] proceeding from the Bernese Oberland. All of the
upper Valais, from Münster as far as Loeche and Zermatt, became
Germanized during that period. The easterly spread of this movement
led a number of German-speaking colonists to cross Gries Pass into
the Formazza valley, while others went through the passes of Monte
Moro and Monte Theodule to the upper valleys of Piedmont. According
to historical documents the German settlers reached the shores
of Lake Maggiore. But their language became lost in the midst
of Italian speech and held its own only in the valleys already
mentioned.

The Piedmontese group of German dialects occurs in small
settlements distributed on the southern slopes of Monte Rosa. The
most noteworthy localities of Teutonic speech are Gressoney, Saint
Jean, Gressoney-La Trinité and Issime. Dialects belonging to the
same group occur in the Alagna and Rima S. Giuseppe villages, in
Valsesia as well as in the Agaro, Formazza, Macugnaga and Salecchio
localities of the Ossola valley. Altogether these settlements
contain about 5,000 German-speaking inhabitants. Occupation of the
region by Germans dates from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
when emigration into upper Valais took place. The language once
extended as far south as the Ornavasso. Its progress during the
past half century has been insignificant.

Val Formazza comprises the entire upper valley of the Toce, north
of Foppiano. The region is locally known as Val d’Antigorio in
its southern stretch. To the north, from Domodossola onward,
it acquires the name of Val d’Ossola. It has seven settlements
scattered along the banks of the river and contains a population of
about 800 inhabitants engaged chiefly in cattle-raising. La Chiesa
is its most important village. The region is noted in the list of
scenic spots of northern Italy on account of the Toce falls, which
attract a large number of tourists. The dual character of its human
institutions is reflected in the names of its villages, which are
both Italian and German. Foppiano is also known as Unterwald; La
Chiesa as Andermatten; San Michele as Pommat; Canza as Fruttwald.
German names are gradually being dropped, however, concurrently
with the steady replacement of the Teutonic language by Italian.

All these valleys are bridges which connect the areas of Italian
and German. Travelers are struck by the transitional character of
every human manifestation within their boundaries. As one proceeds
northwards from the main Italian area, the type of stone habitation
characteristic of Italian villages gives way to the wooden house
of German villages. Examples of both styles are in evidence
throughout the settlements of German speech on Italian soil. The
native costume of the women also recalls the intermediary character
of the region. Black skirts as well as high and tight waists, of
the same color, are characteristic of the canton of Valais. The
headdress--an ample foulard of black interspersed with green and
red--worn close, is of unmistakable Italian origin. The style in
which middle-aged native women comb their hair is also Italian.
They part it into a number of small plaits held together by
metallic combs after a fashion seen among elderly dames in Lombardy.

The eastern borderland of Italian language contains German-speaking
inhabitants in the provinces of Verona, Vicenza, Belluno and Udine,
who are living witnesses of the early German settlements founded as
trading posts on the way to the Adriatic coast. Bavaria provided
many of these emigrants in the beginning of the thirteenth century.
The language spoken by their descendants is known locally as
Cimbro. It has practically disappeared from the Veronese district,
where its survival is traced in the forested areas of the “commune”
of Progno through some 50 inhabitants. The inhabitants of the
communes of Sappada and Sauris and of the Timau district in the
Paluzza commune also employ German. It is estimated that 1,170
families, representing about 5,500 inhabitants, speak Teutonic
dialects in these Venetian districts of Italy.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 25--The localities of German speech in the Sette Communi
  districts of Italy are underlined. The broken line indicates the
  Austro-Italian frontier.]

South of the Dolomite Alps the tableland of the Sette Communi is
also inhabited by German-speaking subjects of the king of Italy.
Teutonic dialects have survived in seven villages scattered in the
adjoining valleys of the Upper Astico and the middle Brenta. These
communities formed the regency of the Sette Communi, which from
1259 to 1807 was an independent state. Rotzo, the westernmost and
oldest, has a splendid location in the wooded area at the outlet
of Val Martello. In Roana to the east over five hundred families
still employ the German dialect as their vernacular. At Asiago,
however, the German element has almost disappeared, although during
the Middle Ages the town was an important center of Teutonism,
as is testified by the historical collections deposited in its
museums. Gallio is known in history as a trading center of local
magnitude. Enego, the last settlement towards the east, was founded
before its Teutonization, for it was a Roman colony. San Giacomo di
Lusiana is the only settlement of German speech beyond the plateau
borders. Its situation on the southern slope brought it within the
sphere of Venetian influence to a degree never felt by its sister
communities.

Past the Italian frontier, traveling towards Trent, every town and
village of the valley of the Adige bears an Italian name and is
peopled by Italians. Ala, Mori, Rovereto and Calliano are types of
these Italian communities within Austrian territory. These small
towns, scattered along the banks of the river which brought life
to the region, are peopled mainly by farmers. The valley in which
they are found has played an important part in Italian history.
In ancient times barbarian invaders marched to the conquest of
the peninsula through its conveniently situated gap. During three
centuries the armor-clad troops sent by German emperors to crush
revolts in Cisalpine cities crossed the Alps at the Brenner Pass
and followed the channel of the Adige as it broadened towards the
south. Down the same valley Austrian regiments poured into Lombardy
in 1860, when the plainsmen gave signs of readiness to revolt
from foreign rule. Modern changes have failed to detract from the
importance of this ancient highway, for the shortest railroad route
connecting Italy with central Germany is constructed along the
natural groove carved by the southward flowing waters of the Adige,
and the transit trade between the two countries follows its channel.

The most important Germanic invasion of the Trentino in historical
times began in 375 A.D. and lasted two centuries. This movement
was repeated in the last half of the tenth century. Under the rule
of the bishop-prince Frederick of Vanga, a considerable number of
German settlers established themselves on his territory between the
years 1207 and 1218. The actual Germanization of the highlanders
of the southern Tyrol had its start in this period, the records
of the time showing changes from Italian to German in the names
of localities as lands and estates were acquired by Germans. But
throughout medieval times and to the end of the eighteenth century,
historical records make mention of the Florentine character of its
industrial and commercial life.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 26--View of the historic Brenner Puss. Through this mountain
  gap Teutonic invaders have poured into Italy since the dawn of
  history.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 27--The mountain settlement of Cortina in the Ampezzo
  district in the Trentino is inhabited mainly by Italians.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 28--The approach to Meran in the Austrian Tyrol and at the
  Italo-Germanic language border.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 29--Stelvio Pass at the eastern edge of the area of Romansh
  dialects, showing the mountainous character of the country in
  which this language has survived.]

The southerly advance of the German language in the mountainous
province has followed the valleys of the Etsch and Eisack, for
the channels through which mountain waters flowed towards the
Adriatic also facilitated the transportation of goods from the
German highlands of central Europe to the Mediterranean. A steady
current of freight has been maintained in a southerly course along
this route since the beginning of continental commerce in Europe.
In the Middle Ages numerous colonies of German traders had acquired
solid footing along the much traveled road over the Brenner Pass
which connected Augsburg and Venice.[55]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 30--Sketch map of the Trentino showing languages spoken.
  Scale, 1:2,400,000.]

Early activity of German traders stamped its imprint on the
linguistic map by a wedge of Teutonic speech thrust towards the
Trentino, between Italian on the west and Ladin on the east. This
linguistic protuberance occupies the valley of the Etsch south
of its confluence with the Eisack. The divide between the two
languages has its westernmost reach near Trafoi,[56] known also as
Travis. The junction of Swiss and Austrian political boundaries at
this point corresponds to the contact between the German of the
Tyrol and the Romanic idioms of Engadine. Thence, the linguistic
line of separation skirts the base of the Ortler massif and
subsequently coincides with the watershed of the Etsch and Noce
rivers. Ladin settlements begin north of the Fleims valley[57] and
spread beyond the Gradena basin (Grödenthal) to Pontebba (Pontafel)
and Malborghet where the meeting of Europe’s three most important
linguistic stocks, the Romanic, Germanic and Slavic, occurs.

The language spoken by the Italians of the Trentino consists of
Lombard and Venetian dialects. Ladin dialects are spoken in some of
the small valleys east of the Adige. In the valley of Monastero,
near the Swiss frontier, the inhabitants speak a dialect of Ladin
or Romansh which is akin to Friulian. This patois was in greater
use during the Middle Ages. The Ladins, both in Austria and Italy,
are Italians in every respect save that of language, although
here also the two peoples are closely related. Ladin language is
a slightly altered form of Latin containing words of non-Romanic
stock which differ according to the locality overrun by the Romans.
The same definition applies to the Romansh language of Switzerland.
Romansh and Ladin are therefore basically Latin languages which
did not develop to the stage of Italian or French and which differ
from each other in the number of pre-Roman words they contain.
Friulian belongs to the same category of Romance languages and
differs from Ladin merely in having a larger proportion of Italian
words. Like Ladin it is not a literary language and is therefore
being superseded by Italian. Romansh dialects of Switzerland will
probably survive longer since in the canton of Grisons they are
recognized as official together with German and Italian, and in
Engadine Romansh is still a literary dialect.

The claims of Italy in the Trentino include[58] the Bolzano
district lying at the confluence of the Isarco and the Adige. This
locality is peopled by 16,000 Germans and 4,000 Italians. Meran,
the upper valleys Of the Adige and Isarco together with their
affluents, Bressanone on the Isarco, and Bruneco on the Rienza
likewise fall within the territory claimed by Italy. A return to
the Italian fold of the small groups of Italians scattered between
Salorno and Bolzano, between Bolzano and Meran and between Bruneco
and Bressanone is shown in this manner to lie within the realm of
possibility. As early as 774 Charlemagne’s division of the region
between the kingdoms of Bavaria and Italy had implied recognition
of linguistic variations. But the importance of maintaining German
control over natural lines of access to southern seas determined
his successors to award temporal rights in the southeastern Alps
to bishops upon whose adherence to Germanic interests reliance
could be placed. The bishopric of Trentino thus passed under the
Teutonic sphere of influence. The present political union of the
territory of the old see with the Austrian Empire is hence a relic
of medieval German politics.

Historically the Trentino’s connection with Italy rests on ancient
foundations. At the height of Roman power Tridentium was an
important city. It was situated in the tenth Italian region, known
as Venetia et Histria. After the fall of the western Empire it was
included in the Italian districts conquered by the Ostrogoths
and Byzantines. Under the Lombards Trent became the capital of a
dukedom. In the Romano-Germanic feudal period it was part of the
kingdom of Italy constituted by Charles the Great, and later, of
the Marches of Verona established by Otto I. Conrad II in 1027
turned the region over to religious ownership. From this date on
it is known as the princely bishopric of Trent. The bishop-princes
who ruled in the Trentino, however, were constantly at war with
the feudal lords who had authority over the lands north and south
of the Trentino. In the sixteenth century the court of Bernardo
Clesio, one of the most famous of these religious rulers, was
distinctly Italian in thought and customs.

The Trentino bishopric was abolished in 1805 by Napoleon and the
region then became part of the kingdom of Bavaria. From 1809 to
1814, however, the Trentino, together with a part of the upper
Adige valley, was converted into an Italian administrative district
under the name of Dipartimento dell’ Alto Adige. In 1815 the region
was assigned to Austria together with Lombardo-Venetia and the
Tyrol.

Throughout the eventful history of the present millennium the
Tyrol has been the cockpit of Germano-Romance clashes. A lively
competition between German and Italian traders has always been
maintained within its borders. During the era of religious
upheavals, the Germans rallied to the cause of the Reformation
while the Italian element remained faithful to the authority of
the Vatican. Contact with the Teutonic element appears to have
failed, however, to eradicate or modify the Italian character of
the region’s life and institutions.[59]

The splendor of the Italian Renaissance stamped its mark on all
the Tyrolese districts drained by waters flowing southwards.
Castles and churches of the Trentino show the influence of Italian
architectural styles. Their interior ornamentation derived its
inspiration from the same source. In painting, the Bressanone
and Bolzano schools of the fifteenth century likewise maintained
Italian traditions in the valley of the upper Adige. Statues and
bas-reliefs in the towns of this region also bear witness to the
Italian taste of its inhabitants.

All these artistic leanings towards Italy are best observed in
Trent itself. The celebrated castle of the “Buen Consiglio” is a
blend of Venetian and Veronese styles. Bramante was the architect
of the Tabarelli palace, and a disciple of Tullio Lombardo
built that of Moar. The Duomo di Trento owes its beauty mainly
to the artistic conceptions of the Comacini masters. Some of
its frescoes dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries
are the handicraft of Veronese artists. This Italian influence
has been maintained to the present day. A tourist reaching the
city will behold Dante’s symbolic statue--the work of Zocchi, a
Florentine--immediately upon leaving the main station.[60] Roaming
through the city his attention will be attracted by innumerable
reminders of modern Italian work of the type seen in the façade
of St. Peter’s church. These are concrete manifestations of an
intellectual and artistic outflow from the Italian border northward.

Reports on the German propaganda carried on in the Trentino
have been made on several occasions to their governments by
Italian consular agents.[61] This movement is prosecuted with
untiring perseverance by the members of the Tiroler Volksbund,
an organization founded in 1905, for the purpose of diffusing
German language and customs in southern Tyrol. Schools and other
institutions managed by German staffs provide Teutonic education
free of cost to the natives. Periodicals and pamphlets are
distributed profusely to this end. Lectures setting forth the
Germanic origins of Trentino settlements are delivered. A more
aggressive method of action consists in sending out “Wanderlehrers”
or traveling teachers to give elementary courses from village to
village.

Descendants of Rheto-Romans settled in eastern Tyrol speak a
language of Latin stock which, in common with other mountain
languages, failed to blossom into literature mainly on account of
the secluded life of its highland users. The dialect is closely
allied to the Friulian. The two form together the western border of
the Slovene linguistic area and attain Triest on the south. Lack of
written masterpieces tends to weaken the life of the language and
it is being replaced by Italian. Concurrently with the growth of
the region’s foreign intercourse in modern times invasion of German
words can also be detected, though not to the extent of impairing
the fundamental Romanic strain.

The Adriatic provinces of the Austro-Hungarian Empire are peopled
mainly by Italians and Slavs. German and Hungarian elements in
the population consist of civil and military officials and of
merchants. From an ethnological and linguistic standpoint the
maritime district is Italian or Slav according to its elevation.
The Romanic stock forms the piedmont populations while the dwellers
of the hilly coast chains are of Slavic issue and speech. The
western coast of the Istrian peninsula, however, is an area of
Italian speech, which is generally confined to urban centers.

The following figures for the population of the Dalmatian islands
show the numerical inferiority of the Italians:[62]

                 Population        Inhabitants
                according to        speaking         Inhabitants
                  census of       Serbo-Croatian       speaking
  LOCALITY          1910             dialects          Italian
                                 Number  Per cent  Number  Per cent
  Lissa,
  St. Andrea
  and Busi          10,041        9,939    98.98       92    0.92

  Lesina,
  Spalmadori
  and Torcola       16,861       16,340    96.91      494    2.92

  Curzola, Cazza,
  Lagosta and
  adjoining reefs   21,628       21,186    97.95      436    2.01

  Stagno district,
  including
  Meleda island[63]  9,424        9,393    99.67        9    0.1

Zara, Spalato, Sebenico, Ragusa and Cattaro,[64] however, contain
flourishing colonies of Italians whose commercial enterprise has
helped their mother tongue to prevail if not predominate in their
region. Outside of these cities, the Italian element, wherever
present, is restricted to littoral strips. The Slavs invariably
occupy the plateau and the slopes extending seaward.

The Istrian region of predominant Italian speech consists of the
western peninsular lowland extending south of Triest[65] to the
tip of the promontory beyond Pola.[66] Istrians to whom Italian is
vernacular number 147,420 individuals according to the census of
1910. The Slavs of the Karst and terraced sections constituting the
rest of the population belong to the Roman faith, but have no other
common bond with their Italian countrymen.

Istria is a triangle about 60 miles long with a maximum breadth of
46 miles. It rises from the southwestern coast gradually up to the
Dinaric Alps. Owing to its undulating surface and the absence of
coastal plains, it may be regarded as a part of this range, jutting
out into the sea. On the whole, Istria may be called a Karst
land, for three-fourths of its surface consists of Karst-forming
limestone and only one-fourth of sandstone and marl. With few
exceptions its natural waterways are confined to the sandstone
districts. The peninsula is also a transition region between the
mild Mediterranean and central European climates. The summers
are dry and in autumn heavy rains fall. Almost all the land is
productive and 67 per cent of its population live by agriculture
and forestry.

Settlement by Slavs of the hills dominating the Adriatic appears
to have taken place continuously from the ninth to the seventeenth
century. Feudatory chiefs of medieval ages first resorted to this
method of developing the uncultivated slopes and highlands of the
eastern coast. The Venetian republic and the Austrian government
adopted similar measures of colonization. Slavic tribes, hard
pressed by their kinsmen or by Tatars from the east, thus found
refuge in the mountainous Dalmatian coastland under the ægis of
western nations. A traveler taking ship today and sailing from
harbor to harbor along the shores of the eastern Adriatic would
readily notice the numerical superiority of these descendants of
Slavs. They constitute the mass of toilers in every walk of life,
and sooner or later probably will erect a political fabric on the
foundations of their linguistic preponderance.

Slavic dialects are found in the Friulian sections of eastern Italy
as well as in the Abruzzi and Molise regions. The Slavic population
of Friuli was estimated in 1851 at 26,676. The census of 1901
records the existence of 5,734 Slavic-speaking families scattered
in 16 communi and consisting of about 36,000 individuals.

The Slavs of Italy may be divided into four dialectical groups as
follows:[67]

  Natisone group composed of 17,291 individuals
  Torre      “       “    “  12,986     “
  Judrio     “       “    “   1,230     “
  Resia      “       “    “   4,671     “

The Molise group is the remnant of a once extensive Slav colony
which had reached the province of Chieti. Round-headedness,
accompanied by high stature and blondness, among inhabitants of the
communes of Vasto, Cupello, Monteoderisio, Abbateggio, Lanciano,
San Giovanni Teatino, Cascanditella and San Vito Chietino betrays
Slavic ancestry. And yet Slavic dialects are hardly heard any
longer in these country districts. The communes of Acquaviva
Collecroce and San Felice Slavo alone boast of some 4,500
inhabitants who speak Slovene.

The Karst or Carso formation on which Slovene life developed is
the western section of a long calcareous plateau which extends from
the Julian Alps, along the border of the ancient Friulian gulf
and attains Balkan ranges. It separates the valley of the Save
from the Adriatic. A characteristic aspect is noticeable over all
its extent in the thickness of its limestone beds and their deep
fissures. Surface water cannot collect and flow for any distance
without disappearing into a fissure. The erosion forms of the
plateau are of the Karst type and differ radically from those of
the average humid climate. Chambers of marvelous dimensions are
formed; funnel-shaped sink-holes dot the surface; and the rivers
run underground.

The Slovenes settled on the calcareous plateau of Carniola cluster
around Laibach and attain the area of German speech on the north,
along the Drave between Marburg and Klagenfurth. Eastward they
march with Hungarians and the Serbo-Croat group of southern Slavs.
Their southern linguistic boundary also coincides with that of the
latter. Around Gottschee, however, a zone of German intervenes
between Slovene and Croatian dialects. Practically the entire
eastern coast of the Gulf of Triest lies in the area of Slovene
speech. The group thereby acquires the advantage of direct access
to the sea, a fact of no mean importance among the causes that
contributed to its survival to the present day in spite of its
being surrounded by Germans, Hungarians, Croats and Italians.

The Slovenes may be considered as laggards among the Slavic
immigrants who followed Avar invasions. They would probably have
occupied the fertile plains of Hungary had they not been driven to
their elevated home by the pressure of Magyar and Turkish advances.
Confinement in the upland prevented their fusion with any of the
successive occupants of the eastern plains below their mountain
habitations. Racial distinctiveness, characterized by language no
less than by a highly developed attachment to tradition, resulted
from this seclusion.

Starting from the Adriatic Sea in the vicinity of Triest the
boundary of Slovene territory, according to Niederle, extends
to Duino, Montefalcone, Gradisca and Cormons. From the last
locality it heads for Italian territory, within which it cuts off
the districts east of Tarcento and Resia from the area of Italian
speech. At Kanin the line is once more on Austrian soil. It now
proceeds to Pontafel, Saint-Hermagoras, Dobrac and Villach, the
latter city being mainly German. Beyond the Drave, the linguistic
frontier passes close to Woerther Lake and thence by Kostenberg
and Moosburg. From this town the divide is prolonged to Gurk and
extends towards Diex, Greutschach, Griffen and St. Pancrace. It
next attains Arnfels. Fifty years ago, according to the same
authority, the environs of this village were inhabited by Slovene
populations. The district has since then been reclaimed by German
speech. The same is true of the right bank of the Mur in the
vicinity of Radkersburg.

At Radgona, the Slovene boundary crosses the Mur once more and
extends northward into Hungary as far as the German village of St.
Gotthard, which it leaves to the north. Thence it turns southward
at the Raab and heads for the Mur, which it crosses at Gornia
Bistrica. The line then runs close to the provincial boundaries
of Croatia and Carniola before attaining the sea again in Istria.
The Slovene area thus delimited comprises the duchy of Carniola,
excepting the Gottschee enclave, northern Istria, the Udine region,
southeastern Karinthia, southern Styria and part of the Hungarian
“comitats” of Vas and Zala. This Slovene land is now but a dwindled
remnant of its former extension. At one time the Slovenes extended
as far west as the Pusterthal in Tyrol, while their settlements
even reached the Danube (at Linz and Vienna).

Contact between languages on the Italo-Austrian frontier has
influenced the political relations between the two countries.
The whole foreign policy of the Austrian Empire, in fact, may be
said to have been stimulated mainly by the necessity of keeping
its mixed population in subjection. The central position of
Austria-Hungary had made it the meeting-place of every important
race in Europe. The mountain-girt monarchy is a seething reservoir
of nationalities. Germans from the west flow into it. Czechs and
Slovaks press in from the northwest, Poles and Ruthenians from the
north and northeast. A Rumanian drive proceeds from the southeast.
Croats, Serbians and Slovenes are steadily pushing northward.
Italians, advancing from the southwest, complete the ring. Facing
these racial swarms a central mass of Hungarians are striving to
expand against them.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 31--The area of Slovene speech in Austria and adjacent parts
  of Italy.]

For more than twelve centuries Austria’s geographical position
has made her the protectress of Europe from successive onslaughts
of barbarian hordes pressing from the east. The German-speaking
nucleus of the present Dual Monarchy was founded, at the end of
the eighth century, by Charles the Great as a bulwark against the
Avars. A little later the rôle of stemming the tide of Hungarian
attacks also devolved upon it. Fighting incessantly and on the
whole successfully against eastern invaders, the Austrians
gradually extended their territory towards the Orient. The valley
of the Danube provided them with settling-land and passage-way.
War and marriages brought their share of added territory to the
Hapsburg reigning family. By 1526 Moravia, Bohemia, Silesia and
Hungary had been added to the Empire. Transylvania was conquered in
the seventeenth century, Galicia and Bukovina in the eighteenth.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Austria was the leader
among German-speaking states. Prussian shot and shell ousted her
from this position at the battle of Sadowa in 1866. But the task
undertaken over a thousand years ago is still being performed.
Austrians today are engaged in another effort to check the westward
Slavic flow.

The country is ill-prepared to meet its hereditary foe. The
sovereign existence of Austria-Hungary to this day can be regarded
only as an exceedingly marvelous feat of political jugglery. Its
weakness lies in the presence of strong contingents of dissimilar
races in its population. Struggle between the component masses
is as unending as it is passionate. To the lack of linguistic
or racial affinity must be added the want of a liberal form of
government in the strictly representative or federative sense.
Representative government, in the absence of everything else, might
have provided the required bond of political cohesion. Of the
total population of Austria only 11,000,000, or 24 per cent, are
Germans. These Teutons pay allegiance to the Hapsburg emperor along
with 9,000,000 Hungarians, 3,000,000 Rumanians and about 1,000,000
Italians. The Slavic race, however, outnumbers every other element
in the Empire. Its 21,000,000 members constitute 44 per cent of the
subjects of Charles I.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. III_

AUSTRIA-HUNGARY AND PARTS OF SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE SHOWING LANGUAGES]

In one sense Austria’s mission of protecting Europe ended as
soon as the Ottoman Empire ceased to be a source of danger. To
consolidate Danubian nationalities in a single group capable of
withstanding the Turkish advance had constituted Austria’s most
glorious part in modern history. With the elimination of the
Turkish danger, the necessity of political union among the peoples
occupying the valley of the Danube was removed. The chief reason
for the maintenance of an Austrian state thereby ceases to exist.
Events of our own times reveal the natural working out of these
international problems. As long as Mohammedanism threatened to
absorb Christianity in southeastern Europe, the various peoples
of the Austrian Empire stood shoulder to shoulder against a
common foe. The sense of security now induces them to turn their
thoughts on themselves and effectively hasten the growth of
national consciousness based on ideals and aspirations which can be
expressed in a common language.

The passing of Austria’s usefulness as a nation has been marked by
the country’s growing vassalage to the leading Teutonic power. At
Berlin, the center of Imperial Germany, the aim of every leader
is to further the easterly expansion of the Empire. Austria,
commanding the natural route to the southeast, figures as a
precious asset in these imperial estimates. But success to German
ambition spells defeat to the dreams of political independence
cherished in the minds of the peoples of Austria-Hungary. A
conflict of vital importance to each contestant is raging. The
struggle is likely to be maintained wherever more than a single
language continues to be spoken.

The mastery of the Adriatic, claimed by Italy at present, has been
contested in the past twenty-five centuries by every people which
succeeded in gaining a foothold on its shores. Illyrians, Greeks,
Romans, Byzantines, Venetians and Turks each in their day acquired
maritime supremacy in the Mediterranean, and naturally aspired to
control this waterway. The prize was worth fighting for. It was
part of the lane of traffic between the rich valley of the Po,
the lands beyond the Alps and eastern countries. In the present
century eastern trade generally runs in different channels. A
sufficient tonnage, however, finds its way to the great harbors
of the Adriatic to excite Italian ambitions. Moreover Italian
manufacturers are looking forward to the establishment of crosswise
trade relations with the Balkan peninsula. These are economic
considerations which impart definite aim to the policy of Italian
statesmen.

The most satisfactory picture of Italian desire to annex Dalmatia
appears on maps of the Adriatic, which show the contrast between
the opposite coasts. On the Italian side, the coastline runs
with monotonous uniformity. It is devoid of the headlands, gulfs
or islands which impart economic, strategic and scenic value to
Dalmatia. Barring short stretches in Puglia the entire Italian
coast is shallow and sandy. Its well-known ports hardly deserve
the name. Mariners are well aware of the obstacles to navigation
along the whole western Adriatic shore. At the head of this sea,
especially, the situation for Italian shipping is most unfavorable,
owing to the large number of rivers which discharge material
collected from practically the entire eastern watershed of the
Alps and that of the northern Apennines. From west to east some
among the most important of these rivers are the Po, Adige, Piave
and Isonzo. This piling of material, added to the process of land
emergence going on at the head of the Adriatic, impairs the value
of the Gulf of Venice to modern navigation.

The Dalmatian coast, however, with its numerous bays and gulfs
setting far into the land and broken by many headlands, is fringed
by a garland of outlying islands. These natural features of the
region provide the advantages denied to Italy. Almost every mile of
shore in Dalmatia contains a commodious harbor for merchantmen or a
well-sheltered base for war vessels. Most of the rivers originating
in the mountain chains overlooking blue water flow eastward toward
the Danube. Very little silt and sediment therefore finds its way
to the Dalmatian coast.

Linguistically, the eastern shore of the Adriatic is Serbian or
Albanian. But the history of this coastal land is Italian in spite
of the showing of census returns as to the decided numerical
inferiority of Italians within its limits. Rome had reached
Dalmatia and the Near East by way of the Adriatic. A whole chain
of imposing ruins extending to the wild Albanian shores bear the
unmistakable impress of Roman splendor. In the partition of the
Roman Empire in 295 A.D. Dalmatia was assigned to the western
and not to the eastern half. The period of its subjection to
Venetian rule is one of the most brilliant in its history. All the
civilization it received came from the west.

The fact is that the Italian element has always been predominant.
After 1866 its influence was viewed with disfavor by the Austrian
government. Serbians and Croats were encouraged to settle in the
Italian communities of the coast and officials of the Dual Monarchy
were instructed to assist the Slavs in every possible manner with a
view to counterbalancing Italian primacy in the province. In recent
years the task of the Austrian government became doubly difficult,
for its representatives could not avoid playing alternately into
the hands of Serbians and Italians.

Dalmatia has always greeted Italian thought as the heritage of
Rome and Venice. Its history, its most notable monuments and its
whole culture are products of either Roman or Venetian influence.
The maritime cities in particular still remain strongholds of
Italian thought. Almost every one boasts of a native son who has
distinguished himself in the cause of Italy.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 32--Map of the Dalmatian coast of the Adriatic. Scale,
  1:4,000,000. (Ancient names in hair-line type.)]

Zara, which Italian authors delight in qualifying as
“italianissima,” is the native city of the Italian patriot Arturo
Colantti. The great Dalmatian poet Niccoló Tomasseo, whose monument
was erected in Sebenico in 1896, was a son of this city and,
although an intensely patriotic Slav, nevertheless thus expressed
himself in Italian:

      Nè più tra’l monte e il mar, povero lembo
      Di terra e poche ignude isole sparte,
      O Patria mia, sarai; ma la rinata
      Serbia guerriera mano e mite spirto,

showing thereby the extent of the hold of Italian culture over the
land. Again, Spalato is the birthplace of Antonio Bajamonti, one of
the greatest exponents of Italy’s claims over Dalmatia.

According to the Austrian census of 1910 the population of the
province consisted of 645,666 inhabitants. Of these it is estimated
that 60,000 are Italians, who constitute the progressive and
educated element of the population. The Slav inhabitants number
approximately 480,000, but only about 30,000 among them have a
speaking knowledge of Italian. The mass of this Slavic element is
uneducated.

The Illyrians were early inhabitants of the eastern Adriatic
coast whom the Romans had conquered in order to check piracy
in the Adriatic. After being tamed these barbarians formed the
substratum of the population of Adriatic cities. Throughout the
coast their language was displaced during the Middle Ages by the
Venetian of Italian traders. In the Albanian mountains, however,
the old Illyrian tongue strongly impregnated with Latin words still
survives. Roman influence could not be exerted on this rugged land
as strongly as on the coast.

Rome’s ancient domination of the Illyrian coast and Wallachian
plains led to highly interesting consequences. A genuine Romance
language was once spoken by the mountain population of shepherds
which extended across the entire Balkan peninsula from the
Dalmatian coast, through the Bosnian and Serbian highlands,
into the easternmost ranges of the Carpathians. The similarity
observable in Balkan and Carpathian mountain dialects thus finds
its source in the original easterly expansion of Rome. The Banat
territory, in which the proportion of Rumanian inhabitants is high,
is the bridge land which connects the Rumanian form of Latin used
on the broad Transylvanian shelf to the Albanian prevailing in the
broken-up highlands of Albania. Romance speech therefore found a
ready soil in the Balkan uplifts. It may even be detected in the
mountainous sections of Thrace, a province which also fell under
Roman rule during the transition period from pagan to Christian
days.

The arrival of Slavs in the seventh century forced the Romans to
take refuge behind city walls, so that although the vast non-urban
part of the province became Slavic in population, the cities
remained Latin and formed themselves into a number of independent
republics. These city states passed under Venetian protection in
the ninth and tenth centuries to safeguard themselves against
the piratical raids of Slavs who had succumbed to the nefarious
influence exerted by the dissected coast with its numerous fiords
and deep-water harbors.

The Venetian protectorate soon became converted into direct
sovereignty. But the yoke of the Doges lay light on the land,
the administration of cities being left entirely in the hands
of the citizens. Venetian authority was most strongly felt in
Dalmatia after the assumption of the title of Dux Histriae et
Dalmatiae by Doge Pietro Orseolo II. All the efforts of Hungarians
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and of Turks in the
seventeenth, to insinuate themselves into Dalmatian affairs
were futile. The imposing barrier of the Dinaric Alps forbade
intercourse between Dalmatia and the east. Life and progress flowed
into the province from the west over Adriatic waters.

Dalmatia changed hands frequently during the Napoleonic period.
Perhaps it is on this account that the Dalmatian, when questioned
regarding his nationality, answers by stating that he has two
languages. Of these he calls one “lingua del cuore,” and the other
“lingua del pane.” His native province was awarded to Austria by
the treaty of Campoformio in 1797 and subsequently annexed to
Napoleon’s Empire by the treaty of Presburg in 1805. It reverted to
Austrian rule in 1814. Successive masters, however, failed to root
out Italian in the region. The language was recognized as official
until 1860. The formation of a united Italian state marked the
beginning of a repressive policy directed against Italians by the
Austrian government. The effort of the Hapsburg administration was
entirely directed towards the development of the Adriatic Slavs
in order to counterbalance Italian influence. A great revival of
Croatian and Serbian national feeling resulted from this policy.

The award of the entire eastern Adriatic coast to Italy would not
only trespass on lands of alien speech, but would seriously hamper
future economic development of Croatians and Serbians by preventing
these peoples from attaining the sea. These points are admitted by
most Italian irredentists. They therefore limit their claims to
the Istrian peninsula and the coast region of Dalmatia comprised
between the Velebiti range and the Narenta river. Italy’s position
in the Adriatic would be improved by the recognition of the rights
of her Slav neighbors. The goodwill of a united and liberated
Jugoslavia, which would be bound to Italy by ties of interest and
sentiment, would thus be acquired.

The Croatian coastland, in the section which extends along the
waterway of the same name from the gulf of Fiume to the mouth of
the Zermagna river, is known as the Morlacca. The bay of Buccari is
strategically necessary for the protection of Fiume, and Italians
would probably make a strong claim for its possession in case the
larger seaport came into their possession. The Serbian coastland
really begins south of the Narenta river and centers around Ragusa.
This is the only city of any importance on the Adriatic coast in
which evidences of Serbian culture are discernible.

The old Slavic settlers were probably traders who plied between
the coasts of Dalmatia and Abruzzi during the Middle Ages. In
the kingdom of Naples Slav colonists are known as early as the
eleventh century, during the reign of Emperor Otto I. The bulk of
Slavic immigration into Italy dates, however, from the beginning
of the fifteenth century when possession of the coast provinces
was disputed by the Aragonians and Angevins. Both claimants
induced Slavs to colonize the contested regions on condition that
they would recognize the authority of those who provided them
with land. At a later period the advance of Turkish hordes in the
Balkans drove a large number of Slavic families westward.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 33--The Slavic colonies of the Molise group in eastern Italy
  are shown by black dots.]

The Turkish conquest of Greece also forced many Greek families to
seek safety on the Italian mainland. As a result, two communities
of Greek speech are found on Italian territory at Lecce in the
province of Puglia and at Bora in Calabria. The vernacular of
both these regions contains a strong proportion of Italian words
without, however, losing its affinity with the original mother
tongue. The Lecce community consists of 4,973 families scattered in
nine communi. The southern group is represented by 2,389 families
settled in four communi of the Bora district, in Reggio di Calabria
and in Palizzi. Altogether Greek is spoken as a vernacular by
30,700 inhabitants of Italy.

Still another reminder of the Turkish conquests of the fifteenth
and sixteenth centuries is afforded by the presence of an Albanian
element living along the eastern coast of Italy. This group
consists of between 80,000 and 90,000 Albanians speaking their
own language. The purity of Albanian speech and custom has been
preserved by them on the alien soil skirting western Adriatic
waters.[68]

This total shows a marked decrease from the figure of 96,000
reported in the census of 1901. Emigration accounts mainly for
this loss. At the same time, a tendency among Albanians to forsake
their vernacular for Italian is discernible as intercourse with the
dominant element increases.

All these nuclei of foreign languages cannot impair the unity of
Italian nationality because the racial distinctions on which they
are based have been largely obliterated. The final supremacy of
Italian language is already in sight. From the valleys of Piedmont
to the eastern coastlands which face Albania, the alien tongues are
giving way before the national vernacular, perhaps just because no
pressure or effort to hasten their disappearance is being exerted
by the government.


TABLE I

INHABITANTS OF ITALY SPEAKING NON-ITALIAN VERNACULARS[69]

                                  Number of Families[70]
                                 (Average of four persons
  LANGUAGE    Localities               to the family)

  French      Saluzzo (Cuneo)                 238
              Aosta (Torino)               15,692
              Pignerol                      1,937
              Suse                          1,779
  German      Aosta (Torino)                  430
              Domodossola (Novara)            250
              Varallo                         412
              Asiago (Vicenza)                501
              Tregnago (Verona)                30
              Pieve di Cadore (Belluno)       299
              Tolmezzo (Udine)                280
  Slovene     Cividale del Friuli (Udine)   3,769
              Gemona                          120
              Tolmezzo                        990
              Tarcento                      1,371
  Serbian     Larino (Campobasso)           1,069
  Albanian    Larino (Campobasso)           2,431
              Penne (Teramo)                   66
              Ariano di Puglia (Avel.)        763
              San Severo (Foggia)             832
              Taranto (Lecce)                 757
              Lagonegro (Potenza)           2,319
              Catanzaro                       701
              Cotrone (Catanzaro)             789
              Nicastro                        434
              Castrovillari (Cosenza)       3,330
              Cosenza                       1,441
              Paola (Cosenza)                 408
              Rossano                       1,702
              Corleone (Palermo)              385
              Palermo                       2,733
  Greek       Lecce                         4,935
              Gerace (Reggio di Calab.)       129
              Reggio di Calabria            1,841
  Catalonian  Alghero (Sassari)             2,552
                                           ------
                               Total       57,715

The proportion of inhabitants of Italian (including Ladin)
speech in the Adriatic lands claimed by Italy is given as follows
according to the Austrian Census of 1910:[71]


TABLE II

PROPORTION OF INHABITANTS OF ITALIAN (INCLUDING LADIN) SPEECH IN
THE ADRIATIC LANDS CLAIMED BY ITALY ACCORDING TO THE AUSTRIAN
CENSUS OF 1910:

                                           Number of Italian
    COAST              Total number of    (and Ladin) speaking
  PROVINCES           Austrian subjects     Austrian subjects
  Triest (city)            190,913                118,959
  Görz      “               29,291                 14,812
  Görz        (district)    73,275                  2,765
  Gradisca        “         31,321                 26,263
  Monfalcone      “         47,858                 45,907
  Sesana          “         30,078                    343
  Tolmein         “         38,070                     29
  Rovigno (city)            11,308                 10,859
  Capodistria (district)    87,652                 38,006
  Lussin          “         20,450                  9,884
  Mitterburg      “         48,243                  4,032
  Parenzo         “         60,368                 41,276
  Pola            “         85,943                 40,863
  Veglia          “         21,136                  1,544
  Volosca         “         51,363                    953

                                           Number of Italian
                       Total number of    (and Ladin) speaking
  DALMATIA            Austrian subjects     Austrian subjects
  Benkovac    (district)    44,054                     84
  Cattaro          “        36,014                    538
  Curzola          “        29,695                    444
  Imotski          “        42,086                     46
  Knin             “        54,936                    186
  Lesina           “        26,902                    586
  Makarska         “        27,649                    117
  Metkovic         “        15,475                     32
  Ragusa           “        38,632                    526
  San Pietro       “
   (Brazza)                 22,865                    265
  Sebenico         “        57,658                    968
  Sinj             “        57,021                    111
  Spalato          “        98,509                  2,357
  Zara             “        83,359                 11,768


FOOTNOTES:

[48] Colonie straniere nel territorio politico. _La Geogr._, Vol.
3, 1915, May-June, pp. 222-224.

[49] L. Fune: Les parlers populaires du Département des
Alpes-Maritimes, _Bull. Géogr. Hist. et Descrip._, 1897, No. 2, pp.
298-303.

[50] Op. cit.

[51] Blocher u. Garraux: Die deut. Ortsnamenformen in Westschweiz,
_Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 5, 1906, p. 170.

[52] The Italian population of Austria-Hungary is estimated
at 768,422 according to the Austrian census of 1910. Italian
computations set the total number of Italians living in Austria at
837,000, distributed as follows (_Boll. Real. Soc. Geogr._, Aug. 1,
1915, p. 897):

  Upper Adige Valley         25,000
  Trentino                  373,000
  Triest                    142,000
  Austrian Friuliland        93,000
  Istria                    148,000
  Dalmatia                   30,000
  Fiume                      26,000
                            -------
     Total                  837,000

[53] G. de Lucchi: Trentino e Tirolo, _Boll. 16, Minist. Aff.
Esteri_, Rome, 1915, p. 70.

[54] A. Dauzat: Les vallées italiennes de langue allemande, _A
Travers le Monde_, 1913, Sept. 6, pp. 285-286.

[55] O. Noel, Histoire du commerce du monde, Paris, 1891, Vol. 2,
pp. 148-168.

[56] B. Auerbach: Races et nationalités en Autriche-Hongrie, Paris,
1898, p. 86.

[57] Scheller, Deutsche u. Romanen in Südtirol u. Venetien, _Pet.
Mitt._, 1877, pp. 365-385.

[58] A. Galanti: I diritti storici ed etnici dell’ Italia sulle
terre irredente, _La Geogr._, Vol. 3, Nos. 3-4, March-April 1915,
p. 88.

[59] A. Galanti: I Tedeschi sul versante meridionale delle Alpi,
Typ. Acad. Lincei, Rome, 1885, p. 185.

[60] According to press reports in 1915 Dante’s monument was
destroyed by the Austrians.

[61] G. de Lucchi: Trentino e Tirolo, _Boll. 16, Minist. Aff.
Esteri_, Rome, 1915.

[62] O. Keude: Italien und die Dalmatienische Inselfrage, _Kartogr.
Zeits._, Vienna, Nov. 15, 1915.

[63] Austrian census returns have been the object of frequent
criticism in non-Germanic countries. The political interests of
the Austrian government may have led its officials to minimize the
importance of the language spoken by dissenting peoples. A tendency
to overestimate the spread of German has always been suspected.
A common practice consists in forming artificial administrative
districts so as to create German numerical superiority within their
borders. As a rule an increase of 10 per cent in the number of
Slavs, Rumanians and Italians can be safely added to the figures
set forth in government statistics. Conversely the same percentage
may be subtracted with safety from the totals for Germans and
Hungarians.

[64] Italian predominates in both Zara and Spalato, the latter city
being second in commercial importance along the Dalmatian coast.
It is estimated that, in all, more than 18,000 Italians inhabit
Dalmatia.

[65] Triest and its environs are peopled mainly by Italians. The
suburbs are inhabited by crowded Slavic settlements. The census of
1910 shows 118,960 Italians, 57,920 Slovenes, 11,860 Germans and
2,400 Croats. For Istria returns of the same date give: Italians
147,417, Serbo-Croatians 168,184, Slovenes 55,134.

[66] M. Wutte: Das Deutschtum in Österreichischen Küstenland,
_Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 8, 1909, p. 202.

[67] G. Canastrelli: Il numero degli Slavi in Friuli, _Riv. Geogr.
It._, Vol. 21, Nos. 1-2, Jan-Feb. 1914, pp. 96-102.

[68] O. Marinelli: Il numero degli Albanesi in Italia, _Riv. Geogr.
It._, Vol. 20, pp. 364-367; A. Similari: Gli Albanesi in Italia,
loro costumi e poesie popolari, Naples, 1891.

[69] _Annuario Statistico Italiano_, 2d series, Vol. 4, 1914, Roma,
1915, p. 28.

[70] The Italian practice of computing by families is a result in
this instance of the official standpoint which recognizes foreign
languages as prevailing only in home life.

[71] G. Lukas: Die Latinität der adriatischen Küste
Österreich-Ungarns--Geographische Vorlesungen, _Pet. Mitt_., Vol.
6, Nov. 1915, pp. 413-416.




CHAPTER V

SCANDINAVIAN AND BALTIC LANGUAGES


Scandinavia’s remoteness from the center of European political
strife has not saved the region from the inconveniences arising
from linguistic clashes. Especially is this true where political
and linguistic boundaries do not coincide. The Danish-German
frontier has been marked by antagonism between Danes and Germans.
Denmark’s hold on Schleswig-Holstein prior to 1866 had engendered
bitter feeling among Germans, who considered the subjection of
their kinsmen settled on the right bank of the Elbe estuary as
unnatural. After Prussia had annexed the contested region, it was
the Danes’ turn to feel dissatisfied and to claim the districts
occupied by their countrymen.

The problem of Schleswig-Holstein is a direct consequence of
Germany’s geography. By its position in Europe the Teutonic empire
is essentially a land power. Its maritime development began in the
midst of adverse natural conditions in the northern confines of the
country. The southern Baltic and the North Sea are both shallow.
Sandbanks and winter ice hamper navigation in the easternmost
stretch of these waters. An outlet exists only in the round-about
and rock-studded Danish straits. The Oder, Elbe and Ems are
constantly discharging material collected from the mountainous
heart of Europe. The harbors of the northwestern shore are
artificial and require ceaseless watching, for all of which German
navigation pays a heavy annual tax.

The Danish tongue of land which divides Germany’s northern sea
boundary into two separate regions contains in its eastern and
northern coasts the very advantages which Germany cannot find
on its northern frontier. Eastern Jutland boasts a few natural
harbors located at the head of the indentations which impart a
fiord-like aspect to this coast and which in course of time have
grown into centers of commercial activity. German shipping circles
would consider the annexation of the Danish peninsula to Germany
as a measure leading to high economic advantages, even though the
construction of the Kiel canal has materially changed conditions
which affected the Danish-German situation when the duchies of
Schleswig and Holstein were annexed in 1866.

The present Danish-speaking population of Schleswig-Holstein is
variously estimated at between 140,000 and 150,000. These subjects
of the Kaiser occupy the territory south of the Danish boundary
to a line formed by the western section of the Lecker Au, the
southern border of the swampy region extending south of Rens and
the northern extension of the Angeln hills. Between this line and
the area in which German is spoken a zone of the old Frisian tongue
of Holland survives along the western coast of the peninsula from
the Lecker Au to the Treene river.[72] Frisian is also spoken in
the coastal islands.

The degree to which linguistic variations adapt themselves to
physical configuration is admirably illustrated in this case, by
the southerly extension of Danish along the eastern section of the
peninsula where persistence of the Baltic ridge appears in the
hilly nature of the land. The Low German of the long Baltic plain
also continued to spread unimpeded within the low-lying western
portion of the narrow peninsula, until its northward extension was
arrested by uninhabited heath land. The presence of Frisian along
the western coast is undoubtedly connected with the adaptability of
Frisians to settle in land areas reclaimed from the sea.

The province of Schleswig began to acquire historical prominence
as an independent duchy in the twelfth century. Barring few
interruptions its union with the Danish crown has been continuous
to the time of the Prussian conquest. In 1848 both Schleswig and
Holstein were disturbed by a wave of political agitation which
expressed itself in demands for the joint incorporation of both
states in the German Confederation. To what extent the mass of
Danish inhabitants of the duchies took part in this movement is
a matter of controversy. Holstein was an ancient fief of the old
Germano-Roman Empire. Its population has always been largely
German. But the duchy of Schleswig is peopled mainly by Danes. By
the terms of the treaty of Prague of August 23, 1866, both Austria
and Prussia had agreed to submit final decision on the question
of nationality to popular vote.[73] The provisions of the clause
dealing with the referendum, however, were not carried out, and on
Jan. 12, 1867, Schleswig was definitely annexed by Prussia.[74]

Incorporation of the Danish provinces was followed by systematic
attempts to Germanize the population[75] through the agency
of churches and schools. In addition a number of colonization
societies such as the “Ansiedelungs Verein für westliche
Nordschleswig,” founded at Rödding in 1891,[76] and the “Deutsche
Verein für das nordliche Schleswig” were formed to introduce German
ownership of land in the Danish districts. The final years of the
nineteenth century in particular constituted a period of strained
feeling between Danes and Germans owing to unsettled conditions
brought about by duality of language and tradition.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 34--Sketch map of Schleswig-Holstein showing languages
  spoken. According to the German viewpoint. Scale, 1:1,200,000.
  (Based on maps on pp. 59, 60, Andree’s Handatlas, 6th ed.)]

At present the problem of Schleswig is considered settled by the
German government. A treaty signed on January 11, 1907, between
the cabinets of Berlin and Copenhagen defined the status of the
inhabitants of the annexed duchy. The problem of the “Heimatlose”
or citizens without a country[77] was solved by the recognition
of the right of choice of nationality on their part. The German
government considered this measure as satisfying the aspirations
of its subjects of Danish birth. Nevertheless, although the Danish
government appeared to share these views, the acquiescence of
Danes living in Germany to any solution other than the restoration
to Denmark of the Danish-speaking sections of Schleswig remains
doubtful. That suspicion of the loyalty of the Schleswig Danes is
still entertained in Germany is shown by statements like that made
by Henry Goddard Leach, Secretary of the American-Scandinavian
Foundation, when he asserted[78] that Roald Amundsen, discoverer of
the South Pole, was prevented from lecturing in Norwegian, in the
town of Flensborg, because the language resembled Danish.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 35--Sketch map of Schleswig-Holstein showing languages
  spoken. According to the Danish viewpoint. Scale, 1:1,200,000.
  (After Rosendal based on Clausens and Heyers.)]

In Norway the linguistic problem goes under the name of Maalstraev.
The question of language in that country was debated with marked
fervor[79] during the years prior to the separation from Sweden.
“Freedom with self-government, home, land and our own language”
was the plea of Mr. Jörgen Lövland, subsequently Premier of Norway,
in an address to the Norwegian youth in 1904. “Political freedom,”
then said Mr. Lövland, “is not the deepest and greatest. Greater
is it for a nation to preserve her intellectual inheritance in her
native tongue.”

Norwegian history is not continuous, complaisant historians to the
contrary. A long break occurs from the Union of Kalmar in 1397,
when the country ceased to exist as a political entity, to 1814.
During this period of extinction, Norway was a mere geographical
shuttlecock tossed between Sweden and Denmark. The latter country
as a rule obtained the upper hand in its dealings with Norway. This
relation accounts for the analogies in the languages of the two
nations. But although Norway had seceded from Denmark in 1814, the
Danish language, representing the speech of the more energetic and
better educated Danes, remained official. Four and a half centuries
of union between the two countries had made Danish the medium of
intellectual development throughout Norway. But this linguistic
invasion was accompanied by a notable modification of Danish.
Norwegian intonations and sound articulations became adapted to it
and the Norwego-Danish language, which is spoken today, gradually
came into use.

This hybrid language, however, does not prevail exclusively. About
95 per cent of the Norwegians speak, according to districts,
different dialects derived from the Old Norse. The Norwego-Danish,
or Riksmaal, is the language of polite society and the one which
a foreigner naturally learns when in Norway. The language of the
land, or Norsk as it is called by the Norwegians, has the merit of
being more homogeneous than either Danish or Swedish.

Nationality and language have grown apace in Norway. Prior to
the nineteenth century the use of words taken from the Norwegian
dialects was considered bad form. The granting of a constitution to
the Norwegians, in 1814, created a strong feeling of nationality
throughout the land. This spirit was reflected in active research
for every form of Old Norse culture. Hitherto despised patois
words were forced into prose or poetry by the foremost Norwegian
writers, a movement to Norsefy the Riksmaal thus being originated.

As a result of these endeavors a new language, the “Landsmaal,”
or fatherland speech, came into being about the middle of the
nineteenth century. The name of Ivar Aasen will always be linked
with it. This highly gifted peasant devoted his life to the idea
of a renaissance of the Old Norse language through the unification
of the current peasant dialects. Scientific societies, urged by
patriotism no less than by genuine scholarly interest, granted him
subsidies which enabled him to carry on his studies. Two of his
works--“The Grammar of the Norwegian Popular Language,” published
in 1848, and a “Dictionary of the Norwegian Popular Language,” in
1850--virtually established a new medium of speech in Norway.

Landsmaal was happily introduced just about the time when a sense
of national consciousness began to dawn on Norwegian minds. By a
number of enactments of the Storting the study of the new national
tongue was made compulsory. This body first acted in May 1885 by
requesting the Government “to adopt the necessary measures so that
the people’s language, as school and official language, be placed
side by side with our ordinary written speech.”[80] Then, in 1892,
the following law for elementary schools was framed: “The school
board (in each district) shall decide whether the school readers
and text-books shall be composed in Landsmaal or the ordinary
book-‘maal’ and in which of these languages the pupil’s written
exercises shall in general be composed. But the pupil must learn to
read both languages.” Finally, in 1896, the study of Landsmaal was
made obligatory in the high schools.

After Norway secured complete national independence, in 1905, the
Landsmaal advanced rapidly. Its use was permitted in university
examinations. By 1909 one hundred and twenty-five out of six
hundred and fifty school districts had adopted “New Norse” as
the medium of instruction.[81] In the bishopric of Bergen the
new language came to stay in 56 out of 101 country parishes. The
issue between Landsmaal and Riksmaal being closely linked with
nationalism in Norway, many Norwegians have now come to look upon
the Danish tongue as a sign of former vassalage. New Norse, on the
other hand, embodies the newly acquired national independence.
In the eyes of patriots it is the language which is most closely
allied to the saga tongue of their Viking ancestors. And yet it is
stated that less than a thousand persons in Norway actually use New
Norse in their conversation.[82] The supplanting of Norwego-Danish
by the made-to-order Landsmaal bids fair to take time. But the
process of welding Norwegian dialects into a single national
language is going on. In this must be sought the significance of
Norway’s language agitation. A Norwegian tongue which will be
spoken within Norwegian boundaries is being formed. In recent years
it has been customary to publish all acts of Parliament both in
Norwego-Danish and in Landsmaal.

The Swedish language differs from Norwegian by a typical
accentuation. The growth of the language to its present form may
be traced back to the Runic period of the thirteenth century. At
that time Swedish was free from foreign admixture. The influence
of Latin and of Middle and Low German was felt later. The language
passed successively through the period of Old Swedish (1200-1500)
and Early Modern Swedish (1500-1730). Its present form belongs to
the Later Modern School, although it is spoken now without much
change from the language of the middle eighteenth century.

The eastern half of the European Continent contains a zone of
excessive linguistic intermingling along the line where Teutonic
and Slavic peoples meet. From the shores of the White Sea to the
Baltic and thence to the coast of the Black Sea an elongated
belt of lowland was ill fitted to become the seat of a single
state because nature has not provided it with strongly marked
geographical boundaries which might have favored the development of
nationality. Hence it is that before the eighteenth century we do
not find a single nation in possession of this region. On the other
hand, it is the site on which three religions met in bloody fray
in modern times. At the beginning of the modern era its northern
sections became the theater of wars between Protestants and
Catholics, while to the south, Christians arrayed against eastern
infidels were obliged to war for centuries before the danger of the
invasion of central Europe by Mohammedan hordes was totally removed.

The Finns, occupying the northernmost section of this elongated
belt, are linguistically allied to the Turki. Physically they
constitute the proto-Teutonic substratum of the northern Russians
with whom they have been merged. Their land was transferred
from Sweden to Russia in 1808. Autonomy conceded by the Czar’s
government provided the inhabitants with a tolerable political
status, until it was rescinded by the imperial decree of February
15, 1899. The opening years of the present century marked the
beginning of a policy of Slavicization prosecuted with extreme
vigor on the part of the provincial administrators.

The Finnish peoples of Russia must be regarded as autochthons
who have been subjected to the inroads of both Slavic and
Tatar invasions. In the ninth century A.D. they formed compact
populations on the European mainland directly south of Finland,
where their descendants now group themselves in scattered colonies.
Except in Finland they are being Slavicized at a rapid rate and the
Slav population is now imposing itself on the Tatar which had once
swamped the indigenous element.

Early mention of these Finns shows them divided into several
tribes. The Livs and Chuds, who dwelt mainly around the gulfs
of Livonia and of Finland, were the forefathers of the present
inhabitants of northern Livonia as well as of Esthonia.[83] The
Ingrians and the Vods inhabited the basin of the Neva. The Suomi
tribes, of which the Kvens, Karels, Yams and Tavasts were the most
important, occupied the Finnish territory held at present by their
descendants. Every river valley of northwestern Russia was in fact
a tribal homeland. The term Finnish as applied to these tribes
refers to their culture, which was Asiatic throughout. Racially,
however, they consist of Nordics with a strong addition of Tatar
blood.

The area of Finnish speech forms a compact mass extending south
of the 69th parallel to the Baltic shores. Its complete access
to the sea is barred in part by two coastal strips in the gulfs
of Bothnia and Finland in both of which Swedish predominates in
varying percentages.[84] The group of the Aland Islands, although
included in the Czar’s dominions, is also peopled by Swedes all
the way to the southwestern point of Finland.[85] This broken
fringe of Swedish is conceded to be a relic of the early occupation
of Finland by Swedes.[86] One of its strips, the Bothnian, is
remarkably pure in composition. The band extending on the northern
shore of the Gulf of Finland, however, contains enclaves of the
Finnish element. This is ascribed to an artificial process of
“fennification” resulting from the introduction of cheap labor
in the industrial regions of southern Finland. Slower economic
development of the provinces of the western coast, on the other
hand, tends to maintain undisturbed segregation of the population.

The ties uniting Finland with Sweden are moral and cultural.
Swedish missionaries of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries were
the agents through whom Christianity was introduced into Finland.
Together with religion many Swedish customs and laws superseded
the primitive social organization of the Finns. The relation
established was virtually that of an intellectual minority gaining
the upper hand over an ignorant majority. A change in the situation
came about in the middle of the fourteenth century when Finland
became an integral part of the Swedish kingdom and all civil and
political distinctions between the two elements of its populations
were abolished.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 36--View of the Lake country near Kuopi, showing the
  Kallavesi Sea with low islands and level shores. This is a
  characteristic Finnish landscape.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 37--Above the Koivukoski Falls at Kajana. Finnish waterways
  are the usual lanes of traffic between the inland seas of that
  country.]

Finland’s union with the west failed, however, to bring about
Swedish predominance in the land. The Finns preserved their
language and tended in fact to assimilate their conquerors.
The physical isolation of their country from Sweden contributed
largely to foster this incipient stage of Finnish nationality.
The Gulf of Bothnia and the frozen solitudes of Lapland proved
an effective barrier to the complete fusion of Swedes and Finns.
Eastward, however, no natural obstacles intervened between Finland
and Russia. The prolonged struggle between the latter country and
Sweden hence inevitably led to the Russian conquest of Finland.

The peace of Nystad in 1721 enabled Russia to occupy Finnish
territory for the first time. All of the southeastern portion of
the duchy then became part of the Muscovite empire. A further
cession in 1743 at the treaty of Åbo brought Swedish frontiers as
far west as the Kymmens line. The final conquest was ratified by
the treaty of peace signed by Swedish and Russian plenipotentiaries
on September 17, 1809. Sweden formally renounced its rights over
Finland and the duchy became part of Russia.

Today Finland is a country with three languages. Russian is the
channel of official activity. Finnish, through a literary revival,
has won its right to be the language of the land and this is a
symbol of the Finns’ desire for independent national existence.
Swedish remains as the age-old medium through which Christianity
and western culture were conveyed. It is also to a large extent the
business language of the province, especially for communication
with western Europe. Competition between the three languages is
carried on with unabating energy. The struggle is an outward
manifestation of the fight for independence waged by the natives of
Finland in the presence of Swedish and Russian efforts to dominate
the country. The common danger from Russia has lately drawn the
Swedish and Finnish groups together, although the Finns were
previously strongly anti-Swedish. The old antagonism still lingers
in society life. The Swedish-speaking element rarely mixes with the
Finnish-speaking. This is particularly noticeable at Helsingfors,
where each language represents a distinct stratum of social life.

In Russia’s Baltic provinces two of the world’s oldest yet
absolutely distinct languages are spoken. South of the Gulf of
Finland the Esthonians or Chuds still retain a primitive form of
Mongolian. In the neighboring Letto-Lithuanian group, on the other
hand, a speech which is closely akin to the old Aryan is employed.
Almost any Lithuanian peasant can understand simple phrases in
Sanskrit. The survival of archaic languages in this section of
Europe is the result of isolation provided by a forested and marshy
country in which folk-characteristics maintained their ancient
forms. From the racial standpoint Esthonians, Letts and Lithuanians
are fair, generally tall, narrow-faced and long-headed. In the
Fellin district, in southern Estland, a very pure Nordic type is
found among peoples of Esthonian speech.

Early Russian chronicles describe the Letts and Lithuanians as
divided into several tribes.[87] The Yatvags were scattered along
the banks of the Narev. The Lithuanians proper together with
the Shmuds peopled the Niemen valley. Very little dialectical
differences exist between the two. The Shmuds cluster now in
northwestern Kovno without, however, attaining the Baltic shore.
The left bank of the Drina was occupied by the Semigals, while
on the right dwelt the Letgols who were the ancestors in direct
line of the Letts of southern Livonia. The Kors, who lived on the
western shores of the Gulf of Riga, were later to impose their name
on the province of Kurland.[88]

Two of these tribes, the Shmuds and the Lithuanians, escaped the
Teutonic conquest through the inaccessibility of their forested and
marshy retreat. Around them the Kors and the Letts, as well as the
primitive Slav occupants of Prussia, had been subjugated by the
Knights of the Teutonic Order. The only salvation for these tribes
from Teutonic oppression consisted in their seeking the natural
shelter occupied by the two more fortunate groups of their kinsmen.
Behind this natural barrier Lithuanian nationality was born in the
middle of the thirteenth century under the leadership of Mindvog,
an energetic chieftain who insured his own supremacy by causing
the leaders of rival clans to be put to death. With the help of the
Poles the Lithuanians eventually checked the easterly expansion of
the Teutons.

The region occupied by Lithuanians in former times can be traced
today by the distribution of the type of dwelling peculiar to
this people. The ancient area exceeds the borders of the present
linguistic zone. The earliest examples of Lithuanian houses consist
of a single room. The indoor life of a single family was spent
within this one apartment. This primitive habitation grew into the
modern style by the successive addition of rooms. In course of time
a kitchen or a stable was added to the main building. Sometimes
the old type of house stands to this day adjoining more modern
buildings. In such cases it is used as a barn.

The old Aryan of the Lithuanians is in vogue principally along
the Duna and Niemen rivers as well as around Vilna, where this
people are settled in compact masses. In spite of the antiquity
of their language, no texts prior to the sixteenth century are
known. Emigration in the past decade to large Russian cities, and
to America, has decreased their ranks appreciably. Their number is
now estimated at 3,500,000.[89] In his native land, the Lithuanian
is not on the best of terms with neighboring peoples. He looks upon
the Russian as his political oppressor and upon the Pole as his
hereditary foe. The Lett is regarded with somewhat less animosity
as a rival. The Letts spread inland from the shores of the Gulf
of Riga and number about 1,300,000. Owing to Polish influences,
many Lithuanians are Catholics, but, in the main, both Letts and
Lithuanians are stanch Lutherans.[90] Their land is the home of
religious free thought within orthodox Russia. German influence
prevails among them on this account, although it is doubtful
whether it extends to the point of their preferring German to
Russian rule. Evil memories of the attempts of the Teutonic Knights
to conquer the immemorial seat of the Lettish and Lithuanian
populations survive throughout their forests and marshes. Neither
people has forgotten that its ancestors were refugees who sought
the shelter of their boglands as a last recourse from Teutonic
aggression.

Prior to 1876, the Baltic provinces were ruled by a semi-autonomous
administration headed by a governor-general whose rôle was more
properly that of a viceroy. German was as much an official language
as Russian and no restrictions prevented its use in courts.
German schools and a German university were widely attended.
Since that date, however, the Letto-Lithuanian populations have
been deprived of the liberal régime they formerly enjoyed and an
official “Russification” has been directed against them. Most of
the Lutheran schools were closed by order of the government and
the teaching of German in schools restricted or prohibited. But to
this day the three Baltic provinces of Kurland, Livland and Estland
are considered by German writers as a domain of German culture and
Protestant faith controlled by Russian political and ecclesiastical
power.

In the province of Kurland the Germans boast 51,000 resident
kinsmen. As a rule this section of the population is confined to
the cities. Riga, Reval, Libau, Dorpat and Mitau contain notable
percentages of Germans among their citizens. The first-named city
counts 65,332 of these westerners in its population, or over 25 per
cent of the total.[91]

The Letts have settled mainly in the Kurland peninsula and southern
Livonia. They are also found in the governments of Kovno, Petrograd
and Mohilev. Lithuanians occupy the governments of Kovno, Vilna,
Suvalki and Grodno. No definite boundaries between the two peoples
can be determined because their intercourse is constant. The only
difference between the two languages is found in the greater
departure of Lettic from the old Vedic forms.

North of the Letto-Lithuanian group the Esthonians, who are Finns
and speak a Finnish language, occupy a lake-covered area similar
to Finland. In both a granite tableland is the scene of human
activity. In spite of the drawbacks of their natural environment
the Esthonians depend chiefly on agriculture for sustenance. This
industry has attained a high stage of perfection in their hands and
few peoples know how to make their soil yield a higher return than
do these virile northerners.

The number of Esthonians is estimated at about one million,[92]
distributed as follows: Esthonia, 365,959; Livonia, 518,594;
Government of St. Petersburg, 64,116; Government of Pskov, 25,458;
other parts of Russia, 12,855. Large colonies of Russians, Germans
and Swedes are settled in the Esthonian province. The census of
1897 showed Russians, 18,000; Germans, 16,000; Swedes, 5,800.

The number of Jews settled in the province is not high. The German
and Russian elements compose the nobility. The former owned and
farmed 52 per cent of the land in 1878. Since that time, however,
facilities have been accorded to the peasants of the province,
mostly Esthonians, to purchase farms and the proportion of native
land holdings is gradually increasing.

Confusion of racial minglings complicates the problem of assigning
fixed ethnic place to the Esthonians. That they belong to the
Finnish family is unquestionable. Linguistically they belong to the
Turkish-speaking peoples. Long-headedness prevails among them.[93]
These are also the characteristics of the Livs or Livonians, a
Finnish tribe formerly living in Esthonia and north Livonia, now
nearly extinct, but still holding a narrow strip of forest land
along the Baltic at the northern extremity of Kurland. These Livs
are now classed with the Baltic Finns and probably number less than
2,000 individuals. Their language has been almost entirely replaced
by a Lettish dialect.

The beginning of their history finds the Esthonians pirates of the
Baltic. Danish kings found it hard to subdue them and after two
centuries of struggle sold the Danish crown’s rights to the Knights
of the Sword in 1346. From this time on German influence was to
become paramount in the province. The condition of Esthonians in
relation to their Teutonic masters was that of serfs. By the terms
of the treaty of Nystad in 1721 Esthonia was ceded to Peter the
Great by the Swedes, who then exercised control of the land. Since
then it has remained a Russian province. Lutheranism, the religion
of its people, however, has been the foundation of much sympathy
for German institutions throughout the province. To combat this
feeling, as well as to eradicate national aspirations, Russian
authorities have resorted to those harsh and repressive measures
which both church and government have often enforced throughout the
Czar’s country.

The Esthonians are noted for their practical turn of mind. A
favorite pastime among them consists of conversing in verse.
They cling tenaciously to their language, the study of which is
actively maintained throughout the land. Two main dialects are in
use. A northern form, known as the Reval Esthonian, is recognized
as the literary language. Writers have succeeded in maintaining
its perfection and beauty. Through their efforts literature that
instills vigor into the national consciousness has sprung into
being around the legends and folk-tales of the region.

With the exception of the Finns all the peoples of northwestern
Russia are being gradually absorbed by the Slavic mass. The Slav’s
ability to fuse with alien peoples is a conspicuous historical
fact. In the Baltic provinces he seldom holds aloof as does his
German rival. A growing spirit of liberalism in Russia, and the
gradual loss of influence of the German nobility, ever ready to
stir the opposition of Baltic peoples against Russian institutions,
are two factors which have promoted the consolidation of Russian
power in its northwesternmost territory. The Slav’s achievement
in Baltic regions, during the past three centuries, has consisted
in steadily replacing the Teutonic stratum by a layer of his own
kinsmen. Swedes and Germans have either fallen back or become
lost in the midst of Slavic populations. The movement can hardly
be called a migration, but it is a westerly expansion of most
persistent and irresistible character although never aggressively
manifested. As a consequence Russia’s northwestern boundary with a
reconstituted Poland may be foreseen.


TABLE I

POPULATION BY GOVERNMENTS IN FINLAND ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE, 1910[94]

                                 Per              Per            Per
                      Finnish   cent    Swedish  cent   Others  cent
  Nylands             212,315   85.1   149,173   11.1   1,391    3.8
  Åbo o. Björneborgs  413,360   66.4    63,503   33.1     240    0.5
  Tavastehus          330,190   86.6     4,356   13.0     119    0.4
  Viborgs             479,120   69.7     7,872   15.9   7,116   14.4
  St. Michels         191,137   96.0       670    3.5      93    0.5
  Kuopio              324,553   97.4       664    2.0     191    0.6
  Vasa                327,828   46.4   111,094   53.0     262    0.6
  Uleaborgs           292,642   88.8     1,629    5.5   1,679    5.7


TABLE II

FINLAND: POPULATION ACCORDING TO LANGUAGE, 1865-1910

                         Per                 Per                 Per
               1865     cent      1880      cent      1890      cent
  Finnish   1,580,000   57.2   1,756,381    52.9   2,048,545    60.7
  Swedish     256,000   38.9     294,876    43.2     322,604    35.6
  Russian       4,000    2.2       4,195     2.0       5,795     2.4
  German        1,200    0.6       1,720     0.8       1,674     0.7
  Others        2,045    1.1       2,263     1.1       1,522     0.6

                         Per                 Per
               1900     cent      1910      cent
  Finnish   2,352,990   67.5   2,571,145    80.2
  Swedish     349,733   28.9     338,961    16.0
  Russian       5,939    2.2       7,339     2.5
  German        1,925    0.7       1,794     0.6
  Others        1,975    0.7       1,958     0.7


TABLE III

FINLAND: DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION BY LANGUAGE AND BY RELIGION,
DECEMBER 31, 1910[95]

  Linguistic                                 Greek     Roman
    group   Lutheran   Methodist  Baptist  Catholic  Catholic     Total
  Finnish   2,531,014     198      1,086    38,749      98     2,571,145
  Swedish     335,496     362      2,780       251      72       338,961
  Russian          67       2         --     7,156     114         7,339
  German        1,758       1         --        10      25         1,794
  Lapps         1,660      --         --        --      --         1,660
  Others          184       1         --        --     113           298
            ---------     ---      -----    ------     ---     ---------
    Total   2,870,179     564      3,866    46,166     422     2,921,197


TABLE IV

FINLAND: RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION BY LANGUAGES OF THE URBAN AND RURAL
POPULATION OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF NYLAND, ÅBO AND BJÖRNEBORG, AND OF
VASA, IN PERCENTAGES[96]

  -----------------------------------+-------------------------
                  URBAN              |        RURAL
  -----------------------------------+-------------------------
            Finnish  Swedish  Others |  Finnish  Swedish  Others
  _Nylands_                          |
  1880       315.7    608.2    76.1  |   532.8    466.6     0.6
  1890       436.2    536.2    27.1  |   545.1    454.0     0.9
  1900       489.7    488.2    22.1  |   570.9    428.7     0.4
  1910       579.7    411.8     8.5  |   589.1    410.6     0.3
  _Åbo and Björneborg_               |
  1880       670.4    303.0    26.6  |   847.6    152.3     0.1
  1890       700.0    292.8     7.2  |   855.7    144.2     0.1
  1900       757.8    239.5     2.7  |   864.4    135.5     0.1
  1910       792.8    204.4     2.8  |   880.2    119.7     0.1
  _Vasa_                             |
  1880       195.7    800.5     3.8  |   695.3    304.7    [0.02]
  1890       269.6    725.4     5.0  |   720.3    279.6     0.1
  1900       359.6    637.9     2.5  |   738.8    261.1     0.1
  1910       482.4    512.5     5.1  |   770.9    228.9     0.2


FOOTNOTES:

[72] A substantial account of the tribes speaking these three
languages was given as early as 731 by the Venerable Bede in his
_Historia Ecclesiastica_.

[73] [Translation.] “Art. V. His Majesty the Emperor of Austria
transfers to His Majesty the King of Prussia all the rights which
he acquired by the Vienna Treaty of Peace of 30th October, 1864,
over the Duchies of Holstein and Schleswig, with the condition
that the populations of the Northern Districts of Schleswig shall
be ceded to Denmark if, by a free vote, they express a wish to
be united to Denmark.” E. Herstlet: The Map of Europe by Treaty,
London, 1875, Vol. 3, p. 1722.

[74] A later treaty signed by Austria and Prussia at Vienna on Oct.
11, 1878, suppressed the referendum clause, which had never been
viewed with favor by the German government.

[75] M. R. Waultrin: Le rapprochement dano-allemand et la question
du Schleswig, _Ann. Sci. Polit._, May 15, and July 15, 1903.

[76] L. Gasselin: La question du Schleswig-Holstein, Paris, 1909.

[77] L. Gasselin: op. cit., p. 206.

[78] Scandinavia and the Scandinavians, New York, 1915, p. 30.

[79] Op. cit., p. 143.

[80] Op. cit., p. 147.

[81] Op. cit., p. 148.

[82] Op. cit., p. 150.

[83] A. Rambaud: Histoire de la Russie, Paris, 1914, p. 21.

[84] Atlas de Finlande, Carte 46, Helsingfors, 1911.

[85] K. B. Wiklund: Språken i Finland, 1880-1900, _Ymer_, 1905, No.
2, pp. 132-149.

[86] R. Saxen: Répartition des langues, _Fennia_, Vol. 30, No. 2,
1910-1911, Helsingfors, 1911.

[87] A. Rambaud: Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu’à
nos jours, Paris, 1914, p. 21.

[88] Rambaud: op. cit.

[89] The Russian census of 1897 showed 3,094,469.

[90] About 50,000 Letts belong to the Greek Church.

[91] H. Rosen: Die ethnographische Verhältnisse in den baltischen
Provinzen und in Litauen, _Pet. Mitt._, Sept. 1915, pp. 329-333.

[92] Russian census of 1897.

[93] W. Z. Ripley: The Races of Europe, New York, 1899.

[94] Statisko Årsbok för Finland 1914, Helsingfors, 1915, pp. 45-46.

[95] Bidrag till Finlands Officiella Statistik, VI,
Befolkningsstatistik, 45, Finlands Folkmängd den 31 December, 1910
(enligt Församlingarnas Kyrkoböcker), Helsingfors, 1915, p. 127.

[96] Bidrag till Finlands Officiella Statistik, VI,
Befolkningsstatistik, 45, Finlands Folkmängd den 31 December,
1910 (enligt Församlingarnas Krykoböcker), Helsingfors, 1915, pp.
124-125.




CHAPTER VI

THE AREA OF POLISH SPEECH

South of the Baltic shores the unbroken expanse now peopled by
Germans merges insensibly into the western part of the great
Russian plain. This extensive lowland is featureless and provides
no natural barriers between the two empires it connects. The area
of Polish speech alone intervenes as a buffer product of the basin
of the middle Vistula. The region is a silt-covered lowland, the
bed of a former glacial lake. It has been peopled by Slavs for over
a thousand years. Upon its open stretches there was no lack of food
and no reason therefore for migration. The development of Poland
rests primarily on this physical foundation. Added advantages of
good land and water communication with the rest of the continent
contributed powerfully to the spread of Polish power, which at one
time extended from Baltic shores to the Black sea.

In the ninth century the Slavic tribes of the Polish and western
Russian regions differed but slightly in language and customs.
Dialects spoken in the upper Vistula basin and in the upper Dnieper
valley presented a degree of affinity which has disappeared from
the Russian and Polish languages as spoken in our time. Differences
between the two groups increased as they came respectively under
eastern and western influences. Intercourse between the western
group and the Slavs settled in the upper Elbe region produced a
Polish contingent, while contact of the eastern body with Tatars
created the main Russian group. Religious differences helped to
widen the breach between these two branches of the Slavic family.
The western body was naturally inclined to follow the counsels
emanating from the Vatican. The eastern looked to Byzantium for
spiritual guidance. These were strictly geographical relations.
Eventual divergence into separate nationalities originated in
the conflicts of religious views and material interests among the
leading members in each group.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 38--Sketch map of eastern Europe showing the areal
  classification of Russians into Little Russians (dotted area),
  Great Russians (diagonally ruled) and White Russians (cross-ruled
  area). The black dots indicate Masurian localities. The dotted
  circles show Hungarian cities peopled by Ruthenians.]

The Polish language is spoken at present within a quadrilateral
the angles of which are found at the Jablunka pass in the
Carpathians,[97] Wissek north of the Netze near the Posen
boundary, Suwalki in the eastern Masurian region and Sanok on the
San. A northern extension is appended to this linguistic region
in the form of a narrow band which detaches itself from the main
mass above Bromberg and reaches the Baltic coast west of Danzig. In
sum, the valley of the Vistula, from the Carpathians to the Baltic,
constitutes the field of Polish humanity and institutions. In spite
of the remoteness of the period when they first occupied the land,
these children of the plains never attempted to scale mountainous
slopes. The solid wall of the western Carpathians, between Jablunka
and Sanok, with its abrupt slopes facing the north, forms the
southern boundary of the country.

This region, in the midst of the diversity of surface of the
European continent, has produced a distinct language in the varied
stock of European vernaculars. Nevertheless there is no similarity
of physical type among individuals speaking Polish. Marked
anthropological differences are found between the Poles of Russian
Poland and of Galicia.[98] They correspond to the classification
of northern Slavs into two main groups, the northernmost of
which comprises the Poles of Russian Poland, together with White
and Great Russians. Traces of Finnish intermixture can still be
detected among them, in spite of the process of Slavicization which
they have undergone. The Poles of Galicia, on the other hand,
like the Ruthenians and Little Russians, reveal mingling of the
autochthonous populations with Asiatic and Mongoloid invaders of
Europe.[99]

Delimitation of the area of the Polish speech is more easily made
in theory than on the field. The transition to alien languages is
rarely well defined. Such detailed work as has been undertaken in
western Europe, where the predominant language in small villages
and hamlets is often determined, does not exist for eastern
sections of the continent. The zeal of German and Russian agents of
nationalist propaganda aggravates the problem. Within Galicia the
boundary line passes west of Sanok and Radymno.[100] Its southern
extension skirts the foothills through Rymanow, Dukla, Zmigrod
and Grybow. Thence to Jablunka pass it merges with the political
boundary.

In its western section the physical boundary coincides for all
practical purposes with the ethnographic line of division. The
Gorales mountaineers have never aspired to cross the divide of
the Beskid mountains. The result is that the gentler slopes of
the southern side are peopled altogether by Slovaks, while habit
and custom have prevented the Podhalians, or Polish shepherds
inhabiting the high valley of the Tatra, from leading their flocks
to the southern grazing slopes which form part of the Hungarian
domain.[101]

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Brown Bros._

  FIG. 39--This view is representative of the open steppeland of
  Ukraine in southwestern Russia.]

Changes in the aspect of the land resulting from human activity
provide an easily observable boundary between the territory
inhabited by Poles and that occupied by Ruthenians. The former,
proceeding from the Vistulian lowland, are now scattered over a
territory in which deforestation and large areas of tilled soil
bespeak prolonged occupancy. The latter, coming from the Pontic
steppes, reached the Carpathian slopes much later than their
western neighbors. Consequently only 20 per cent of the surface of
the western Carpathians is now available as prairie and pasture
land, whereas the percentage of grazing land in the eastern
section of the mountain chain is twice as much.[102] The area of
plowed land in the western region covers between 40 and 50 per cent
of the surface. In the east it barely varies between 5 and 10 per
cent. Again the Polish section is practically clear of the forests,
which cover, in contrast, from 50 to 60 per cent of the eastern
Carpathians. Similar differences can be noted in the valleys up
to an altitude of about 2,300 feet. Within them the proportion of
plowed land constitutes 88 per cent of the surface in the Polish
section while in the Ruthenian valleys the proportion of plowed
land does not exceed 15 per cent.

On the southwestern border a number of localities in the Teschen
country are claimed alike by Czechs and Poles. The increasing use
of Polish and German, however, tends to invalidate the claims of
Bohemians.[103] A transition zone between Czech and Polish exists
here and is characterized by a local dialect of mixed language. In
the western Beskid mountains Polish and Moravian are divided at
the Jablunka pass. The ancient duchies of Teschen, Auschwitz and
Zator were situated in this region and at the southern end of the
long Slavo-Germanic borderland. The two last-named duchies were
incorporated with Poland in the fifteenth century. German language
and customs disappeared from their territory soon after this fusion.

This important district is in every aspect a zone of transition.
Its climate becomes alternately continental or oceanic according
to the prevalence of winds from east or west. The change occurs
sometimes in a few weeks. Occasionally it is sudden and atmospheric
conditions have been known to have changed completely from one
stage to the other in the course of a single day.[104] During
periods of oceanic climate, the temperature often rises above 0°
C. Snows melt and spring temperature prevails during January
and February. Again sometimes the east wind brings all the signs
of winter in April. In summer western breezes bring rain and
dryness prevails when eastern winds blow. As a result of this
semi-continental climate wheat crops on the Polish side are from
three to six weeks later than on the Moravian side.

German immigrants invaded this region in the eighth century.
Their language held its own until the fourteenth, after which it
is represented only by linguistic islands dotting here and there
the sea of Slavs. It is, however, still possible to distinguish
settlements of German origin from the old Polish villages. The
latter are situated on high ground or well-protected sites. They
are generally characterized by the existence of a central open
space and the random distribution of houses and lanes. The German
villages, on the other hand, are found at the heads of valleys and
usually occupy a rectangular site spreading over the two banks of
a river. Each habitation has its own land appurtenance extending
rearwards towards the valley slopes. The roads follow natural
depressions. Taken as a whole, these German villages are admirably
molded on the relief of the surface.

The western linguistic boundary of Poland extends through the
German provinces of Silesia and Posen. Here a gradual replacement
of the language by German since the sixteenth century is
noticeable. At that time the Oder constituted the dividing line,
south of the point of the confluence of the Nissa between Brieg
and Oppeln. As late as 1790 the population of Breslau was largely
Polish. Today over 75 per cent of the inhabitants of the city and
the neighboring towns and villages are Germans. The district north
and south constitutes in fact an area of linguistic reclamation.

The westernmost extension of Polish occurs in Posen, at the base
of the provincial projection into Brandenburg. Around Bomst the
percentage of Polish inhabitants is as high as 75 per cent. The
line extends northwards to Birnbaum, after which it assumes a
northeasterly direction. In spite of this occidental reach,
however, the area of Polish speech within German boundaries is
broken in numerous places by German enclaves of varying size.[105]

In western Prussia, the Poles form compact inclusions in the German
mass and attain the Baltic shores, where they occupy the entire
western coast of the Gulf of Danzig. From Oliva and Danzig the line
extends to Dirschau (Tezew) and crosses the Vistula about six miles
below the city. It then strikes east and turns southwards towards
Marienwerder (Kwidzyn) and Graudenz. Proceeding due east from here,
the boundary passes south of Eylau, the southern territory of the
Masurian lakes, and on into Russian territory, until Suwalki is
reached. The eastern frontier begins at this point and is prolonged
southwards, according to Slav authorities, through Augustow,
Bielostok,[106] Surash, Bielsk, Sarnaki, Krsanostaw and Tomaschow.

The advance of the area of Polish speech, in the form of a tongue
of land, to the Baltic coast, is a proof of intimate dependence
between Polish nationality and the basin of the Vistula. This
northernmost section of the territory in which Polish is spoken,
lies entirely within Prussian territory. Centuries of Teutonic
influence failed, however, to eradicate completely Slavic language
or customs in the valley of the great river. Between Thorn and
Danzig, on the left bank of the Vistula, it is estimated that
650,000 Poles are scattered. On the right, the Prussian districts
of Lobau, Strassburg and Briesen are centers of intense Polish
life and culture. The city of Danzig itself, with a Polish element
of only 10 per cent, still gives strong evidence of its Polish
institutions. Its monuments are memorials of Poland’s history, and
many of its families bear Polish names even though their members
use German as a vernacular.

Originally a free town, Danzig owes its predominant German
population to the inflow of traders of this nationality who have
swarmed within its walls since the sixteenth century. The city,
standing like a sentinel at the mouth of the Vistula, is in every
sense a creation of the river. Traffic from Poland’s innermost
districts flows towards the country’s great waterway to be finally
landed on the wharves of Danzig. Prior to the partition of Poland,
the city was nominally a dependency of that country, but its
inhabitants had been granted special trading privileges as well as
the right of governing themselves. The city’s commercial relations
were highly favored by such a régime and business men from the
surrounding country were not slow to realize the exceptional
advantages which settlement in the city afforded. By the end of
the seventeenth century its population consisted largely of German
merchants and their dependents. Frederick II with characteristic
far-sightedness realized the extent to which this seaport, together
with the river city of Thorn, controlled the traffic between
Brandenburg and old Prussia. He did not succeed however in annexing
the two cities to his dominions, for it is only since 1815 that
they have formed part of Prussian territory.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. IV_

THE AREA OF POLISH SPEECH]

The struggle for predominance between Poles and Germans along
Poland’s western boundary is fully nine centuries old. In the
sixteenth century, Slavonic tribes had become widely distributed
between the Oder and Elbe, in the course of westerly expansions
which correspond to south and west migrations of Teutonic
peoples.[107] Place names bestowed by the early Germans in the
district between these two rivers have practically disappeared
under the layer of Slavic appellations conferred between the
second and fourth centuries.[108] The period between 800 and 1300
witnessed the inception of a slow and powerful Germanic drive
directed towards the east. Convents and lay feudal establishments
participated in this historical movement. Repeated German
aggressions brought about the earliest union of all Polish tribes
into one nation at the beginning of the eleventh century. It
proved, however, of little avail before the fighting prowess
of the Knights of the Teutonic Order, who, by the first half
of the thirteenth century, had succeeded in adding all Wend
territory to Teutonic dominions. This early and northerly phase
of the “Drang nach Osten” brought the Germans to the coast of the
Gulf of Finland. Their advance was rendered possible in part by
the presence of Tatar hordes menacing southern Poland. Teutonic
progress was also facilitated by the defenseless condition which
marks an open plain. Between the Oder and the Vistula the slightly
undulating lowland is continuous and devoid of barriers to
communication which the interposition of uplifted or uninhabitable
stretches of territory might have provided.

Polish history has been affected both favorably and adversely by
this lack of natural bulwarks. The former extension of Polish
sovereignty to the shores of the Baltic and Black seas, and to
within 50 miles of Berlin and the central plateau of Russia, was
a result of easy travel on a plain. This advantage was more than
offset by the evident facility with which alien races were able to
swarm into the vast featureless expanse forming Polish territory.
The dismemberment of the country is in part the result of the
inability of the Poles to resort to the protection of a natural
fortress, where a prolonged stand against the aggression of foes
might have been made.

At the end of the tenth century the entire Polish plain
acknowledged the rule of Boleslas the Great, a prince of the Piast
dynasty. Kiev then paid a yearly tribute to the Polish crown. A
period of internal division follows Boleslas’s rule, but in the
beginning of the fourteenth century Poland was once more united
under the scepter of King Ladislas. From 1386 to 1772, a period of
almost four centuries, Polish frontiers remained remarkably stable.
Their fluctuations were slight when compared to the changes which
occurred in other European countries during the same period.

At one period of its history Poland was barred from its Baltic sea
frontier in the north. In the fourteenth century the invasion of
the Teutonic Knights temporarily out off the country from the sea;
but apart from this interruption Poland has always had access to
the sea to which the drainage of the land naturally led. Under
the first members of the Piast dynasty the Poles had control of
the Baltic coast.[109] When, in the thirteenth century, the Poles
called upon the Knights of the Teutonic Order for assistance in
subjugating Prussia, the two parties agreed to equal division of
the conquered territory. The successes of the Teutonic Knights,
however, emboldened their leaders to claim more land for their
share. A state of war ensued between the two former allies until
by the treaty of Thorn, in 1466, the Teutonic Knights acknowledged
Polish sovereignty. This brought Pomerelia, or Prussian Pomerania,
within Polish territory. In 1525 the Prussian districts east of
the Vistula became part of the duchy of Albert of Brandenburg and
were thus surrounded entirely by Polish territory; but that part
of Prussia which extends west of the Vistula remained an integral
portion of Poland until 1772.

In the fighting which marked the relations between Poland and
Turkey in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Poles
succeeded in extending their southern frontiers to within a hundred
miles of the Black Sea and in carrying their sphere of influence
to the sea itself. The occupation of Kaminiec by the Turks was
short-lived. In general Poland’s frontier on the side of the
ancient Rumanian principalities remained unchanged during the last
four centuries of the country’s sovereign existence.

In the fifteenth century, Poland was the dominating Slavic state.
In 1386 it had been united to Lithuania by Wladislas Jagellon, the
first prince of the famous dynasty bearing his name. The country
at that time was protected from Turkish attacks by Wallachia,
Moldavia and Transylvania. Russia was its rival for the possession
of Lithuania; Austria for that of Hungary and Bohemia. Prussia and
Livonia were also claimed by Poland from the Order of the Teutonic
Knights. The weakness of the country lay in the jealousy of the two
peoples of diverse speech from which its ruling body was drawn.
The Jagellons were Lithuanian princes. They favored the claims of
their countrymen, who preferred the laws of their native land to
the Polish legislation which was being forced on them. The Poles
likewise had their grievances against the Lithuanians. During
the rule of Casimir IV he was frequently taken to task by his
countrymen for spending “summer, fall and winter in Lithuania.”

Poland’s easterly expansion with its prolonged and finally
disastrous conflicts with Russia began after the battle of Grunwald
in 1410. Although the Poles then inflicted a decisive defeat on the
Teutonic Knights, the western provinces they had lost could not
be regained. In the eastern field the basin of the Dnieper merged
without abrupt transition into that of the Vistula, just as the
basin of the Oder on the west formed the western continuation of
the Baltic plain. Four centuries of struggle with Russia ensued
until the Muscovite Empire absorbed the greater portion of Poland.

The German element is slowly spreading eastward throughout the
eastern provinces of Prussia which once formed part of the kingdom
of Poland. Emigration of Poles to central and western Germany
partly accounts for the German gain. From the larger cities of
eastern Germany and more especially from Posen, Bromberg and
Danzig, a steady stream of emigrants make their way towards the
industrial centers of the west, where they find higher wages and
generally improved economic conditions. The German government
favors this expatriation of its Slav subjects. None of the
vexations to which the Poles are subjected by government officials
on their native plains are tolerated in the occidental provinces
of the Empire. The result is that notable colonies of Poles have
sprung up in the vicinity of industrial centers like Düsseldorf or
Arnsberg, in the Munster district and the Rhine provinces. From a
racial standpoint, these Poles are practically indistinguishable
from Teutonic types. Their presence in Rhenish Prussia and
Westphalia is no menace to German unity. They are easily
assimilated; the second generation, speaking only German, forgets
its antecedents and becomes submerged in the mass of the native
population. Slav settlements are particularly numerous and dense
along the Rhine-Herne canal between Duisburg and Dortmund.[110]
They abound in the coal-producing Emscher valley, where their
inhabitants form one-fifth of the population. The Polish settlers
favor the flatlands and occupy them in preference to hilly regions.
They do not confine their work to mining, but provide labor for
the industrial plants clustered around the coal-fields. In the
beginning of 1911 the number of Polish miners in the 19 mining
districts of the “circle” of Dortmund exceeded that of any other
nationality.

The heavy preponderance of Poles in certain administrative
divisions of eastern Germany has, nevertheless, been unimpaired by
the Polish emigration. In the province of Posen the German-speaking
inhabitants still constitute the minority. As a rule Germans
emigrate more readily than Poles or Masurians in East Prussia.[111]
In the city of Posen, Polish nationality was asserting itself
with increasing vigor year by year, before the European war. The
percentage of Poles grew from about 51 in 1890 to 56 in 1900. Ten
years later it exceeded 57. Correspondingly the German percentage
fell from 50 in 1890 to under 42 in 1910.

Posen, of all German provinces, contains the largest number
of Poles. 62 per cent of its 2,100,000 inhabitants belong to
this nationality. Within provincial boundaries the process of
Germanizing the people has been carried on most actively in the
district of Bromberg. The reason is obvious. The region is the
connecting link between Germany proper and the province of Old
Prussia, which forms an enclave of German speech within the
territory of the Polish language. The effort to connect the ancient
cradle of Prussia with the motherland is apparent in the figures
which reveal the percentage of Poles in the intermediary land. The
district of Bromberg numbers 53 per cent of Poles in a population
of 750,000. In the provincial district of Posen, however, the
percentage of Poles attains 68 for a population of 1,350,000.

The German element of the province is confined mainly to the
cities, the country being peopled largely by Poles. Often the
proportion of this native population attains as high a figure as
91 per cent and it is rare to find it below 75 per cent. Apart
from the German administration of the province, Posen thus remains
Polish to the core. Its nobility and landed gentry consist mostly
of Poles who have strenuously opposed German encroachments by
abstaining from commercial or financial intercourse with their
rulers. They founded their own banks, in order to be independent
of German institutions; and by means of native agricultural
associations they came to the aid of Polish farmers, who were thus
saved from having recourse to German colonization banks chartered
for the purpose of buying out Polish landowners. The influence of
the Polish element is best shown by the fact that eleven Polish
representatives are delegated by its population to the Reichstag,
out of a body of fifteen sent by the province.

We thus see that the Poles scattered in the eastern section of
Germany constitute the largest foreign-speaking element in the
Empire’s population. Their number is estimated by Niederle at
3,450,000. German census returns for 1900 give 3,086,489. The
percentage of Jews in German Poland is high, particularly in the
urban areas. The practice of census-takers is to classify them with
the German or Polish population according to their vernacular.
In Russia the last (1897) available census figures report the
existence of 1,267,194 Jews[112] scattered throughout the Polish
provinces. This represents 13.48 per cent of the population of
Russian Poland. Here, as elsewhere, they are rarely engaged in
agricultural pursuits but show a tendency to invade prosperous
towns and cities.[113]

The Polish Jews, speaking a vernacular of their own, and conscious
of the advantage derived from their number, live apart from the
Poles, with whom they are generally at odds on economic questions.
The presence of this racially alien element has often assisted
Russian administrators in their policy of holding Polish urban
populations well in hand by pitting one people against the other.
Jewish parties wield considerable influence in the local politics
of Polish cities. They are openly anti-Slavic and side with the
German inhabitants, from whom they receive guidance regarding
policy and conduct. The strength of the Polish vote was felt in the
1912 elections for the Duma when Lodz sent a Jewish representative
to the national council, while in Warsaw where they form 38 per
cent of the population they succeeded in forcing the election of
a Polish socialist who in that same year had failed to obtain a
majority of the city’s Polish votes.

The confinement of Jews within the pale of Poland dates from the
time of the first partition, when an edict signed by Catherine
II was proclaimed, forbidding them to emigrate from the annexed
territory into Russia proper. Since then every succeeding Russian
monarch maintained this policy of segregation until, at the time
of Poland’s last partition, the ten governments into which the
unfortunate nation was divided became the only territory in which
the Jews were tolerated.

This arrangement was made largely because of the Jew’s well-known
aptitude for commerce and through fear that the unsophisticated
and large-hearted Russian mujik was no match for him. The state of
Poland prior to its dismemberment made such measures imperative for
the Russian government. The Poles were either landowners, tillers
of the soil or soldiers. Few engaged in trade. The country’s
commerce was in the hands of Germans or Jews. Poland’s weakness
in the presence of foreign aggression was due to this state of
economic inferiority, no less than to her lack of natural frontiers
on the east and west.

The large proportion of the Jewish element in Poland may be traced
ultimately to the very circumstances which impart distinctiveness
to the Polish region. It was inevitable that the Jew should find
cordial welcome in the broad drainage valley of the Vistula and its
tributaries, tenanted by a landed nobility at the one end of the
social scale and a retinue of serfs at the other. Between these
two classes the Jew supplied a needed trading element and thrived.
Polish kings accordingly adopted the policy of inviting and
protecting Jews within their domains as early as in the fourteenth
century, a time when the Jews were being expelled in hundreds
from other nations. Emigration of the Jews from Germany during
the period of Catholic persecution was particularly heavy. This
movement helped to increase the number of Jews in Poland.

The position of the Jews in Poland varies, therefore, according to
the circumstances which determined their immigration. They may be
classed into two groups. The descendants of early settlers feel the
welding influence of time and are united with the Poles by the bond
of historical association and of common interests. The newcomers,
mostly refugees from Russian cities, form an unassimilated nucleus
whose tendencies and temper differ materially from the aims that
actuate the native population, whether Polish or Jewish. Racial
animosity in Poland is chiefly directed against these newcomers. It
has reached an acute stage in recent years, owing to the strenuous
efforts of Poles to control their country’s industry and commerce
in face of the menace of German economic absorption.

In Galicia the Jews are competitors of the Poles. Full advantage
has been taken by Austrian statesmen of the existence of a powerful
clique of Jewish financiers in Vienna in order to obtain Jewish
support against Slavic aspirations. Jewish capitalists were allowed
to take part in the development of natural resources as well as
to purchase large estates. At present fully 20 per cent of the
larger private domains in Galicia are owned by Jews.[114] In the
cities also the Jewish element has acquired considerable influence.
This is especially observable in Lemberg and Cracow. The bulk of
Galician Jews, however, are poor and uneducated. They have little
sympathy with the ideals of the Christian element, from whom they
hold aloof. In the social relations of the three main elements of
the Galician population, Poles and Jews generally unite to exploit
Ruthenians. The Jews apparently are unable to thrive on the Poles.
In the Polish sections of Galicia they constitute only 7 per cent
of the population, whereas in Ruthenian Galicia this proportion
rises to 13 per cent.

German Poland, from Upper Silesia to the Gulf of Danzig, contains
about 4,000,000 Poles. In Upper Silesia, they constitute 61 per
cent of the population and number about 1,300,000. This majority
has been maintained, in the face of aggressive Germanization,
since the first half of the fourteenth century. The city of Posen
contains 170,000 inhabitants, of whom 58 per cent are Poles. The
farming districts of the province contain only about 10 per cent
of Germans. Over 900,000 Poles live in East and West Prussia. In
this section of Germany, they form a sufficiently compact body to
be able to send representatives chosen from their own people to the
Landstag and Reichstag. The western coast of the Gulf of Danzig
and the banks of the lower Vistula are almost exclusively Polish.
A solid wedge of Polish humanity is here interposed between the
Germans of Pomerania and of East Prussia. This thorough isolation
of an important body of Germans may become a thorny problem in any
eventual settlement of Polish boundaries.

Upper Silesia is the best endowed section of Polish territory.
The grayish soil which forms the surface of the Oder valley is
eminently fitted for cereal and beet cultivation and the farmers of
this soil are generally Poles. They often represent 90 per cent of
the rural population.[115] In the cities and generally speaking in
the industrial field they are laborers. Capital and the management
of factories and of mines are in German hands.

The most interesting feature of the clash between Germans and Poles
in Upper Silesia is found in the failure of the Germans in their
efforts to force their language upon an alien people. Forty years
ago, Polish noblemen were apt to blush at the thought of their
Slavic origin in the presence of the German rulers of their land.
But the vexations inflicted on them by Prussian administration,
since the formation of the German Empire, have bred a spirit of
defiance and revolt. As a result Silesian Poles were never so
conscious of nationality as they are today. They band together in
order to resist Germanization more effectively. Small tradesmen,
petty farmers and professional men organize themselves into bodies
to which individual interests are intrusted whenever German methods
become intolerable. But the greatest asset of Polish nationality in
this fight against annihilation is its high birth rate. This has
also led to the emigration of Poles to the industrial districts
of Westphalia, the coal districts of the Lens basin in France and
to America. This flow of Poles comes mainly from the provinces of
Posen and West Prussia, where sandy inert soils cannot accommodate
rapidly increasing numbers.

In addition to drastic educational measures, compelling study of
their language, the Germans have resorted to wholesale buying
of Polish estates in the section of the kingdom of Poland which
fell to the lot of Prussia when the country was partitioned. A
colonization law (Ansiedelunggesetz), decreed on April 26, 1886,
placed large funds at the disposal of the German government for
the purchase of land owned by Poles and the establishment of
colonies of German settlers.[116] The measure was artificial and
proved valueless against economic conditions prevailing in the
regions affected. A decrease in the percentage of the Polish
population of the estates acquired by purchase was rarely brought
about. The new settlers could rarely compete with natives. The
most tangible result consisted in mere substitution of German for
Polish ownership. On most of the large estates the mass of laborers
and dependents remained Poles as they had been before. The breach
between Poles and Germans was widened by the change of masters.
Nevertheless, although results corresponding to the efforts and
money expended were not obtained, the measure has contributed to
the advance of Teutonism in northeastern Europe.[117]

The purpose of this colonization is to redeem Prussian soil from
Polish ownership. The “Mittelstandskasse” of Breslau, and the
Peasant’s Bank of Danzig, are financial institutions directly
interested in this work of Germanization. These banks work hand in
hand with the state. Results of this activity can be observed in
East Prussia where the German element has acquired preponderance in
32 communes, through the intervention of German capital. A common
practice of the German loan societies is to assume the liabilities
of German farmers. In many cases the peasants have been provided
with funds to carry on their agricultural operations. In Western
Prussia 39 estates with about 14,000 inhabitants have passed into
German hands.[118] Often it has been impossible to induce peasants
from other parts of Germany to settle in the Polish provinces, and
the state has resorted to the importation of German peasants from
the old German settlements in Russia, Galicia and Bosnia.

German colonization in Polish provinces has been accompanied by
increase and expansion of urban centers. The province of Posen,
which now claims 151 cities,[119] is a typical instance. The
colonists’ cities founded by Germans are readily recognized by
their peculiar configuration. Almost all have been built on the
same plan. A four-sided market-place generally constitutes the
nucleus of the urban tract. Main avenues diverge from the angles of
the central quadrilateral. Lateral streets extend parallel to the
market sides and at right angles to the main arteries.

Against the tightening hold of the Germans on their land, the Poles
can offer only limited resistance. But their counteracting efforts
are not devoid of value. They have taken advantage of the high
prices, consequent upon the sales of the land which the government
has forced on them, to buy new estates. Thanks to the high rate of
birth among Poles, the proportion of Poles living in German Poland
to the rest of the population remains stationary, in spite of
German immigration or Polish emigration. Coöperative associations
of farmers, of traders or industrial operators, present a united
front in all dealings of their members with Germans. In the field
of education, children are taught Polish in spite of German
opposition.[120] The patriotism and courage of the Polish press
are maintained in face of German persecution. The return of Polish
emigrants with a little capital, accumulated by toil in foreign
lands, is likewise one of the factors which contribute to the
preservation of the people in their homeland. Both from the western
industrial districts of Germany and from overseas, many patriotic
Poles return to the land of their fathers and settle upon small
farms purchased with their savings.

From the east pressure corresponding to Teutonic battering,
although exerted with less intensity, is applied by Russian
endeavor to create national homogeneity. Of all the different
members of the wide-spread Slavic race Poles and Russians are the
most closely related by speech. But the affinity ends here, for
the formidable barrier of religious differences hampers fusion
of the two nationalities. Caught between the hammer of Teutonic
reformation and the Slavic anvil of Russian orthodoxy, the Poles
have remained stanch Catholics. Creed, in this case, has played a
considerable part in the preservation of national spirit.

In Austria alone have the Poles been relatively free from
persecution. Even there, in recent times, the Austrian policy of
setting her subject peoples against each other had led to a display
of favoritism towards the Ruthenian neighbors of the Poles. Both of
these Slavic peoples inhabit Galicia principally. The province is
the relic of the old duchy of Halitch, which had Lemberg for its
capital. The name Galicia originated in Austria, at the time of the
partition of Poland in 1772, and was applied to that part of the
dismembered country which Austria annexed. The province is peopled
at present by over three million Ruthenes.

Western Galicia, including the important cities of Cracow and
Tarnow, as well as the Tatra massif, is peopled almost exclusively
by about 2,750,000 Poles of whom 7 per cent are Polish-speaking
Jews.[121] Eastern Galicia on the other hand is the home of only
1,400,000 Poles, but here the Ruthenians make up a solid mass of
3,200,000. In the cities, however, the Poles form overwhelming
majorities, although their number dwindles to insignificance as the
Russian frontier is approached. Lemberg, notably, contains a high
proportion of Polish inhabitants.

But the fact of paramount importance in the condition of Austrian
Poles is that in spite of their minority in the largest part of
Galicia, they represent the dominating element in the Galician
population. Vast estates and great industries are almost
exclusively in their hands. They are also intellectual leaders and
the liberal professions are practically entirely held by them. The
Ruthenian’s lot throughout Galicia is that of the toiler, either in
the field or in the factory. Descendants of Ruthenian noblemen have
been absorbed by the Polish nobility, which has become the ruling
class. This economic superiority, coupled to political advantages
secured from the Austrian government by the Galician statutes
of 1868, makes the lot of the Austrian Poles truly enviable in
comparison with that of their German or even their Russian kinsmen.
The province is ruled by a Diet composed of Poles and Ruthenians,
each speaking his own tongue. The authority of this body, however,
is strictly restricted to provincial affairs. Extra-provincial
matters are under the direct control of Vienna.

The Ruthenian is therefore the Pole’s great rival in Galicia.
Although the outward manifestation of this rivalry assumes the form
of nationalistic outbursts, the conflict is, in the main, social
and economic. The Ruthenian proletariat is at odds with its Polish
rulers. It has begun to dream of redemption from the vassalage
borne for centuries. Fortunately its endeavors are a source of
improvement in the lot of both Ruthenian and Polish peasants. A
glimpse of the power vested in the Ruthenian mass is thus afforded.
As a people these Ruthenes constitute the westernmost group of
the Little Russian division of the Slavic people. They inhabit
the territory of the ancient kingdom of Ukraine and number some
30,000,000 souls. Southwestern Russia is peopled by them almost
exclusively. They form from 76 to 99 per cent of the population of
the following districts:[122]

  1. The Ukraine of the right bank of the Dnieper, Podolia,
  Volhynia, Kiev and Kholm.

  2. The Ukraine of the left bank of the Dnieper, Tchernihov,
  Poltava, Kharkov, southwestern Khursk and Voronezh, and the
  region of the Don Cosacks to the Sea of Azov.

  3. The steppe of Ukraine lying on both sides of the Dnieper
  and comprising Katerynoslav, Kherson and the eastern parts of
  Bessarabia and Tauris.

  4. North Caucasus, adjacent to the region of the Don Cosacks,
  comprising Kuban and the eastern parts of the Stavropolskoi and
  Terskaja governments.

In addition about 50,000 Ruthenians reside in Bukovina, while
700,000 occupy the sub-Carpathian districts of Hungary. About
2,000,000 are scattered in Siberian settlements. In Austria the
Carpathian mountains split the main body of the Ruthenians into
two sections, which occupy respectively Galicia and Hungary. In
the latter kingdom they are distributed mainly in the northern and
northeastern counties of Abanj, Bereg, Maramaros, Saros, Ung and
Zemplin.

The Ruthenians claim to be the original Russians. The purity of the
Slav type is better preserved among them than among any other group
in Russia and they show less of the Asiatic strain. They represent
the truly European Russians. Racial characteristics set them apart
from the main body of Russians on the north and east of their land.
Round-headedness is very pronounced among them and they tend to be
tall and dark-complexioned. Dialectical differences between them
and the Muscovites of the north and east also exist.

The Masurians of northeastern Germany are essentially an
agricultural people who have succeeded in supporting themselves on
exceedingly poor soil. They occupy the marshy belt of land which
has become famous through the battles fought within and around
its borders during the Great European War. It comprises the nine
districts of Allenstein, Johannisburg, Loetzen, Lyck, Neidenburg,
Oletzko, Ortelsburg, Osterode and Sensburg. A Masurian element
constitutes the majority of the inhabitants of Augustov and Seiny,
the two southernmost circles of the governments of Suwalki. The
German element is strongly represented in the entire region. It
forms a contingent of some 70,000 individuals in the governments
of Kovno and Suwalki.[123] As far as can be ascertained, the
earliest inhabitants of the land consisted of fishermen occupying
lacustrine habitations resting on piles. Their villages are
disposed around the hillocks to which they resorted for shelter
from man and the elements in the early period of the settlement of
the land. Locality names throughout the region are Polish, even in
the settlements founded by the Knights of the Teutonic Order or
the Hohenzollerns. Often a thin streak of Germanization has been
imparted to names of villages by the addition of the prefix Neu or
Klein.[124]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 40--A Wendish loghouse in the Spreewald where ancient Slavic
  colonies retain their language and customs although surrounded by
  Germans.]

Within this marshy country, a Polish folk has maintained its own
institutions ever since the consolidation of Poles into a distinct
people within the drainage area of the Vistula. The only feature
of Germanism which took hold in the land was the Protestant
religion. The 300,000 Masurians, therefore, present the queer
anomaly of a Protestant Polish group. Apart from this peculiarity
they are as truly Poles as their land is part of the Vistula basin.
With the revival of Polish ideals in recent years the growth of
Protestantism in the region has been checked. It is interesting to
note that the revulsion of religious feeling had its source in the
province of Posen, in the full midst of Teutonic proselytism, and
not, as might have been expected, in Russian Poland.

The Wends of Germany represent the only intact remnant of the Slav
populations which once filled the country. The whole plain country
of northern Germany extending from the Elbe to the Vistula had been
inhabited by the Wends since early Christian times. The country
between the Sale, upper Havel and Spree valleys was probably their
original settling ground.[125] They now occupy Lusatia and are
sometimes known as Lusatian Serbians. In the Middle Ages the name
of Sorabes was given to them. The Germans first began to invade the
region in the eleventh century. In the fourteenth, they attained
numerical preponderance. The decline of the Slav communities which
was accelerated by the Thirty Years’ War, begins about this time.
The union of Lusatia with Bohemia helped the Slav cause for a
while, but the treaty of Prague, in 1635, by which the country was
awarded to Saxony crushed Slavic hopes. At present, the Slavic
language has practically disappeared from the region, although the
appearance and customs of the inhabitants are more Slav than German.

As late as the Middle Ages the Wends occupied an area considerably
to the north of their present seat. The eastern valley of the Elbe,
as well as Mecklenburg territory, was settled by them before 1160.
Charters of this period such as that of the Schwerin bishopric of
1178, or of the cloister of Dargun of 1174, show Slavic place
names exclusively. Among signs pointing to a pre-German spread
of the Wendish element are the relics of Slavic family names and
evidences of the old “Hakenhufen” division of the land in lots of
15 acres. This last proof appears irrefutable and points, upon
application, to the former extension of the Wendish element to
the very shores of the Baltic.[126] Germanization seems to have
been thoroughly accomplished by the second half of the thirteenth
century. But even today a great part of the area east of the Elbe
must be regarded as a land of German-speaking Slavs.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 41--The area of Wend speech. The dotted patch shows that
  Kottbus is the center of the district in which the majority of
  the inhabitants (over 50 per cent) speak the Slav language. In
  the ruled area the percentage of Wends is less than 50.]

Surrounded by Germans, the Wendish colony is doomed to disappear in
spite of a literary renascence which helps to perpetuate national
consciousness in its midst. According to statistics, the number
of Wends is steadily declining. The progress of Germanization
is particularly apparent in Lower Lusatia, which is part of the
Prussian domain. It was estimated in 1885 that this people
comprised about 176,000 souls. Later computations place this figure
at about 156,000. The absence of an intellectual class among them,
compulsory military service in German regiments and the use of the
German language in church favor the progress of Teutonism.[127]

The want of linguistic unity among the Wends also tends to weaken
their position. Idiomatic differences between the languages of
Upper and Lower Lusatia are such as to prevent the natives of the
respective districts from rendering themselves intelligible to one
another. The literary language of Kottbus differs from that of
Bautzen. Diversity of customs and institutions is also noticeable
between the two groups. German ideas increase this cultural split,
the divergence from Slavic institutions and thought thus becoming
accentuated. Unlike the Masurians, and because of their isolation,
the Wends cannot look to eventual incorporation with the Polish
body. Their political destiny is therefore distinct from that of
the Poles.

We have seen in this chapter that although conquered and divided
Poland still lives. A compact mass of over 20,000,000 individuals
speaking the same language is a force which cannot but make itself
felt. This main body of Poles resides within its own linguistic
boundaries. Smaller colonies are found outside these limits. The
Polish inhabitants of Lithuania and Ukraine muster about 2,000,000.
Vilna alone, the capital of Lithuania, has a population of 70,000
Poles out of a total of 170,000 inhabitants.[128] The Polish
colonies of Ukraine, of the coal-fields of the Donetz, and of the
Caucasus comprise wealthy landholders, manufacturers, bankers
and merchants. These men though living outside the ethnographic
boundaries of their people nevertheless exercise the weight of
their influence on its behalf. Thus the three groups into which
conquest has divided the Poles remain today in intimate contact in
spite of the political boundaries which separate them. It is mainly
in the economic field that binding ties have been established
between the three, for the Poles of the three continental empires
have made it a point to promote trade relations with one another.
This was forging a new link to their pre-existing natural ties of
kinship.

The problem of delimiting Polish national boundaries is complicated
on the east and west, as has been stated, by the absence of
prominent surface features. On both sides the lines of linguistic
parting provide the only practicable demarcation. On the north and
south, however, the Baltic and the Carpathians may be utilized
advantageously as national frontiers. But the fate of the Polish
region is strongly outlined by nature, for the entire basin of the
Vistula is a regional unit. Any partitioning of this basin would
probably be followed by political conflicts.


NOTE ON THE SLAVS

  In the ninth century the Slavs occupied the eastern plains of
  Europe between the valleys of the Elbe and the Dnieper. Southward
  they spread to the northern foothills of the mountains of central
  Europe. Although subdivided into tribes bearing different names,
  there existed no essential differences among them as to language
  or custom. The pagan divinities worshiped in the drainage area
  of the Vistula were the gods of the inhabitants of the Dnieper
  valley. Tribal authority was exercised by a chief designated as
  Kniaz or Voivod throughout these lowlands. Intercourse between
  the various groups was constant. A vague political union is even
  discerned by some historians. The Poles and Ruthenians and, to a
  lesser extent, the Bohemians, are the best modern representatives
  of these original Slavs. All the eastern Slavs, however, have
  mixed more or less with Asiatic peoples.

  Some light is thrown on the European origin of the peoples
  of Aryan speech by the growth of the Slavs. The Slavs of
  Europe now form by far the most important ethnic group of that
  continent. They comprise about 160,000,000 individuals out of
  a total of 400,000,000 inhabitants of Europe. Two-thirds of
  this Slavic element consists of Russians (66,000,000 Great
  Russians, 32,000,000 Little Russians, and about 8,000,000 White
  Russians).[129] Next to the Russians in numerical importance are
  the Poles (23,000,000). The Serbo-Croatian group can only muster
  half the Polish array. The Bohemians follow, 8,000,000 strong,
  while the Bulgarian group does not quite attain 6,000,000.
  Smaller groups are the 2,000,000 Slovenes, the 2,000,000 Slovaks
  and the less important enclave communities of German lands like
  the Wend in Lusatia.

  The homeland of the primitive nucleus of this branch of the
  Indo-European family is restricted in the main to the plains
  extending from the northwestern corner of the Black Sea to the
  sandy delta of the Oder. The valleys of the great rivers in
  this lowland exerted the earliest separative influence which is
  known to have occurred in the primitive Slav group. Niederle
  distinguishes three main sub-groups which fit into the frame
  of eastern European hydrography.[130] A northwesterly branch
  attained the valleys of the Elbe, Sale and Sumava, and gave birth
  to the Bohemian and Polish factions. A central group, originally
  occupying the region of the upper Vistula, the Dniester and
  middle Danube, rounded the southern slopes of the Carpathians
  and, traveling up-stream on the Danube, eventually attained the
  valleys of the Save and Drave. The Slavs of southeastern Europe
  are descendants of this group. Originally pure Slavs, they are
  permeated with Asiatic blood owing to repeated invasions from
  the east. The third group was destined to form the substratum of
  Slavic Russia. It radiated from the basin of the Dnieper as far
  north as the Gulf of Finland and eastward to the valleys of the
  Oka, the Don and the Volga.


TABLE I

FORMER POLISH PROVINCES UNDER GERMAN RULE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
EUROPEAN WAR[131]

                                                            Period of
                                       Area in  Population   loss to
      PROVINCE                         sq. mi.    1910       Poland

  POMERANIA, regencies of Strzalow
    (Stralsund), Szezecin (Stettin),                         XIIIth
    and Koszalin (Köslin)               11,751   1,716,921   century[132]

  WEST PRUSSIA, regencies of Gdansk
    (Dantzik) and Kwidzyn
    (Marienwerder)                       9,966   1,703,474   1772[133]

  EAST PRUSSIA, regencies of Krolewiec
    (Königsberg), Glombin (Gumbinnen)
    and Olsztyn (Allenstein)            14,431   2,064,175   1656[134]

  POSNANIA, regencies
    of Poznan (Posen) and
    Bydgoszcz (Bromberg)                11,307   2,099,831   1815[135]

  REGENCY OF FRANKFURT                                       XIIIth
    (Francfort-sur-l’Oder)               7,487   1,233,189   century

  PROVINCE OF SILESIA,
    regencies of Lignica
    (Liegnitz), Wroclaw
    (Breslau),[136] and
    Opole (Oppeln)                      15,731   5,225,962   1335

  SAXON DISTRICT OF                                          XIIIth
    BUDZISZYN (Bautzen)[137]               963     443,549   century


TABLE II

POLISH ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS UNDER AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN RULE AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE EUROPEAN WAR

                           Area in                 Period of loss
    TERRITORY              sq. mi.   Population      to Poland

  MARQUISATE OF MORAVIA        866    2,622,271     XIth century

  DUCHY OF SILESIA[138]      2,007      756,949         --

  KINGDOM OF GALICIA with
    the Grand Duchy of
    Cracow[139]             30,615    8,025,675     1772-1795


TABLE III

POLISH ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS UNDER RUSSIAN RULE AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE EUROPEAN WAR

                           Area in   Population in  Period of loss
    TERRITORY              sq. mi.      1910[140]     to Poland

  BALTIC PROVINCES:
    Gov’t of Esthonia        7,897       471,400       1660
      “    “ Livonia        18,342     1,466,900       1660
      “    “ Courland       10,642       749,100       1795

  LITHUANIA:
    Gov’t of Grodno         15,081     1,974,400 }
      “    “ Kovno          15,853     1,796,700 }     1793-1795[141]
      “    “ Vilna          16,587     1,957,000 }

  WHITE RUTHENIA:
    Gov’t of Smolensk       21,757     1,988,700       1667
      “    “ Minsk          35,649     2,868,300 }
      “    “ Mohilev        18,738     2,261,500 }     1772-1793
      “    “ Witebsk        17,615     1,850,700 }

  KINGDOM OF POLAND:
    Gov’t of Kalisz          4,436     1,183,800 }
      “    “ Kielce          3,936       973,300 }
      “    “ Lublin          6,567     1,556,000 }
      “    “ Lomza           4,119       688,500 }
      “    “ Piotrkow        4,777     1,981,300 }     1815 by Congress
      “    “ Plock           3,684       739,900 }       of Vienna
      “    “ Radom           4,817     1,112,200 }
      “    “ Siedlce         5,591     1,003,400 }
      “    “ Suwalki         4,895       681,300 }
      “    “ Warsaw          6,833     2,547,700 }

  RUTHENIA:
    Gov’t of Kiovie         19,890     4,604,200 }
      “    “ Podolia        16,587     3,812,000 }     1793-1795[142]
      “    “ Volhynia       28,023     3,920,400 }


TABLE IV

DISTRIBUTION OF POLES AND GERMANS IN UPPER SILESIA, ACCORDING TO
1910 GERMAN CENSUS FIGURES[143]


    LOCALITY           Population   Germans       Poles
  Kreuzburg              51,906      24,363      24,487
  Rosenberg              52,341       8,586      42,234
  Oppeln (city)          33,907      27,128       5,371
  Oppeln (district)     117,906      23,740      89,323
  Gross-Strehlitz        73,383      12,616      58,102
  Lublinitz              50,388       7,384      39,969
  Gleiwitz (city)        66,981      49,543       9,843
  Tost-Gleiwitz          80,515      16,408      61,509
  Tarnowitz              77,583      20,969      51,859
  Beuthen (city)         67,718      41,071      22,401
  Königshütte (city)     72,641      39,276      24,687
  Beuthen-Land          195,844      59,308     123,016
  Hindenburg            139,810      63,875      81,567
  Kattowitz (city)       43,173      36,891       5,766
  Kattowitz (district)  216,807      65,763     140,592
  Pless                 122,897      16,464     105,744
  Rybnik                131,630      24,872     102,430
  Ratibor (city)         38,424      22,914      11,525
  Ratibor (district)    118,923      13,316      56,765
  Kosel                  75,673      16,433      56,794
  Leobschütz             82,635      69,901       5,178
  Neustadt               97,537      51,489      43,787
  Falkenberg             37,526      33,286       3,815
  Neisse (city)          25,938      24,735         955
  Neisse (district)      75,285      74,125         797
  Grottkau               40,610      39,589         825


FOOTNOTES:

[97] L. Niederle: La race slave, Paris, 1911, pp. 71-74. A digest
in English of his conclusions will be found in _Ann. Rept. Smiths.
Inst._, 1910, Washington, 1911, pp. 599-612.

[98] J. Talko-Hryncewicz: Les Polonais du royaume de Pologne
d’après les données anthropologiques recueillies jusqu’à présent,
_Bull. Int. Acad. Sc. Cracovie, Classe des Sc. Math. et Nat. Bull.
Sc. Nat._, June 1912, pp. 574-582.

[99] Southern Poland was overrun by Mongolians during their third
invasion of Europe. The Asiatics were attacked near Szydlow on
March 18, 1241, by an army of Polish noblemen recruited from
Sandomir and Cracow. The defeat of the Christians enabled the
invaders to plunder the latter city, besides opening the way for
incursions farther north in the course of which they penetrated
into Silesia by way of Ratibor and marched toward Breslau. Near
Liegnitz an army of 30,000 Europeans was defeated on April 9th
of the same year. These disasters were invariably followed by a
westerly spread of the Tatar scourge. Traces of its passage can
still be detected among the Poles.

[100] The Poles constitute the majority of the population in many
cities of eastern or Russian Galicia. In Niederle’s list Bobrka,
Muszyna, Sanok, Lisko, Sambor, Peremysl, Rawaruska, Belz, Zolkiew,
Grodek, Ceshanow, Stryj, Kalusz, Stanislawoff, Kolomya, Tarnopol,
Husiatyn, Buczacz, Sokal and Trembowla are credited with over 50
per cent Poles in their population. The predominance of German in
the cities of Biala, Sczerzec, Dolina, Bolechow, Nadworna, Kossow,
Kuty, Zablotow and Brody is attributed by the same authority to the
Jewish element present.

[101] E. Reclus: Géogr. Univ., Vol. 3, Europe Centrale, Paris,
1878, p. 396.

[102] E. Romer: Esquisse climatique de l’ancienne Pologne, _Bul. de
la Soc. Vaud. des Sc. Nat._, 5^e Sér., Vol. 46, June, 1910, p. 231.

[103] J. Zemrich: Deutsche und Slaven in den österreichischen
Südetenländern, _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 2, 1903, pp. 1-4.

[104] Limite des civilisations dans les Beskides occidentaux,
_Ann. de Géogr._, Vol. 17, 1908, Feb. 15, pp. 130-132. Cf. also
E. Hanslik: Kulturgrenze und Kulturzyklus in den polnischen
Westbeskiden, _Pet. Mitt._, Ergänzungsheft No. 158, 1907.

[105] P. Langhans: Nationalitätenkarte der Provinz Schlesien,
1:500,000. Sonderkarte No. 1 in _Deutsche Erde_, 1906; id.:
Nationalitätenkarte der Provinz Ostpreussen, 1:500,000. Sonderkarte
No. 1 in _Deutsche Erde_, 1907.

[106] L. Niederle: op. cit., p. 73; but cf. H. Praesent: Russisch
Polen, etc., _Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 60, Dec. 1914, p. 257.

[107] A. C. Haddon: The Wanderings of Peoples, Cambridge, 1912, p.
48.

[108] F. Curschmann: Die deutsche Ortsnamen in nordostdeutschen
Kolonialgebiet, _Forsch. z. deut. Landes- u. Volksk._, Vol. 19, No.
2, 1910, pp. 91-183.

[109] Marquis de Noailles: Les frontières de la Pologne, Paris,
1915, p. 21.

[110] K. Closterhalfen: Die Polen in niederrheinisch-westfälisch
Industriebezirk 1905, 1:200,000. Pl. 16 in _Deutsche Erde_, Vol.
10, 1911.

[111] A. Raahe: Die Abwanderungsbewegung in den östlichen Provinzen
Preussens. Einleitung und Teil I. Die Provinz Ost-Preussen. Berlin,
1910.

[112] N. Troïnitsky: Premier recensement général de la population
de l’empire de la Russie, 1897. Vols. 1 and 2, Petrograd, 1905.

[113] The Jews cluster especially in the eastern governments of
Warsaw, Lomsha and Siedlez, where their percentage varies between
15.6 and 16.4. This ratio is lower in the southern and western
administrative divisions. In Kalish it reaches only 7.2 per cent
and is reduced to 6.3 per cent in Petrokow. In the cities the Jews
constitute on an average slightly over a third of the population,
although here again they are more numerous in the east. Cf. D.
Aïtoff: Peuples et langues de la Russie, _Ann. de Géogr._, Vol. 15,
May 1909, pp. 9-25.

[114] G. Bienaimé: La Pologne économique, _Bull. Soc. de Géogr.
Comm. de Paris_, Vol. 37, Nos. 4-6, April-June, 1915, pp. 128-164.

[115] G. Bienaimé: op. cit., p. 139.

[116] A law passed in 1908 authorizes the State to acquire land
in the administrative circles in which German interests require
development of colonization. B. Auerbach: La germanisation de
la Pologne Prussienne. La loi d’expropriation, _Rev. Polit. et
Parlem._, Vol. 57, July 1908, pp. 109-125.

[117] P. Langhans: Nationalitätenkarte der Provinz Schlesien,
1:500,000. Sonderkarte No. 1 in _Deutsche Erde_, 1906. P.
Langhans: Nationalitätenkarte der Provinz Ostpreussen, 1:500,000.
Sonderkarte No. 2 in _Deutsche Erde_, 1907. Die Provinzen Posen und
Westpreussen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ansiedlungsgüter
und Ansiedlung, Staatsdomänen und Staatsforsten nach dem Stande von
1 Januar 1911, _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 10, Taf. 1, 1911.

[118] M. Loesener: Besitzfestigung in der Preussischen Ostmark.
_Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 10, 1911, pp. 3-8.

[119] Dalchow: Die Städte des Warthelandes, I. Teil, Ein Beitrag
zur Siedlungskunde und zur Landeskunde der Provinz Posen. Leipzig,
1910.

[120] After having been entirely banished from secondary schools,
Polish was excluded from elementary schools by a ministerial
decree, dated Sept. 7, 1887. Religious instruction alone could be
imparted in this language and even this privilege was removed in
1905.

[121] G. Bienaimé: loc. cit.

[122] B. Sands: The Ukraine, London, 1914, p. 8.

[123] H. Rosen: _Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 61, Sept. 1915, pp. 329-333.

[124] A. Weinrich: Bevölkerungsstatistische und
Siedlungsgeographie, Beiträge zur Kunde Ost-Masuriens, vornehmlich
der Kreise Oletzko und Lycke. Königsberg, 1911.

[125] L. Niederle: La race slave, Paris, 1916, p. 94.

[126] H. Witte: Wendische Bevölkerungsreste in Mecklenburg,
_Forsch. z. deut. Landes- u. Volksk._, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1907.

[127] Op. cit., pp. 96-97.

[128] Including 40 per cent of Jews.

[129] The Slavs are divided by religion into a main body of
about 110,000,000 individuals belonging to the Russian Orthodox
Church, about 37,000,000 Roman Catholics, 5,000,000 Raskolniks or
Sectarians, between 1,000,000 and 2,000,000 Protestants and over
1,000,000 Mohammedans.

[130] La race slave, Paris, 1911, pp. 3-4.

[131] L. Strzembosz: Tableau des divisions administratives
actuelles de la Pologne, Paris, 1915.

[132] Not including the circles of Lembork (Lauenburg), (479 sq.
mi., 52,851 inhab.), Bytow (Bütow) (238 sq. mi., 28,151 inhab.),
and Drahim land (Draheim) (197 sq. mi., 18,500 inhab.), which were
lost in the first partition in 1772.

[133] Not including the circle of Susz (Rosenberg) (407 sq. mi.,
54,550 inhab.), and half of that of Kwidzyn (187 sq. mi., 34,213
inhab.), which together made part of ducal Prussia and were lost in
1656.

[134] Given in fief by the Polish kings to the Dukes of Brandenburg
and exonerated in 1656 from the oath of vassalage, except the
four circles of Braniewo (Braunsberg) (383 sq. mi., 54,613
inhab.), Liebark (Heilsberg) (427 sq. mi., 51,912 inhab.), Olsztyn
(Allenstein) (529 sq. mi., 90,996 inhab.) and Reszel (Rössel) (333
sq. mi., 50,472 inhab.), which together under the name of Duchy
of Warmie made part of Royal Prussia and were lost at the first
partition.

[135] Conferred on the king of Prussia under the name of Grand
Duchy of Posen at the time of the partition of the Duchy of Warsaw
by the Congress of Vienna in 1815.

[136] Former appendages of a branch, extinguished in 1675, of the
royal Polish house of Piast.

[137] Part of the former marquisate of Lusace.

[138] Part of the former Polish Silesia, kept by Germany.

[139] The territory of Cracow, made into a republic in 1815 by the
Congress of Vienna, was annexed by Austria in 1846.

[140] Consisting of Poles and natives.

[141] The circle of Bialystok, occupied by the king of Prussia in
1795, was ceded to Russia by the treaty of Tilsit in 1807.

[142] The city of Kijow (Kiev) with its district (773 sq. mi.,
560,000 inhab.) was lost in 1686.

[143] R. Baumgarten: Deutsche und Polen in Oberschlesien, _Deutsche
Erde_, Vol. 13, No. 7, 1914-1915, pp. 175-179.




CHAPTER VII

BOHEMIAN, MORAVIAN AND SLOVAKIAN


The Bohemians, who with the Moravians form the vanguard of the
Slavs in Europe, occupy the mountain-girt plateau of Bohemia in
the very heart of the continent. Here, a steady easterly spread of
Teutons has prevented expansion of these Slavs along the eastern
valleys which provide them with communication with the rest of
the continent. Bohemians and Moravians thus found themselves shut
within the mountainous rim of their land by the Germans of Silesia
and Austria proper.

The German ring surrounding Bohemia is composed of groups belonging
to various types of the Teutonic family. A southwestern element
consists of descendants of Bavarian settlers. Farmers and woodsmen
were introduced into the Böhmerwald, as an inevitable phase of the
exploitation of the mountainous area, by religious communities
of the thirteenth century. The end of the Thirty Years’ War was
marked by a new influx of Germans needed to repopulate the sorely
devastated Bohemian districts. The Bavarians, however, never
reached the foot of the eastern slopes. Modern Bohemian resistance
to their spread toward the plain persists unflinchingly. Northward,
the Erzgebirge uplift is also a German ethnographic conquest. For
centuries its mineral wealth has attracted artisans from Franconia,
Thuringia and Saxony. The mountain slopes re-echo today to the
sound of the dialects of these ancient countries. The Saxon element
prevails particularly among the inhabitants of the Elbe valley.

Farther east, descendants of Lusatian and Silesian peasants still
use the vernacular of their ancestors in the upland formed by the
Iser Gebirge and the Riesen Gebirge. In modern times the valleys
of these mountains yield a steady stream of German-speaking
inhabitants to the industrial towns of the southern plain. The
German workingman’s competition with his Bohemian fellow laborer
is keen in this district, but it has not been marked by a notable
advance of the Teutonic idiom.

Linguistically the Bohemians and Moravians form a unit hemmed in
by Germans on all sides except the east, where they abut against
their Slovak kinsmen. Community of national aspirations, under the
leadership of the Bohemian element, is generally ascribed to these
three Slavic groups. The union has been fostered by the lack of a
literary language among Moravians, who have adopted the Bohemian
alphabet and style. With the Slovaks[144] inferiority of numbers
helped the spread of the Bohemian language and literature.

The Czech linguistic area presents homogeneity of composition
which is seldom encountered in other parts of Austria-Hungary.
Intermingling of Slavic and Teutonic elements has been slight
in this advanced strip of Slavdom. Overlapping of German is
met in belts generally parallel to the political divide. It is
particularly noticeable in the angle formed by the junction of the
Böhmerwald and Erzgebirge near the western linguistic divide, where
it almost attains the town of Pilsen.[145] Beyond, in a northerly
direction, the volcanic area characterized by thermal springs
lies within the German line. Reichenberg, a strenuous center of
Teutonism, maintains easterly and westerly prongs of German in
the Iser-Riesen uplifts and the Elbe valley, respectively. The
German of Silesia spreads into Moravia along the Zwittau-Olmütz-Neu
Titschen line.

A short stretch of the linguistic boundary coincides with the
political frontier in the neighborhood of Taus, but the rest of
the southern Böhmerwald overlooking Bohemian levels is German in
speech from the crests to the zone in which widening of the valleys
becomes established. The disappearance of this mountainous chain,
in southern Moravia, coincides with a southerly extension of Czech
in the valley of the March. Contact with Slovak dialects begins in
the Beskid area.

Celts, Teutons and Slavs have occupied the Bohemian lozenge in
turn. The appellation Czechs first appears in the sixth century.
National consolidation began with the country’s conversion to
Christianity, three hundred years later, and was maintained with
varying fortunes until 1620. Bohemian political freedom was
annihilated in that year on the battlefield of the White Mountain.
After this defeat the land and its inhabitants lapsed into a state
of lethargy. The high cultural attainment of a few modern Bohemians
was sufficient to rouse the country to a sense of national
feeling.[146] Fortunately native poets, historians and scientists
were successful in infusing their patriotic ideals in the minds of
their countrymen. In particular, the fire of Bohemian patriotism
has been kept alive by literary activity.

Successful attempts on the part of Hungarians to assimilate the
Slovaks has caused these mountaineers to turn to their Bohemian
kinsmen for assistance in the preservation of race and tradition.
Merging of national aspirations in this case, was facilitated
by close linguistic affinity. A Czecho-Slovak body consisting
of 8,410,998 individuals[147] thus came into being within the
Dual Monarchy in order to maintain resistance against German and
Hungarian encroachments.

The struggle between Teuton and Slav in Bohemia goes back to the
obscure period of the country’s early history. As late as the
middle of the ninth century Bohemia was mainly a pagan state.
German missionaries at that time were endeavoring to convert the
natives to Christianity. But the mere nationality of the apostles
of the new faith prevented them from gaining adherents. From the
heart of Europe the Bohemians looked eastward to the Christians of
the Slavic race for religious salvation. We read of envoys being
sent to the court of the Byzantine emperor to beseech this ruler
to send Christian teachers of the Slavic faith to Bohemia, as the
German missionaries could not make themselves intelligible to the
natives. These steps were viewed with considerable apprehension by
German bishops, especially after the success which attended the
proselytizing efforts of Methodus and his colleagues. The Byzantine
priests had brought with them a translation of the Bible in the
Slavic language of Macedonia. The replacement of Bohemian by German
was thus effectively prevented. Bohemia and Moravia definitely
became bilingual countries in the thirteenth century as a result of
the inflow of German colonists who responded to urgent appeals for
settlers made by Bohemian rulers in that period. The belt of German
towns which completely encircles Bohemia is a consequence of this
policy. The deforested zones of the west and northwest received the
largest number of settlers.

In western and northern Bohemia a struggle for supremacy between
German and Czech has been carried on for years with unabated
vehemence. The scene of contest between the two peoples is often
laid in individual communes. Clerical, industrial and educational
influences are constantly at work for the extension of the
linguistic area with which they side. On the whole the Bohemians,
being in command of superior pecuniary resources, appear to be
gaining ground, although from special causes the German element
shows an advance in certain districts. In those parts where mixture
has taken place no definite boundary between pure German and
Bohemian (i.e., in over 90 per cent of the respective peoples) can
be drawn. As a rule, it is the Bohemians who have of late advanced
their outposts into the German sphere, the Germanization of which
dates back some two hundred years. Although they have fallen
back somewhat in the tongue of land which projected into German
ground, north of Mies, they have gained much ground in Pilsen
and in the industrial region around Nürschan, west of that town.
Fifty years ago only some three or four thousand out of a total
population of fourteen thousand in Pilsen were Bohemians, but the
influx of population which has since taken place has been almost
entirely Bohemian. In 1890 the proportion of Germans in the city
only amounted to 16.2 per cent. Nürschan, the chief center of the
coal-fields of western Bohemia, boasts a Bohemian majority and if
the process now going on is continued the Bohemian population will
probably in time join hands with that in Mies.[148]

Further to the northeast similar conditions prevail, though the
linguistic frontier is in parts more sharply defined. In the
coal-fields of Brüx and Dux the Bohemian element has largely
increased on the German side of the normal frontier owing to the
influx of Czech miners. In Trebnitz again the Czech language
has gained a firm footing, although the town at the end of the
nineteenth century was entirely German. In the neighboring town
of Lobositz, however, which occupies an important position at the
junction of six lines of railway, the prospects from the German
point of view are brighter. The accession of Charles IV to the
throne of Bohemia in 1346 was an event of the utmost importance in
the linguistic history of the country.[149] This sovereign, the
successor of German princes who had never allowed Bohemia fair
play, showed marked affection for the land he was called upon to
rule and set himself to master its language thoroughly. For two
hundred years prior to his reign, Bohemian stood in danger of being
replaced by German. Other Slav dialects were fast disappearing
before the vigorous advance of Teutonic speech. Through its
literature alone the Bohemian language was preserved. This literary
development was an advantage which was not possessed by the Slav
languages, which gave way before German.

As a result of Charles’s benevolent policy Bohemian became the
language of the court. Furthermore it was used exclusively in
many courts of law, which were re-established through the same
influence. It was even decreed that speakers at the assemblies of
town magistrates should use the language of their choice and that
no one speaking only German could be appointed a judge. In this way
equality for the Bohemian language was obtained in the districts in
which Germans had settled.[150]

The creation of the Archbishopric of Prague and the foundation of
the “new town” of Prague dated also from the reign of King Charles.
Bohemian clergymen were encouraged to preach in the vernacular.
Their sermons reached the people and stirred them to thought. The
national movement against the Roman Church was thus facilitated.
But another cause favored the spread of Protestantism in Bohemia.
Antagonism to Catholicism was merely a special form of Bohemian
objection to German influence in the land. The Hussite movement is
therefore an episode in the prolonged struggle between Teuton and
Slav.

The enlargement of Prague infused vitality into the Bohemian
language. The new town was Bohemian in speech as well as in
sentiment. Slavic prevailed exclusively in municipal offices and
tribunals. Venceslas, who followed Charles, faithfully maintained
his predecessor’s attitude towards Bohemian. A notable advance
in favor of the language of the land was made in his reign by
a decision according to which all decrees of the court and the
government, which hitherto had been rendered in either German or
Latin, were to be henceforth published in Bohemian.

The University of Prague, which has always been a center of
Bohemian intellectual life, was also affected by these changes. In
the middle of the fifteenth century the German element in Bohemia
had complete control of the affairs of this institution. Its
chairs were filled by Teutons and its dignities awarded to their
kinsmen. In 1385, swayed by national aspirations and relying on
the predilection shown them in high quarters, Bohemians began to
protest against the presence of foreigners in their national seat
of learning. Their appeal found a response with the Archbishop
of Prague, who ruled that Bohemians were entitled to priority in
appointments to university offices, and that only in case of their
unfitness was a German to be selected. Complaint of this decision
was made by the Germans to the Pope and a compromise reached in
virtue of which predominance of Bohemian rights was obtained. The
appearance of John Huss on the scene of this struggle was the next
step in the task of completely emancipating Bohemia from German
rule.

The national movement fostered in this manner was to end
disastrously at the battle of the White Mountain in 1620. The
treaty of Westphalia removed all probability of the establishment
of an autonomous Bohemian nation. But Bohemian patriots have a
saying that “as long as the language lives the nation is not dead,”
and through all the dark days of the country’s history, in the very
heart of continental Europe, cut off from the surrounding lands by
a wall of forested slopes, the Bohemian language has held its own,
not merely as a vernacular but as a literary language worthy of the
nation’s pride.

A period of marked decline intervened, however, between the
seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. The crushing blow inflicted
on Bohemian nationalism in 1620 was speedily followed by a rigid
German oversight of the country. Seven years later, Ferdinand
inaugurated a series of measures aimed at destroying the cause for
which Bohemians had sacrificed their lives. The German language
began to supplant the Bohemian. The “renewed ordinance of the
land,” issued in 1627, contained provisions for the recognition
of German in tribunals and government offices on the same terms
as Bohemian. The appointment of Germans to important offices was
a policy which marked this period. Its effects became perceptible
in the growing use of the conquerors’ language. The seventeenth
century is marked by a rapid growth of the Teutonic belt
encircling Bohemia. Luditz and Saaz were lost to the Bohemian
language in that period. So were the districts of Rokytince and
Vichlaby[151] in the eastern section of the country. But since the
beginning of the eighteenth century little change has taken place
in the German-Bohemian linguistic boundary.

Among the causes which contributed to the decline of the Bohemian
language about this time were the land confiscations which were
carried out on an extensive scale by the Imperialists.[152] Most of
the noblemen of Bohemia were deprived of their estates. As a result
about half the landed property of the country was taken away from
its Slav owners. This spoliation was carried on by the Catholics,
the despoiled and exiled Hussites being replaced by Germans,
Spaniards, Walloons and even Irish. This foreign element naturally
adopted the German language and Bohemian was abandoned to serfs and
peasants.

The humble tillers of Bohemian soil proved faithful custodians of
their native speech. They stored the language during two centuries
as though they had been gifted with the foreknowledge of the
splendid literary revival which was to mark its renaissance at the
magic touch of Kolár, Sofarik and Palacký. Coincident with this
movement national consciousness was reborn among Bohemians. Writers
and poets naturally took the past greatness of their native land
as the theme of their compositions. They told their countrymen of
the glorious days of Bohemian history. The movement fortunately
took place when the wave of liberalism set in motion by the French
Revolution was still advancing into the recesses of central Europe.
By the year 1840 all Bohemia had awakened to the idea of national
independence. Attempts to secure partial autonomy proved abortive,
however. Revolutionary outbreaks in 1848 were quickly repressed
by Austrian troops, but the struggle between the two elements
increased in bitterness as years went by.

At present two-thirds of the inhabitants of Bohemia are Bohemians,
and this Slavic element is gradually forcing its way into districts
which were formerly occupied exclusively by Germans. The causes
of this shifting are economic. The German element, controlling
industry and vested with authority, has attained a state of
relative prosperity. Even its poorest members are not attracted by
the prospect of work held out by Bohemia’s growing industry. The
less advanced Bohemians, however, not so content with their lot,
are attracted by certain kinds of labor which the German element
spurns. Having fewer local ties than their Teutonic countrymen,
they easily move from place to place. It thus happens that out of
the thirty-six German districts of Bohemia, twenty-two are now
fully 5 per cent Bohemian.[153]

The inhabitants of the Margravate of Moravia are also true
Bohemians. This state is a crown-land of Bohemia, to the east of
which it lies. Its population consists of 1,870,000 Bohemians and
720,000 Germans. Close affiliation with the kingdom of Bohemia
is revealed in Moravia’s past history. The two states formed the
nucleus of the Bohemian nation. At present Moravia is even more
truly Bohemian than her larger sister state, since three-fourths
of the landowners of Moravia are Bohemians, while in Bohemia that
element holds only about three-fifths of the soil. In spite of the
mountainous character of the country, and the isolation produced by
it, very slight traces of early tribal differences can be detected
among these Bohemians. In Moravia alone three distinct types can be
distinguished by their dialects and their physical or ethnographic
features. Dress in the last case plays an important part.[154]

The northeastern section of Moravia is known as the Lassko country
and is peopled by Lassi Moravians. This group occupies districts
mainly around the towns of Moravska-Ostrava and Frydland. South
of them a number of Slovak villages are found within the Moravian
border. Their inhabitants, sometimes known as Moravian Slovaks, are
emigrants from the Hungarian mountains who reached the western
Carpathians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Although they
speak Bohemian, their customs differ considerably from Bohemian
usages. The balance of Moravia is peopled by Hanaks, who are easily
distinguished by temperamental differences from the previous two
groups. The Hanaks as a rule are calm and inclined to ponderous
ways of thought and action, whereas both the Lassi and Slovaks are
quick-minded and lively.

German expansion into Moravia is facilitated by the valley of
the March, which penetrates into the heart of the Margravate.
The Elbe and Moldau in Bohemia play a similar part as agents of
Germanization. As in Bohemia, the Germans are confined to the
border heights or the towns. In the thirteenth century many German
fortified towns existed in Moravia. The rise of a powerful German
middle class dates from this period. Intellectually as well as
industrially the Teuton element is the more advanced. Racial and
linguistic differences are accentuated by religious antagonism, the
German element being Roman in creed. The clergy in fact have acted
as a powerful agent of Germanization in Moravia.

The Slovaks are dwellers of the northern highland border of Hungary
who reached Europe in the sixth century B.C. They are closely
related by racial and linguistic affinity to the Bohemians and
Moravians. The course of centuries has failed to change their
customs or the mode of life they led in the western Carpathians.
The Hungarian plain spread out below their rocky habitation without
tempting them to forsake the huddled conditions of their native
valleys. Their language holds its own as far east as the Laborec
valley. Junction with Polish is effected in the Tatra.

Once only in their history did the Slovaks succeed in creating a
great nation. In 870 A.D., under the leadership of Svatopuk, they
established the short-lived Great Moravian Empire. Unfortunately
his successors were unable to maintain the independence of the
nation he founded and the empire crumbled to pieces before the
repeated attacks of the Hungarians. By the tenth century the
political ties between Bohemians and Slovaks were completely
severed.

In the fifteenth century the two peoples were drawn to each other
by ties of religion. An enthusiastic reception had been given
to the teachings of John Huss by the Slovaks. They adopted the
Bohemian translation of the Bible. Religious reformation was
followed by a literary revival and Bohemian became the language
of culture among them. It was mainly among Protestant Slovaks,
however, that the influence of Bohemian prevailed. The Catholic
clergy opposed the movement by encouraging literary development of
Slovakian. This linguistic struggle is maintained to the present
day. In spite of opposition, however, Bohemian remains the literary
language of the Slovak people. John Kollar, one of the greatest
writers of Bohemian poetry, was a Slovak.

The Slovaks number approximately two million souls spread over ten
of the “comitats” of northern Hungary. Their occupation of this
region antedates the coming of the Magyars. Survivals of ancient
Slovak populations are still met in the villages of central and
southern Hungary. Bohemian refugees of kindred speech and religion
reinforced this autochthonous element after the battle of the
White Mountain in 1620. These circumstances perhaps have prevented
their assimilation by the conquering race. The aristocracy alone
has intermarried with the Hungarians. The masses have no more
intercourse with the rulers than they can help. Linguistic and
religious differences intensify the breach.

While the Slovaks form compact populations in the mountains of
northern Hungary, their colonies are found scattered throughout
the southern parts of this country except in the Transylvanian
districts. The campaign waged by Hungarians to suppress Slovak
national aims renders the lot of these Slavs particularly trying.
The ancient names of their villages and towns are being officially
replaced by Magyar names, even where most of the inhabitants use
Slovakian as their vernacular.

Although Slovak-land is an integral part of the Hungarian kingdom,
it has proved an attractive field for German colonization since the
ninth century. The comitat of Zips was settled by a large colony of
Germans in the middle of the twelfth century. Fifty years later the
Teutons began to invade the comitats of Pressburg and Neutra[155]
by advancing from the west. In Bars and Hont, to both of which they
proceeded from the south, they were not known before the thirteenth
century. The Germanization of Slovak districts was particularly
intense during the Tatar invasion of this period. Hungary had been
grievously affected by this eastern scourge, and its kings offered
special inducements to repopulate their devastated provinces.
Their call was heeded by numerous families of German peasants. In
the first half of the sixteenth century almost every town within
Slovak boundaries contained one or two German families at least.
The heart of this German colonization was situated in the mining
districts of the country. Kremnitz and Nemecke Prava, as well as
adjoining districts, attracted heavy contingents of Teuton workers.
This movement ended in the seventeenth century when the inflow of
German colonists was checked by special legislation and the foreign
element was absorbed by either the Slovaks or the Hungarians.

The modern boundary of Slovakian language in Hungary starts
according to Niederle at Devinska Novaves near the confluence of
the Morva[156] and Danube. From this point it extends southeastward
to Novezansky and Leva. Thence it is continued south of Abanj as
far as Huta, which is the easternmost Slovak village. The line
now turns westward and skirts the Galician frontier as far as the
German border.

The area included within these confines is not altogether
homogeneous. The comitats of Neutra, Turocz, Bars and Gömö
contain enclaves of Germans. Polish and Hungarian settlements are
also known between Vrable and Neutra as well as at Abanj, west
of Kashau. Many Slovak communities exist, however, beyond the
region outlined above. These extra-territorial nuclei more than
counterbalance numerically the alien total in Slovak-land.

The most important localities inhabited by Slovaks outside of their
native land are Gran, in the comitat of Esztergom, and Budapest.
The Hungarian capital probably contains between 25,000 and 40,000
Slovaks. Their number in Vienna is estimated at 50,000. In other
parts of Hungary, as for instance at Kerepes and Pilis, highly
ancient Slovak communities are believed to represent survivals of
the people who lived in Hungary prior to the appearance of the
Hungarians.

Bohemia’s national enfranchisement, if carried out on a linguistic
basis, will rescue the old lands of the Bohemian crown, namely
Bohemia, Moravia and the Slovak districts of northwestern Hungary,
from Teutonic rule. The historical validity of Bohemia’s claims
to independence and the failure of centuries of Germanization to
deprive the Bohemian of his individuality establish the country’s
right to a distinct place in a Europe of free and harmonious
nations. The Bohemian has his own objects in self-development and
the achievement of his independence should be no disparagement of
the aims and pursuits of other nations.


FOOTNOTES:

[144] Official Austrian figures estimate the number of Slovaks at
slightly over 2,000,000. Slavic authorities generally give higher
figures.

[145] J. Zemmich: Deutschen und Slawen in den österreichischen
Südetenländern, _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 2, 1903, pp. 1-4.

[146] L. Bourlier: Les Tchèques et la Bohême contemporaine, Paris,
1897, pp. 143-220.

[147] Census returns for 1910. New Inter. Encyc., New York, 1914.

[148] Quoted from the _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 16, 1900, p. 553.

[149] According to data gathered by Niederle “the Bohemian
boundary in the fourteenth century started at Kynwart and passed
through Zdar, Kralipy and Komotan, the latter being German. Thence
it attained Most and spread to Duchcov and Dieczin. Bilin and
Teplitz were still Bohemian. The frontier then reached the German
settlement of Benesov and extended to Jablonna and beyond the
Iestred mountains until it struck the sources of the Iser river.
Reichenberg was a German city in the fourteenth century. The
Germans also occupied the mountainous land beyond Hohenelbe. This
town was then peopled by Bohemians mainly, but Pilnikov, Trutnov,
Zaclev and Stare Buky were already German. Starkov was Bohemian,
but the Brunov region and the Kladsko country was Germanized.
Olesnica and Rokytince were Bohemian. Beyond Policzka and Litomysl
the situation was similar to that of our day. Nemecky Brod
contained a German enclave. Jindrichuv Hradec as well as Budweiss,
Krumlov and Prachatice were inhabited by both peoples. The Kasperk
mountains were mainly German. The boundary in the Domazlice country
was on Bohemian soil. Klatovy was a mixed zone, while Tachov was
German.”

[150] Lützow: Bohemia, New York, 1910, pp. 71, 92.

[151] L. Niederle: La race slave, Paris, 1916, p. 109.

[152] Lützow: op. cit., p. 294.

[153] V. Gayda: Modern Austria, New York, 1915.

[154] L. Niederle: La race slave, Paris, 1911, p. 127.

[155] L. Niederle: La race slave, Paris, 1916, p. 106.

[156] The March acquires this name in its last stretch.




CHAPTER VIII

THE LANDS OF HUNGARIAN AND RUMANIAN LANGUAGES


The presence in Europe of Hungarians, a race bearing strong
linguistic and physical affinity to Turki tribesmen, is perhaps
best explained by the prolific harvests yielded by the broad
valleys of the Danube and Theiss. Huns, Avars and Magyars, one
and all Asiatics wandering into Europe, were induced to abandon
nomadism by the fertility of the boundless Alföld. Western
influences took solid root among these descendants of eastern
ancestors after their conversion to Christianity and the adoption
of the Latin alphabet. So strongly did they become permeated by the
spirit of occidental civilization, that the menace of absorption
by the Turks was rendered abortive whenever the Sultan’s hordes
made successful advances towards Vienna. At the same time, fusion
with the Germans was prevented by the oriental origin of the race.
The foundation of a separate European nation was thus laid in the
Hungarian plains.

Language to the Magyar has always represented nationality. When in
1527 St. Stephen’s crown was offered to Ferdinand of Austria in
order to strengthen Hungary’s resistance against the Turk, the new
ruler pledged himself not to destroy this sacred token of Hungarian
political independence. “Nationem et linguam vestram servare non
perdere intendimus” was his solemn promise. The germ of a dual form
of government was thus created in the presence of the Sultan’s
barbarous hordes, but Hungary always preserved its individuality,
for at no time did the kingdom form part of the Holy Roman Empire.
Closer union with Austria towards the end of the seventeenth
century when the right of succession to the Hungarian throne
became hereditary in the Hapsburg family, failed to Germanize the
land during all the eighteenth century. Later, up to 1867, the
persistent struggle of the Magyar against the Austrian was kept up.
Attempts to replace German by Hungarian in the governing bodies of
counties and municipalities were merely the outward expression of
the contest.

When, in 1825, the Hungarian Academy of Science was founded by a
group of patriotic leaders, the movement was little more than an
attempt to revive the Magyar tongue. Count Stephen Széchenyi’s
words on this occasion betray the consciousness of the intimate
relation between language and nationality which is felt in every
country during periods of actual danger. “I am not here,” he
said, “as a great dignitary of the kingdom; but I am an opulent
landowner, and if an institution be established that will develop
the Magyar language and, by so doing, advance the national
education of our countrymen, I will sacrifice the revenues of my
estates for one year.” The impetus given by this statesman, and a
few equally earnest compatriots, to the cultivation of national
literature in Hungary became a potent factor in the shaping of the
country’s modern political destiny. It liberated the Magyar from
the Germanizing influences of Austrian rule and ultimately paved
the way to the establishment of a dual government in the Empire.

The linguistic boundary between Hungarian and German is found in
the eastern extremity of the Austrian Alps. The southern side of
the valley of the Danube between Pressburg and Raab is German.
Magyar spreads however to the north to meet the Slovak area. South
of Pressburg the shores of Lake Neusiedler are included in the
German area. The line then crosses the upper valley of the Raab
and attains the Drave, which forms the linguistic boundary between
Croatian and Hungarian. East of the Theiss, contact with the
Rumanian of Transylvania begins in the vicinity of Arad, on the
Maros river, and extends northward in an irregular line, hugging
the western outliers of the Transylvanian Alps and attaining the
sources of the Theiss. In the northeastern valley of this river,
Hungarian and Ruthenian languages replace each other. The area
of Magyar speech thus defined lacks homogeneity in its western
section lying west of the Danube. Important enclaves of Germans are
solidly intrenched in this portion of the Hungarian domain. The
central portion of the monotonous expanse unfolding itself between
the Danube and the Theiss is, on the other hand, characterized
by uniformity of the Hungarian population it supports. Enclaves
however exist all along the border of this eastern area.

Hungarian nationality asserted itself definitely in the nineteenth
century in the face of strenuous effort on the part of Germans to
assimilate the Magyars. The latter took advantage of the defeat
of the Austrians at Sadowa in 1867 to reach a compromise with
their masters. The Hapsburg Empire was then converted into a
Dual Monarchy. For a time the economic advantages of this union
lay entirely with Austria. The Hungarian plain, vast and fecund,
bestowed the wealth of its fertility on Austria. A land of farmers
it also became an important market for the industrial output of its
German partner-state. This economic relation was maintained until
the beginning of the twentieth century, when Hungary made rapid
progress in industry and forced Austria to seek Balkan markets for
the disposal of its manufactured goods.

Austria’s unsuccessful attempt to dominate Hungary’s economic life
accelerated the growth of the germ of dissension between the two
countries. The tie that links Budapest to Vienna, at present, is
strengthened by Hungarian dread of the Slav. It might have given
way long ago otherwise, for in truth Hungary has to face the menace
of Pan-Germanism as well. The percentage of native Hungarians
in their own country is under 55 per cent and gives them a bare
majority over the combined alien peoples.[157] The number of
Germans scattered in Hungarian districts is 2,000,000. The only
advantage which the natives of the soil possess lies in their
occupation of the richest lands in their country.

A minor group of Hungarians have settled on the eastern edge
of the Transylvania mountains. Here they live surrounded by
Rumanians on all sides except on the west where a lone outpost
of Saxons brings Teutonic customs and speech to the east. The
name of Szekler, meaning frontier guardsmen, applied to this body
of Magyars is indicative of their origin. Their presence on the
heights overlooking the Rumanian plain bespeaks the desire of
Hungarian sovereigns to control the site of a natural rampart
dominating their plains. At the end of the thirteenth century
this Hungarian colony was in full development. Its soldiers
distinguished themselves during the period of war with the Turks.
Prestige acquired on battlefields strengthened the separate and
semi-independent existence of the community. The region occupied
by these Hungarians is situated along the easternmost border of
the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. It extends west of the uninhabited
mountain-frontier district between Tölgyes Pass and Crasna. The
towns of Schässburg and Maros Vasarhely lie on its western border.
But the area of Rumanian speech situated between the land of the
Szekler and the main Hungarian district is studded with numerous
colonies of Magyars, thereby rendering delimitation of a linguistic
boundary in the region almost impossible.

The Saxon colony adjoining the Szekler area on the west is also a
relic of medieval strategic necessities. In spite of the name by
which this German settlement is designated, its original members
appear to have been recruited from different sections of western
European regions occupied by Teutons.[158] Colonization had
already been started when King Gesa II of Hungary gave it a fresh
impulse, in the middle of the twelfth century, by inducing peasants
of the middle Rhine and Moselle valleys to exchange servitude
in their native villages for land ownership in the Transylvania
area.[159]

To promote the efficiency of these colonists as frontier guardsmen
an unusual degree of political latitude was accorded them. In time
their deputies sat in the Hungarian diet on terms of equality with
representatives of the nobility. Prolonged warfare with the Tatar
populations who attempted to force entrance into the Hungarian
plains, led to the selection of strategical sites as nuclei of
original settlements. These facts account for the survival of the
Teutonic groups in the midst of Rumanians and Hungarians. Today
the so-called Saxon area does not constitute a single group, but
consists of separate agglomerations clustered in the vicinity
of the passes and defiles which the ancestors of the Teutons
were called upon to defend. The upper valley of the Oltu and its
mountain affluents, in the rectangle inclosed between the towns of
Hermannstadt, Fogaras, Mediasch and Schässburg, contain at present
the bulk of this Austrian colony of German ancestry.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 42--View of the Transylvanian plateau near the western edge
  of the Carpathians. Hosszufalu (Langendorf) in the distance.]

The Rumanian problem in Hungary is mainly economic. The chief aim
of Hungarians is to maintain political supremacy in the provinces
containing a majority of the Romance-speaking element. The Rumanian
communities are scattered over an area of about 76,000 square
miles (122,278 sq. kms.) which comprises Transylvania and its old
“exterior” counties as well as the Banat. This region is peopled
by 6,305,666 inhabitants according to recent census figures. Of
these 87.8 per cent consist of peasants. The number of Rumanians is
officially estimated at 2,932,214. Rumanian students, however,
point to official Austrian returns for the year 1840 which placed
the number of their countrymen at 2,202,000[160] and lay stress
on the coefficient of increase for the period 1870 to 1910, which
is 15.5 per thousand in Rumania and 10.8 per thousand in Hungary.
Applying the Rumanian rate to the Rumanian subjects of the
Hapsburgs they find that their kinsmen in Hungary ought to number
approximately 3,536,000. Otherwise it is necessary to admit that
between 1840 and 1890 Magyars increased 54 per cent, and Rumanians
only 17 per cent, in spite of the recognized fact that Rumanian
peasants have larger families than their Hungarian masters.[161]

Social grouping in Transylvania shows that the dominating Hungarian
class consists largely of city dwellers and government employees.
These are the characteristics of an immigrant population which is
not solidly rooted to the land. The Szekler alone among Magyars
are tillers of the soil and in intimate contact with the land on
which they live. Few of the Rumanians are landowners. The estates
held by an insignificant number of their kinsmen generally form
part of ecclesiastical domains and are of restricted size. They own
however a relatively large proportion of Transylvania’s forested
areas, which the Hungarian ruling class is endeavoring to acquire
by imitating Prussian methods of absorption of Polish lands.

The Germans and Hungarians who founded settlements on the
Transylvanian plateau were unable to impose their language on the
inhabitants of the mountainous region. Rumanian, representing the
easternmost expansion of Latin speech, is in use today on the
greatest portion of this highland[162] as well as in the fertile
valleys and plains surrounding it between the Dniester and the
Danube. A portion of Hungary and the Russian province of Bessarabia
is therefore included in this linguistic unit outside of the
kingdom of Rumania.[163] Beyond the limits of this continuous area,
the only important colony of Rumanians is found around Metsovo
in Greece where, in the recesses of the Pindus mountains and
surrounded by the Greeks, Albanians and Bulgarians of the plains,
almost half a million Rumanians[164] have managed to maintain the
predominant Latin character of their language.[165]

Rumanian is derived directly from the low Latin spoken in the
Imperial era. In syntax and grammar it reproduces Latin forms of
striking purity. Words dealing with agricultural pursuits, however,
are generally of Slavic origin. The closeness of Rumanian to Latin
can be gathered from the following two specimens of Wallachian
verse and their Latin rendering:


1.

_Rumanian_

  Bela in large valle amblà
  Erba verde lin calcà;
  Cantà, qui cantand plangeà,
  Quod tódi munti resunà;
  Ea in genunchi se puneà,
  Ochi in sus indireptà;
  Ecce, asi vorbe faceâ;
  “Domne, domne, bune domne.”


_Latin_

  Puella in larga valle ambulabat,
  Herbam viridem leniter calcabat,
  Cantabat et cantando plangebat,
  Ut omnes montes resonarent:
  Illa in genua se ponebat,
  Oculos sursum dirigebat;
  Ecce, sic verba faciebat:
  “Domine, domine, bone domine.”


2.

_Rumanian_

  Nucu, fagu, frassinu
  Mult se certà intra séne.
  “Nuce,” dice frassinu,
  “Quine vine, nuci college,
  “Cullegend si ramuri frange
  “Vaide dar de pelle a tua;
  “Dar tu fage, mi vecine,
  “Que voi spune in mente tene:
  “Multe fere saturasi;
  “Qui prébéne nu amblasi;
  “Quum se au geru apropiat
  “La pament te au si culcat,
  “Si in focu te au si aruncat, ...


_Latin_

  Nux, fagus, fraxinus,
  Multum certant inter se.
  “Nux,” dicit fraxinus
  “Quisquis venit, nuces legit,
  “Colligendo ramos frangit:
  “Vae itaque pelli tuae!
  “At tu fage, mi vicine,
  “Quae exponam mente tene?
  “Multas feras saturasti,
  “At haud bene ambulasti;
  “Quum gelu appropinquat
  “Ad pavimentum de deculcant
  “Ad focum averruncant, ...

The prevalence of Latin in an eastern land, and in a form which is
stated to present closer analogies with the language of the Roman
period than with any of its western derivatives, had its origin in
the Roman conquest of southeastern Europe in the early part of the
first Christian millennium. Occupation of the land by important
bodies of legionaries and a host of civil administrators, their
intermarriage with the natives, the advantages conferred by Roman
citizenship, all combined to force Latin into current use. And when
in 275 Aurelian recalled Roman troops from the eastern provinces of
the empire, the vernacular of Rome had taken too solid a footing on
Dacian soil to be extirpated.

Abandonment of the region by the Romans is cited for political
reasons by the Magyar rulers of Transylvania to refute Rumanian
claims to this Hungarian province. Rumanian historians,
however, have been able to demonstrate the untenability of this
assumption.[166] They have shown that many of the customs of their
country are distinctly reminiscent of Latin Italy. It is still
customary in many Rumanian villages to attach a small coin to the
finger of the dead after an ancient Roman custom of providing
the soul with its fare across the Styx. Bands of traveling
musicians in Balkan or Hungarian cities are known to be composed
of Rumanians whenever their members carry an instrument which is
a faithful imitation of the pipes of Pan as sculptured upon Roman
and Gallo-Roman monuments. Rumania’s national dance, the Calusaré,
commemorates the rape of the Sabines to this day. Neither does
the list of these analogies end with the examples given here.
Furthermore the evidence afforded by geography tends also to
validate Rumanian claims.

From the valley of the Dniester to the basin of the Theiss the
steppes of southern Russia spread in unvarying uniformity save
where the tableland of the Transylvanian Alps breaks their
continuity. The entire region was the Dacia colonized by the
Romans.[167] Unity of life, in this home of Rumanian nationality,
has been unaffected by the sharp physical diversity afforded by
the inclosure of mountain and plain within the same linguistic
boundary. The thoroughness with which Rumanians have adapted
themselves to the peculiarities of their land is evinced by the
combination of the twin occupations of herder and husbandman
characteristic of Moldavians and Wallachians. Cattle and flocks
are led every summer to the rich grazing lands of the Transylvania
valleys. In winter man and beast seek the pastures of the Danubian
steppes and prairies. Rumanians thus maintain mountain and plain
residences, which they occupy alternately.[168] This mode of
life is the transformation which the nomadism of the Asiatic
steppe received on Rumanian soil. It is a true relic of past
habitat. These seasonal migrations also account for the intimacy
between highlanders and lowlanders in Rumania, besides affording
adequate explanation of the peopling of the region by a single
nationality.[169]

There was a time, however, when Rumanian nationality was entirely
confined to the mountain zone. Invasions which followed the
retirement of the Romans had driven Rumanians to the shelter of the
Transylvanian ranges. Perched on this natural fortress, they beheld
the irruption of Slavs and Tatars in the broad valleys which they
once held in undisputed sway. Only after the flow of southeastern
migrations had abated did they venture to reoccupy the plains and
resume their agricultural life and seasonal wanderings.

The outstanding fact in these historical vicissitudes is that the
mountain saved the Latin character of Rumanian speech. Had the
Romanized Dacians been unable to find refuge in the Transylvanian
Alps their language would probably have been submerged by the
Slavic or Tatar flood. As it is, the life of Rumanians is strongly
impregnated with eastern influences. Oddly enough its Christianity
was derived from Byzantium instead of from Rome and, were it not
for a veritable renaissance of Latinism about 1860, its affinity
with the Slavic world would be manifest with greater intensity than
is apparent in the present century.

The preservation of Roman speech was not confined to the
Transylvanian mountain area. In spite of Rome’s waning power
in the Balkans, her language had taken such solid root in the
peninsula that it has maintained itself to this day in the Pindus
mountain region intervening between Epirus and Macedonia. Here
the Kutzo-Vlachs of the region speak a language identical with
that spoken in the last stretches of the valley of the Danube. In
Albania also the same cultural heritage has been treasured to this
day in the mountainous tangle of the land. Albanian however is
further removed from Latin than Rumanian, probably on account of
less intercourse with the Roman world.[170]

The name of Kutzo-Wallachians or Aromunes is given to the
mountaineers of Rumanian speech peopling parts of Macedonia,
Albania and Thessaly. This detached band of Rumanians occupies
mainly the region between the mountains of the Pindus range and
the Serbian boundary. In Albania they are found scattered along
the upper reaches of the Semeni and Devoli rivers. In Greece, the
channels of the Voyussa, the Arta, the Aspropotamos, the Bistritza
and the lower Vardar likewise constitute their favorite tramping
grounds. A shepherd people, roaming with their flocks, their life
is spent either in the valleys of their summer mountain resorts
or in the plains which they favor in winter. Tribes or clans
among which dialectical differences can be found occur according
to locality, but they nevertheless compose when taken together a
compact mass of Rumanians settled far from the main body of their
kinsmen by speech.

A group 5,000 to 6,000 strong live near the sources of the
Aspropotamos around Siracu, and between Kalarites and Malakasi.
Northwards this clan extends to Metsovo.[171] In the Olympus
mountains Rumanians are known at Vlakho-Livadi and adjoining
districts. Eastwards, the Veria Rumanians are found in the villages
of Selia, Doliani and Kirolivadi. West of the latter locality, the
settlements of Vlakho-Klissura, Blatza and Sisani are likewise
composed entirely of Rumanian inhabitants. The same is true of
the villages of Nevesca, Belcamen and Pisuderi as well as of
Gramosta, in the recesses of the Grammos mountains and of Koritza
and Sipiska. Other colonies exist at Okrida, Gopes, Krushevo,
Molovista, Tirnova, Magarevo and Monastir. The Struga and Geala
settlements are also part of the preceding groups.

Within Albanian territory the village of Frasheri is the most
important Rumanian settlement. Its name has passed to the
Frasherist group of western Rumanians. Around Berat, a strong
contingent occupies about 40 villages and can muster ten thousand
men. In the Vardar valley various settlements aggregating 14,000
individuals, all farmers, are distributed near Guevgueli as well as
in localities north and south of this town. Many of these peasants
are Mohammedans and speak a dialect of their own. A Rumanian
settlement is also found in the Jumaya Pass south of Sofia and
along the old Turco-Bulgarian frontier.

The nomadic character of these isolated adherents of a Latin
language is shown in many of their villages, which are occupied
during part of the year only. As an example the villages in the
vicinity of Frasheri, the ancient “Little Wallachia,” are inhabited
during winter alone. Many Frasherists can be met along the Albanian
coast between Kimara and the bay of Valona, as well as along the
eastern coast of Corfu and in villages of the Moskopolis and
Koritza districts. As a rule they are peddlers and confine their
commercial nomadism to profitable routes just as pastoral nomads,
who are their kinsmen, seesaw back and forth between the mountain
districts nearest their plains.

The three areas of Romance language in the Balkans attest, by
implication, the powerful influence attained by Rome in the
peninsula prior to the rise of the Slavic flood. The presence of
the Slavs began to be felt about the seventh century and two
hundred years later the Balkan peninsula had become heavily
Slavicized. Before that period, however, every nook and corner of
the land area between the Adriatic and the Black and Ægean seas
must have been under effective Roman jurisdiction. Lanes of travel
from the coasts of Albania to the famous Thracian rendezvous
were frequented by Roman traders and colonists with increasing
regularity in the early centuries of the Christian era. The growing
estrangement of Byzantium from the west, Slavic inroads and later
Turkish advances all but destroyed the social unity which must have
characterized the Balkan region in Roman times. Of this unity, the
Rumanian and Albanian languages alone have survived along different
coasts. Both languages are knit together structurally as well as by
outward harmony.

Through the survival of Romanic languages in the Balkan peninsula
an excellent glimpse is obtained of the conditions preceding the
Slavic migrations which, beginning at the end of the third century,
burst into full strength at the opening of the sixth. The Slavic
flood was both heavy and prolonged. Its strength can be surmised
from the survival of Slavic place names in the sections of Balkan
territory under Greek, Rumanian or Albanian control. But the Slavs
mastered only the drainage area of the Danube and its tributaries.
The twin basins of the Save and Drave afforded them westerly
routes of penetration without, however, providing channels of
southerly advance. The watershed coinciding roughly with easterly
longitude 21° in Albania and attaining the Pindus mountains
therefore remained closed land to the Slavs. As a result Albania
and Macedonia are to be considered as areas in which Romance speech
once prevailed. The signs of this linguistic relation are numerous
in Albania because the country is less open to invasion than the
Macedonian basin.

A territory of Romance languages extending continuously from the
Atlantic to the Black Sea probably existed prior to the immigration
of Slavs into southeastern Europe. The areas of Romansh, Friulian,
Ladin, Albanian and Rumanian are remnants of this ancient language
zone. Even the Slavic language of the Macedonian peasant is a
layer superimposed on the linguistic stratum prevailing before the
period of Slavic invasion. It is therefore about thirteen centuries
old. The changes undergone by the earlier form of Macedonian in
this span of centuries have been so sweeping as to obliterate
altogether the character of the pre-Slavic tongue. Rumanian
vernaculars of the Pindus extended therefore to the east and not
improbably into Thrace. A claim upon Macedonia based on this
assumption has even been put forward by Rumanians.[172]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 43--The easterly sweep of Romance languages. The dotted
  areas are lowlands. Romance languages are spoken in the
  diagonally ruled areas. Cross-ruling represents the connecting
  areas between eastern and western Romance languages. Pindus
  localities in which Rumanian is spoken are indicated by R. Scale,
  1:12,500,000.]

No fair conception of the character of the Rumanian population can
be attained without thorough realization of the extent to which
the land has been open to the invasions of Asiatic nomads of the
steppes. The intensity of this movement can be ascertained for the
historical period. Back of that time, however, the interminable
stretch of centuries must have been characterized by the same
inflow from the east, else the Rumanian population would not betray
today such distinctly Tatar earmarks. The eastern sections of the
country, those nearest to, and forming practically a continuation
of Russia, teem with settlements of pure Tatars.

The earliest inhabitants of Rumania are tall, dark brachycephs--the
Cevenoles of Deniker’s classification. This original element has
been repeatedly diluted by Slavic and Tatar percolation. The Roman
conquest, which together with the “pax Romana” brought civilization
to the land, was not an ethnical victory. The Romans, a mere
minority of leaders, ruled in the land much after the fashion in
which the British govern India at present. But this occupation of
the land by men representing a superior civilization sufficed to
stamp the speech of Rome upon Rumania.

Rumania’s past differed from that of the other Balkan nations.
During the centuries in which the destiny of the ancient world was
controlled largely by Byzantine statesmen, Moldavia and Wallachia
seldom took part in the quarrels that pitted Slavs against Greeks.
Balkan conflicts seemed then to be restricted to the populations
living south of the Danube. Excellent relations were maintained
between the rulers of Rumanian principalities and the Byzantine
court. It was always felt at Constantinople, throughout the
centuries of bitter struggle against Islam’s waxing might, that the
voivodes’ aid against the Turks was assured.

After the terrible blow inflicted on Christendom by the fall of
Constantinople, the two principalities of the northern Danubian
bank managed to preserve autonomy. This is a highly significant
fact in Rumanian history, for it meant that the country was
spared the effects of racial blendings or upheavals consequent
to the Ottoman occupation of southeastern Europe. Religious and
national antagonism between the various elements of the Christian
populations under the Sultan’s rule were incessantly fostered by
the Turks as a means of consolidating their own sovereignty.

The rôle played by Rumania during the long period of Christian
servitude entitles the country to the gratitude of the other Balkan
states. The land beyond the Danube became a haven to which victims
of Mohammedan persecution repaired whenever possible. Noblemen
despoiled of their estates, traders menaced with execution for
having claimed payment of debts incurred towards them by the
followers of the Prophet, students whose only crime consisted of
having interpreted Christian doctrines to their co-religionists,
all found refuge under the banner of the cross flying on the north
bank of the Danube. Hungary itself has incurred a heavy debt of
obligation to Rumania, for both Moldavia and Wallachia served as a
buffer against which Turkish blows directed at Magyar power spent
themselves in vain.

The province of Bukovina, once the borderland between Rumanians and
Ruthenians, has become in modern times the meeting place of both
peoples. According to recent Austrian statistics its population is
as follows:

                                  1900          1910
  Germans                       159,486       168,851
  Bohemians and Slovakians          596         1,005
  Poles                          26,857        26,210
  Ruthenians                    297,798       305,101
  Slovenes                          108            80
  Serbo-Croatians                     6             1
  Italians                          119            36
  Rumanians                     229,018       273,254
  Hungarians                      9,516        10,391
                                -------       -------
         Total                  723,504       784,929[173]

The Rumanians and Ruthenians are the oldest and most numerous
inhabitants of Bukovina. The former are generally confined to the
southeastern districts of the province while the majority of the
Ruthenians inhabit the northwest. The mountainous sections are
peopled by the Huzuli, a folk whose speech and customs contain
traces of Slavic influence. The remainder of the inhabitants of
Bukovina consists of descendants of immigrants who settled in the
province about five or six centuries ago.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 44--Sketch map of the Rumanian area (diagonally ruled) in
  Bukovina and Hungary. The blank area is overwhelmingly Slavic
  (Little Russians or Ruthenians). The dotted patches in Hungary
  represent areas of Hungarian speech.]

Germans, mostly traders and artisans from Transylvania and Galicia,
made their first appearance in Bukovina in the fourteenth century.
Occasionally German priests and warriors would also find their
way into the province and decide to settle permanently within its
borders. A fresh impetus to German colonization was given by the
fall of Bukovina into Austrian hands in 1774. Under the rule of
Maria Theresa and Emperor Joseph II Germans of all classes and
conditions were induced to seek the province and Germanize the
land. They came as officials, teachers, soldiers and merchants and
took up their abode generally in special cities.[174]

This German element was derived chiefly from Swabia, Bohemia and
German Austria. The Swabians were the earliest colonists and are
found scattered in the best farming districts of the province.[175]
The Zips of northern Hungary are generally found in the mountains
of southwestern Bukovina which they had occupied originally as
miners.[176]

The Hungarians of Bukovina are not descendants of immigrants from
Hungary but from Rumania. Their ancestors were the Magyars and
Szeklers who had been dispatched by Hungarian kings to defend the
passes of Transylvania. After Bukovina’s annexation to Austria,
efforts were made to induce the descendants of the old frontier
guardsmen to live within Austrian boundaries. The call was heeded
by many who as a result selected Bukovina as residence. One of the
earliest colonies was founded at Istensegitz, while Hadikfalva and
Andreasfalva became sites of their settlements during the reign of
Emperor Joseph.

The Poles emigrated to the province mainly from Galicia between
the years 1786 and 1849. They are found scattered in the larger
cities, notably at Czernowitz. The Slovaks came later. Prior to
the nineteenth century they had no colonies of any importance in
Bukovina. In 1803 they appear around the glass factories near
Crasna, where they were employed as woodcutters. Between 1830 and
1840 they founded the settlements of Neusolonetz and Pojana-Mikuli.

Many Bukovinan localities are inhabited by Lippowans, who are
Great Russians and who on the basis of language are considered as
Ruthenians by Austrian census-takers. The Lippowans belong to
the sect of Old Believers which seceded from the Russian Orthodox
Church in the middle of the seventeenth century. Persecution forced
them to flee to neighboring countries and they flocked in large
numbers into Bukovina. Their descendants now inhabit principally
the towns of Mitoka-Dragomirna and Klimutz as well as neighboring
villages.

By the acquisition of Bukovina in 1777 the Hapsburgs increased
their territory by about 6,200 sq. m. (10,000 sq. km.) and
a population of 75,000 inhabitants, consisting largely of
Rumanians.[177] Nistor estimates the population at the time of
this annexation at 56,700 Rumanians, about 15,000 Ruthenians at
the most and 5,000 Huzulis, who, from the border bandits that
they were, settled finally in western Bukovina.[178] According to
Rumanian historians the Slavic element of Bukovina was negligible
in the fourteenth century. It was a common occurrence for Ruthenian
peasants to escape from Polish serfdom and settle in Moldavia,
the land of free farmers. The fugitives, dribbling on Rumanian
soil in small numbers, became merged in the mass of the native
population. The consolidation of large estates in the seventeenth
century and the resulting agricultural boom obliged landowners to
induce peasants of neighboring countries to settle in Bukovina. The
emigration of many Ruthenians can be accounted for by this economic
change.

After the Turkish conquest of Kamieniec-Podolski the new provinces
of the Dniester valley were populated by Slavs drawn from among
Little Russians. The district of Hotin in eastern Bukovina was
colonized at that time. Again Sobieski’s victories over the Turks
were followed by a temporary Polish occupation of northern and
western Moldavia and a renewed inflow of Slavs.

Ruthenian invasion of the soil of Bukovina persisted steadily from
the eighteenth century on. Galician serfs were driven by oppression
to this hitherto unexploited territory. In 1779 the number of
Ruthenians in Bukovina was estimated at 21,114. Tombstones of that
date found between the Dniester and the Pruth are almost entirely
in Rumanian. In 1848 the Ruthenian element in the province numbered
108,907 against 208,293 Rumanians. The census of 1910 places the
number of Russian-speaking inhabitants at 305,101, while the users
of Rumanian are placed at 273,254. Rumanian authorities, however,
call attention to the fact that these figures are determined on the
basis of the language most commonly used and not on that of the
inherited mother tongue.

Rumanian also holds easy predominance in the strange medley of
languages which can be heard in the Russian province of Bessarabia.
The region forms a natural extension of Moldavia, east of the Pruth
furrow, and has always been intimately connected with Rumanian
life. It became part of the Czar’s dominion in 1812, after the
treaty of Bucarest of May 28 of that year, but the southern part
was reincorporated with the principality of Moldavia after the
Crimean war. This section was restored, however, to Russia by a
decision of the Congress which met in Berlin in June 1878. It has
since remained Russian territory. These changes, no less than its
position as the narrow corridor between the Asiatic steppeland and
southern Europe, have made it the meeting land of Europe’s most
untutored elements.

The broad hilly spurs bounded by the Dniester and the Pruth
contain the bulk of these Bessarabian Rumanians, who make up
half the population of the province or nearly one million souls.
Interspersed with this native element, German colonists and
Bulgarian immigrants,--the latter brought wholesale in the course
of Turkey’s European recessional,--and Serbian or Greek cultivators
are to be found in many of the villages that nestle in the broad
and smiling valleys of the low plateau. The flat marshy tracts
along the Pruth and at the mouth of the Danube are occupied by
Cosacks and Tatars, while a numerous gipsy element manages to
subsist on the rest of the inhabitants by juggling or fortune
telling, or frequently by pilfering.

The national consolidation of the Rumanians of Bukovina, the
Banat and Bessarabia with the main body would supply a non-Slavic
linguistic wedge between Russians and Balkan Slavs. But apart
from this linguistic difference, Rumanian life and institutions
present close analogies with their Russian counterparts. From the
standpoint of the anthropologist both countries contain a Slavic
substratum strongly diluted by Tatar infiltration. Religious views
nursed and cherished in the Kremlin hold spiritual sway throughout
the length and breadth of Rumania. And yet, in spite of such
strong bonds, and that of immediate neighborhood, language with
nationality remains sharply distinct in the two kingdoms.


FOOTNOTES:

[157] An increase in the percentage of the Hungarian element in
Hungary at the expense of the other nationalities and particularly
of the Germans is shown by official figures. The following table is
instructive:

_Percentages of the Population of Hungary, without Croatia (after
Wallis)._

                       1880          1910
  Magyars              46.7          54.5
  Germans              13.6          10.4
  Slovaks              13.5          10.7
  Rumanians            17.5          16.1
  Ruthenians            2.6           2.5
  Serbs and Croats      4.6           3.6
  Others                1.5           2.2

But cf. in this connection B. C. Wallis: Distribution of
Nationalities in Hungary, _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 47, 1916, No. 3,
pp. 183-186.

[158] F. Teutsch: Die Art der Ansiedelung der Siebenbürger Sachsen,
_Forsch. z. deut._ _Landes- u. Volksk._, Vol. 9, 1896, pp. 1-22.
Cf. also O. Wittstock: Volkstümliches der Siebenbürger Sachsen,
in the same volume. The name “Saxon” appears to have been applied
indiscriminately in the Middle Ages to settlers of German speech in
the Balkan peninsula. “Saxon” miners and “Saxon” bodyguards were
also known in Serbian countries in that period.

[159] Luxemburg and the regions comprised between Trèves,
Düsseldorf and Aix-la-Chapelle furnished German colonists during
the middle of the twelfth century.

[160] Hungarian statistics show 2,470,000 in 1870; 2,403,000 in
1880 and 2,589,000 in 1890.

[161] Cf. V. Merutiŭ: Romîniĭ între Tisa şi Carpaţĭ, raporturī
etnografice, _Rev. Stiintifică Vasile Adamachi_, Vol. 6, No. 2,
1915.

[162] N. Mazere: Harta etnografica a Transilvanei, 1:340,000, Inst.
Geogr. al Armatei, Iasi, 1909.

[163] G. Weigand: Linguistischer Atlas des dacorumänischen
Sprachgebietes, Leipzig, 1909.

[164] Their number is given at 750,000 by G. Murgocè and P.
Papahagi in “Turcia cu privire speciala auspra Macedoniei,”
Bucarest, 1911.

[165] The total number of Rumanians in the Balkan peninsula is
estimated at about 10,300,000, distributed as follows: Rumania,
5,489,296 or 92.5 per cent of the population; Russia, 1,121,669, of
whom 920,919 are in Bessarabia; Austria-Hungary, 3,224,147, of whom
2,949,032 are in Transylvania; Greece, 373,520; Serbia, 90,000.

[166] A. D. Xénopol: Les Roumains au Moyen-Âge, Paris, 1885.

[167] W. R. Shepherd: Historical Atlas, New York, 1911, pp. 34, 35,
39.

[168] Typical examples of seasonal migration are found in
Switzerland, where conditions prevailing in the higher and the
lower valleys of the Alps have induced the inhabitants to shift
their residence with the seasons.

[169] A similar nomadism is observable among the Rumanians of the
Pindus mountains. Cf. A. J. B. Wade and M. S. Thompson: The Nomads
of the Balkans: An Account of Life and Customs among the Vlachs of
Northern Pindus, London, 1914.

[170] About one-third of the words in Albanian are of Romanic
origin.

[171] _Bull. pour l’étude de l’Europe Sud-Orientale_, June, 1915,
p. 112.

[172] A. A. C. Stourdza: L’Héroïsme des Roumains au Moyen-Âge et le
caractère de leurs anciennes institutions, Paris, 1911.

[173] Divided according to religion, the census of 1910 shows the
following figures:

  Roman Catholics          98,565
  Greek Catholics          26,182
  Armenian Catholics          657
  Orthodox Greeks         547,603
  Gregorian Armenians         341
  Lipps                     3,232
  Protestant sects         20,518
  Jews                    102,919
  Unaccounted                  86
                          -------
        Total             800,103

[174] Czernowitz, Storozynetz, Sereth, Suczava, Radautz,
Gurahumora, Kimpolung were among the cities most often selected.

[175] Their colonies are found at Rosh, Molodia, Tereblestie,
Hliboka, St. Onufri, Altfratanz, Milleschoutz, Arbora, Itzkani,
Ilischestie, Unterstanestie, Storozynetz, Neuzadowa.

[176] Their settlements are found at Jakobeny, Kirlibaba,
Luisenthal, Pozoritta, Eisenau, Freudenthal, Bukschoja and
Stulpikani.

[177] Today the predominance of Ruthenians in Bukovina is contested
by Rumanians who claim that Austrian statistics are deliberately
padded.

[178] I. Nistor: Românú si Rutenií in Bucovina, studiu istoric si
statistu, Bucarest, 1915, p. 72.




CHAPTER IX

THE BALKAN PENINSULA AND ITS SERBIAN INHABITANTS


The Balkan peninsula presents in its physical features a clue to
our understanding of the development of separate languages and
nationalities within its area. Its mountainous center has always
exerted a centrifugal action on Balkan peoples. This influence
has been strengthened by the existence of important routes to
the mainland of Europe and of Asia. Throughout historical times
the region formed, with Asia Minor, a natural bridge joining the
east with the west. Before mankind had begun to record its past,
it had afforded a natural passage for the westerly migrations of
Asiatic peoples. Today the region bids fair to maintain the same
connecting rôle. But in future the human stream appears destined to
be directed towards the east.

Physical environment forced Asiatic tribes to rove because the
barren steppes of their birthplace failed to provide more than
could be harvested at a single halt. These ancestors of the
modern Khirgiz poured into Europe from protohistoric times. They
were herded along by nature toward that most favored parallel of
latitude, the fortieth, near which civilization has flourished
preëminently. In their quest for sustenance they wandered along a
path that led far into Europe as well as toward the smiling regions
bordering the Mediterranean basin. Here fertility of soil and
propitious climate rendered settlement possible.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 45--The Bosporus seen mid-channel at its narrowest point.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 46--A bit of Sarajevo with ample evidence of former Turkish
  rule over the Serbians of Bosnia.]

How readily the peninsula affords easy access between Europe
and Asia can be gathered from the map. The narrow watercourse
which begins at the Ægean mouth of the Dardanelles and extends
to the Black Sea entrance of the Bosporus provides, at both
its extremities, the shortest fording places between the two
continents. At Chanak, on the Dardanelles, about one mile and
a half of channel separates the peninsula of Gallipoli from
the Anatolian coast. The very outline of the European shore
is symbolical, for in the Thracian and Gallipoli promontories
the Balkan peninsula seems to stretch out two welcoming arms
to Asia and thus invite intercourse. South of the straits, the
deeply indented coast lines of Greece and of Asia Minor teemed
with matchless harbors. Their shores became the birthplace of
adventurous sailors. The Ægean itself, with its numerous islands,
provided so many stepping-stones jutting out of its choppy waters
to aid daring pioneers in their expeditions.

Every race of Europe and of western Asia has marched at some time
or other through the valleys that extend in varying width between
the uplifts rising south of the Danube and the Save. The attempt
to determine the original element is almost futile in the face of
the constant stream of invaders. To go back only to the period
following the one in which the Thracians dotted the southeastern
area with their quaint tumuli we find the peninsula already settled
by Illyrians on its western border. The Albanians are supposed to
be direct descendants of this ancient people. Secluded in their
mountain fastnesses from contact with subsequent invaders of the
peninsula, they best represent today the type of the peninsular
inhabitant of about 2000 B.C. To the east the basin of the Danube
was peopled subsequently by Dacians and Gaetes, who presumably were
the ancestors of the peasants now occupying the Dobrudja.

North of the boundary-defining rivers dwelt the Scythians and the
Sarmatians. The story of their migrations is the same for different
epochs. It tells either of the appearance of sturdy barbarians
before whose dash the settlers, somewhat effete on account of
acquired comfort, give way. Or else it is the tale of the settler
who has had time to organize his forces into orderly fighters and
whose disciplined bands go forth to conquer new territory at the
behest of his civilization. Thus did Roman legions sweep away the
barriers to the acquisition of new colonies.

Following the Roman occupation of the peninsula a steady flow
of uncouth northerners began to appear. Under the names of
Sarmatians, Goths of various sorts, Huns, Bulgarians to whom the
Byzantines gave their appellation because they came from the
banks of the Volga, and Avars, they spread havoc far beyond the
western limits of the Adriatic. These barbarians were followed by
Slavs. The eastbound journeys of the Crusaders next intervene;
then a final mighty onslaught of Turkish hordes whose savage fury
seemed for a moment to obliterate the laboriously-reared western
civilization.

To this bewildering succession of human types the extraordinary
complexity of stock characterizing the present population of the
peninsula is directly ascribable, each race or people having left
some trace of its passage. The compilation of an ethnographical map
of the region results in the representation of the most mosaic-like
surface imaginable. Nor are the actual evidences of these ancient
invasions lacking to the observant eye. Take, for instance,
the fair-haired, blue-eyed Greeks, totally devoid of traces of
nigrescence, who are by no means uncommon in Macedonia.[179] In
them the Nordic type, due in part to the Achæan conquerors, has
survived. To this day the tourist, wandering in any town formerly
occupied by the Turks, may suddenly behold in the streets as
pure a Mongolian type as is to be found on the highlands of
western central China. In the Bosnian town of Sarajevo, as in the
Macedonian villages north of the Ægean, the ugly features of these
Asiatics often reveal but too plainly their origin.

Traces of these wanderings have lingered in the relics of former
habitat observable in Balkan countries. Any one whom fate has made
the guest of Turkish hosts will remember how toward bedtime rolled
bundles leaning vertically against the corners of the rooms are
brought out and laid open on the floor. These are the beds which
the members of the household use. They consist of a mattress,
sheets and blankets which had been removed during the day from the
mat over which it is customary to spread them at night. Although
it is centuries since the Turk has ceased living in tents, he
still adheres to this custom of his nomad forefathers. The fact is
observable in the two-storied dwellings of the Mohammedan sections
of Adrianople or Constantinople. But the practical conversion
of bedrooms into sitting rooms is only one of the many phases
of Turkish indoor life which recall tent life. Rooms altogether
destitute of furniture are quite usual. I am now referring to the
average Turkish home--not to the relatively few in which European
customs are observed. In the majority of cases the only furniture
consists of rugs spread on the walls and floors. Articles of
household use are kept in closets. No chairs or tables help to
relieve the bareness. At meals the family will squat in groups
around circular trays supported on low stools. A bowl of “yoghurt,”
or curdled milk, is the invariable accompaniment of each repast.
Indulgence in this preparation is observable with similar frequency
in a broad belt which begins in the Balkan peninsula and extends
eastward between parallels 45° and 35° of latitude to Mongolia.
Signs pointing to Asiatic origins can likewise be witnessed
outside the houses in Turkish cities. The national coat of arms,
conspicuously displayed over the gates of government buildings,
bears two horsetails surmounting the Prophet’s coat. In this emblem
we see Tatar chieftains’ insignia of rank which have been coupled
to Mohammedan symbolism.

In this same line of thought we find that traditions furnish
evidence of a remarkably significant character. A tradition
flourishes to this day among the Turks that their occupation of
European territory could not be permanent. Often have I heard this
voiced by Turks who simultaneously added by way of explanation that
it could not be otherwise, since they were Asiatics. It is this
feeling which lies at the root of the Turk’s unwillingness to be
buried on the European side of the Bosporus or the Dardanelles. The
same sentiment accounts for their relatively larger burying grounds
along the Asiatic shores bordering the peninsula, as compared with
those on the European coast.

In the present era of world-wide industrial expansion, the
Balkan region retains its place as one of the most notable of
international highways. So centrally is the peninsula situated
with reference to Europe, Asia and Africa that its valleys afford
the most convenient overland passage for the products of European
ingenuity and science on their way to market in the populous
centers of Asia and Africa. Even the air line connecting central
Europe and India passes over the Balkans. The superiority of the
Mediterranean-Red Sea route over the other avenues of traffic
leading from west to east led to the construction of the Suez
Canal. The advantages of this line still exist. With the march
of events, however, the main commercial thoroughfare from Europe
to the Orient is shifting gradually from the waters between the
Eurasian and African continents to a more easterly and at the same
time far speedier overland route. The tracks of the Oriental,
Anatolian and Bagdad railroad companies form at present the
northern section of the trunk of this system. Incidentally, it
should be noted that nature’s provision for this world route is
so well marked in the Balkan peninsula that the luxurious cars of
the Orient Express roll over a steel-clad path which coincides
remarkably with the trail followed by the first crusade--the one
which Godfrey de Bouillon led along a path marked by nature. The
prolongation of these railroads to Delhi and the shores of the
Indian Ocean by junction with the railroads of British India
advancing toward the northwest is now economically desirable.

Through connection with the Cape of Good Hope by way of Ma’an
and the Egyptian frontier, over the Sinai peninsula and the
Cape-to-Cairo line, will probably be exacted by the requirements of
trade. In that case railroad ferries over the Bosporus will enable
the same car to be hauled directly from the coast of the Baltic Sea
to the shores of the Indian Ocean or to cities at the southernmost
points of Africa. There is reason to believe, however, the Bosporus
will be crossed by a bridge over the half mile of sea that
separates the European and Asiatic fortresses facing each other at
Rumeli Hissar.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 47--Communications in the Balkans. The gaps in the
  mountainous area are the connecting links in the land travel
  between Europe and Asia.]

Within the Balkan peninsula every economic need which has
determined the foreign policy of the several states is related
to a given feature of the land. The seaward thrust of Serbia
towards the Adriatic is naturally directed along the narrow Drin
valley, cutting across the long chain of the Dinaric Alps. But the
country’s efforts to obtain mastery of this important gap were
blocked by the creation of an independent Albania. Bulgaria’s trade
and industrial development is likewise hampered by the lack of a
favorable issue towards southern seas. At present the connection
between the east-west mountainous country formed by the Balkan
ranges and the lowland extending to the Ægean involves the climbing
of steep slopes. Bulgarians therefore naturally coveted the Struma
valley which runs in Greek territory to the west of the Chalcidic
peninsula. The Montenegrins living in a rocky land which cannot
support its inhabitants look covetously on the narrow defiles which
lead towards the Adriatic and their longing for Scutari is merely
for the possession of agricultural lands. War with the Turks once
forced them to retreat into their mountains. Now that that danger
is over they are coming out of their fastnesses and endeavoring to
resume intercourse with the outside world.

Geography is therefore stamping its impress on the political status
of the modern inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula. We have just
seen how this region forms a section of a great international
commercial route. Coupling this fact with industrial requirements
which find expression in the demand for unhampered right of way
for products of toil and thought in transit to market, it can
be understood how great European powers keenly desire to secure
control, or at least maintenance of equal rights of passage,
over an avenue so happily situated. The matter is vital because
it is based on economic grounds. Continued operation of many Old
World factories, or their shut-down, often depends on conditions
prevailing on the site of that battle royal of diplomacy known as
the Eastern Question. The matter of Serbia’s access to the Adriatic
or the withholding of Austria’s acquiescence to Montenegrin
occupation of Scutari must, therefore, be ultimately explained by
the geographical causes which have converted the peninsula into
a highway of such importance that the paramount influence of a
single nation over its extension cannot be tolerated by the others.
A clear view of this fundamental principle leads us to realize
that the presentation of an ultimatum to Serbia by Austria on July
23, 1914, was the preliminary step toward opening a pathway for
Germany and Austria to Salonica and Constantinople. Then, as soon
as Austro-German power should be solidly established athwart the
Bosporus, the intention was to secure control of the land routes to
Egypt, the Persian Gulf and India.

As matters stand at present the balance of power oscillates
between two groups represented by Teutonic and Slavonic elements
respectively. Their clashing zone is the Balkan peninsula. The
“Drang nach Osten” of Pan-Germanism found concrete geographical
expression on the map, in 1908, by Austria’s final absorption of
Bosnia and Herzegovina. A further step in the same direction was
marked by the creation of a new Balkan nation, Albania. All this
was a result of efforts to obtain control of the remarkable highway
we have been considering. This easterly spread was hampered,
however, by the steady southerly progress made by the Balkan
countries. Their victories in 1912 and 1913 lengthened perceptibly
Russia’s southwesterly strides toward ice-free coasts. The process
taken as a whole is one of recurrence. Time has converted the
stream of early Asiatic invaders into these two opposing currents.
The Teutons are now repeating the exploits of the Greeks, the
Macedonians, the Byzantines and the Crusaders. The Slavs, whose
differentiation from Altaic ancestors has not been as thorough as
that of their western neighbors, are likewise playing anew the part
of their forefathers seeking milder regions by way of the Balkan
peninsula.

South of the Hungarian and Slovene linguistic zones the
Austro-Hungarian domain comprises a large portion of the area of
Serbian speech. The language predominates everywhere from the
Adriatic coast to the Drave and Morava rivers as well as up to the
section of the Danube comprised between its points of confluence
with these two rivers. Serbian in fact extends slightly east
of the Morava valley towards the Balkan slopes lying north of
the Timok river, where Rumanian prevails as the language of the
upland.[180] To the south contact with Albanian is obtained. The
area of Serbian speech thus delimited includes the independent
kingdoms of Montenegro[181] and Serbia. Within the territory of the
Dual Monarchy it is spoken in the provinces of Croatia, Slavonia,
Bosnia, Herzegovina and Dalmatia. The language is therefore
essentially that of the region of uplift which connects the Alps
and the Balkans or which intervenes between the Hungarian plain and
the Adriatic.

Union between the inhabitants of this linguistic area is somewhat
hampered by the scission of Serbians into three religious groups.
The westernmost Serbs, who are also known as Croats, adhere to the
Roman Catholic faith in common with all their kinsmen the western
Slavs. Followers of this group are rarely met east of the 19th
meridian. A Mohammedan body consisting of descendants of Serbs
who had embraced Islam after the Turkish conquest clusters round
Sarajevo as a center. The bulk of Serbians belong, however, to the
Greek Orthodox Church. Cultural analogies between the Mohammedan
and orthodox groups are numerous. Both use the Russian alphabet,
whereas the Croats have adopted Latin letters.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 48--Sketch map of Austria showing westernmost extension
  of Slavs and their languages in Europe. The German-Hungarian
  wedge between northern and southern Slavs is shown. The small
  cross-ruled patches are areas of Rumanian language.]

Much has been made in interested quarters of the difference between
Catholic Croat and Orthodox Serb. Intrigues directed from Vienna
and Budapest have sought to accentuate these differences and to
foment hatred where Christian charity would speedily have produced
concord and understanding. Even in Russia, there have been fears
lest close political contact between Serb and Croat dilute the
purity of Serb orthodoxy. In other quarters political ambition
has made use of divergence of creed as a pretext for seeking to
perpetuate political division between the two main branches of
the southern Slav race. But a Serbian saying, which can be heard
in Bosnia, Croatia or Montenegro, is the best refutation of the
existence of any political differences between Serbs of different
creeds. “Brat yay mio Koye vieray bio,” “A brother is always dear
whatever his religion.” A simple phrase, but one with national
significance.

The Serbo-Croatian group made its appearance in the Balkan
peninsula at the time of the general westerly advance of Slavs
in the fifth and sixth centuries. A northwestern body of this
people, wandering along the river valleys leading to the eastern
Alpine foreland, settled in the regions now known as Croatia and
Slavonia. Here the sea and inland watercourses provided natural
communication with western Europe. Evolution of this northwestern
body of Serbians into the Croatians of our day was facilitated by
the infiltration of western ideas. But the great body of Serbians,
occupying the mountainous area immediately to the south, had their
foreign intercourse necessarily confined to eastern avenues of
communication. They therefore became permeated with an eastern
civilization in which Byzantine strains can be easily detected.

In spite of these cultural divergences, the linguistic
differentiation of the Croat from the Serbian element has been
slight. The Serbian sound of “ay” is generally pronounced “yay” by
Bosnians and “a” by Dalmatians. The Croatian “tcha” corresponds to
the “chto” of the Serbian. As a rule variations are slight, and
natives of the different districts not only understand each other,
but can also detect respective home districts quite readily on
hearing each other.

Today the political aspirations of this compact mass of Serbians
are centered around the independent kingdom of Serbia, which is
regarded as the nucleus around which a greater Serbia comprising
all the Serbian-speaking inhabitants of the Balkan peninsula will
group. This Serbo-Croatian element is estimated to comprise at
least 10,300,000 individuals.[182] The southern Slav question
centers chiefly around the fate of those unredeemed populations.
The Near Eastern Question cannot be settled without cutting away
from Austria-Hungary, and uniting with Serbia and Montenegro, all
the southern Slav provinces of the Hapsburg crown. It is stated
of Metternich that he had openly proclaimed his belief in the
necessity of annexing Serbia to either Turkey or Austria. That was
in the day, however, when popular claims counted for little.

Southern Slav unity and independence are both necessary to Europe.
Serbia, or rather Serbo-Croatia or “Jugoslavia,” is reared on a
land-gap that provides Europe with a gateway to the east. The
freedom of Balkan peoples and to a great extent the freedom of
Europe depend upon the power of the southern Slavs to hold the
gate. It is therefore to the advantage of European countries to
strengthen the southern Slavs by every means in their power.
A partial unity that would leave any considerable portion of
Jugoslavia unredeemed would but divert southern Slav energy into
irredentist channels and deflect it from its chief mission.

The ties which unite Serbians and Croatians have led writers
to consider the two peoples as one under the name of
Serbo-Croatians.[183] In the eleventh century Skilitzer, a
Byzantine writer, alludes to the “Croatians, who are called
Serbians.” Little distinction was made between their tribes when
they first made their appearance in Balkan lands. Both peoples are
Slavs and it is not unlikely that they are derived from a common
stock. The location of the territory they occupied affords a clue
to the origin of differences between them. Their homelands lie on
the confines of the two Roman empires which ruled respectively over
eastern and western Europe. It was natural that some groups of the
Serbo-Croatian element should follow the religious leadership of
Rome while others rallied to the Orthodox teachings of Byzantium.
The main distinction between Serbians and Croatians is found in
this diversity of religious views.

From a geographical standpoint the area of Serbian speech presents
excessive diversity of features. National unity within its bounds
is therefore apt to be sorely hampered. Dalmatia, teeming with
islands and fiords, enjoys the advantage of easy access to all
its districts by way of the sea. The Dinaric Alps separate it,
however, from the land of the ancient kingdom of Serbia which
arose on the basins of the Save and Morava. The two areas form in
reality isolated compartments. A capital suitable to both cannot be
located. Belgrade or Nish is appropriate enough for the valley of
the Danube, Spalato or Ragusa for the coastland. Uskub is perhaps
more centrally situated on the road connecting the Danube to the
Adriatic. But this city also belongs to the eastern watershed of
the isolating mountains. Whatever be the political destiny of this
linguistic area, it is bound to be divided into two parts with
outlets respectively on the Adriatic and the Danube.

Between the sixth and thirteenth centuries, the Serbian invaders
of the Balkan peninsula grouped themselves into a number of
independent tribes. The Serbian state to which the smaller units
adhered politically came into being in the thirteenth century.
That it was inhabited by a prosperous people is proven by numerous
works of art which are still preserved in the churches of the
land. A hundred years later the kingdom of Serbia attains its
widest extension. Under Stephen Dushan, the country spreads
from the Black Sea to the Adriatic and from the Danube and Save
valleys to the Ægean. In 1346 Dushan is crowned emperor at Uskub.
He is about to march on Constantinople, but death puts an end to
this project. Henceforth Serbian power is to be on the wane. The
appearance of the Turks in the Balkans in the last decade of the
fourteenth century marks the end of Serbian independence. In the
ensuing four hundred years, Serbian lands and their inhabitants are
the prey of merciless Asiatics. The devastating grip of Turkish
oppression begins to be relaxed in 1815 when, under the leadership
of Miloch Obrenovitch, the Serbians laid the foundation of their
modern independence by forcing the Turks to grant them a partial
self-government. Thence to the year 1867 political emancipation
from Turkey progressed steadily.

The Adriatic Sea alone provides the Serbo-Croatian peoples with a
definite boundary. The line of the Drave on the north once formed a
frontier for the twin group. In modern times a number of Croatian
settlements have pushed forward along the Raab valley toward Slovak
territory. Here they stand in danger of becoming lost in the midst
of the Hungarian population, as were the Serbian settlements which
in the seventeenth century were scattered as far as Budapest. On
the southwest, the boundary of the Serbian linguistic area presents
many obstacles to accurate delimitation. There was a time when all
northern Albania was part of the Serbian empire. In the eleventh
century the Serbian kingdom, established in the Lake Scutari
district, comprised Albanian populations within its boundaries.
Immediately before the Turkish conquest Serbian language and
customs had advanced as far south as Epirus. The coming of the
Asiatics caused profound changes in the distribution of Balkan
populations through the conversions to Mohammedanism by which it
was attended. Many Serbians who had penetrated to the south and a
large number of Albanians became followers of the Prophet. Their
descendants became “Turks” and as such endured the vicissitudes
which marked the decline of Ottoman power. The Serbian element lost
its individuality in the midst of Albanians. A record of its former
advance in northern Albania subsists in the Serbian villages which
are scattered in the region.

Small areas of Serbian are found at Zumberak and Mariondol on the
southern slope of the Uskok mountains in Croatia near the Carniola
boundary. These Serbian groups occur on the border line separating
Croats from Slovenes. They were founded by refugees from the south
and east who had settled in the military confines of the Empire
previous to 1871. In 1900 the population of Mariondol consisted
of a few hundred inhabitants, many of whom have since emigrated
to the United States. In Zumberak for the same year the number of
inhabitants was estimated at 11,842, of whom 7,151 were “uniats”
and 4,691 Catholics.[184] The conversion of these Serbians from
Greek orthodoxy was accomplished in the eighteenth century.

Scattered Serbian settlements are found between the Danube and
Theiss valleys as far north as Maria-Theresiopel and farther south
at Zombor and Neusatz. The rich corn-growing districts southeast
of Fünfkirchen (Pechui) contain some of the most important Serbian
centers in Hungary. Serbian is the language of the entire district
of confluence of the Theiss and Danube as well as of many colonies
in the Banat of Temesvar. Religious diversity alone has prevented
fusion of these Serbians with the Hungarian majority of the land.
Whenever they come into contact with Rumanians of the same religion
the Serbians lose ground and become merged in the bosom of the
Latin population. “A Rumanian woman in the house,” says the Serbian
proverb, “means a Rumanian home.” Such Rumanian households are
now solidly established north and south of the Danube valley in
the northeastern angle of Serbia where a century ago they were
practically non-existent.[185]

Among these Serbian settlements of southern Hungary those in the
Banat of Temesvar are the most important. Temesvar itself although
an ancient seat of Serbian voivodes[186] contains fewer Serbians
than Germans and Hungarians. The Slavs however occupy the western
part of the Banat and form majorities between Zombor and Temesvar,
Becherek and Panchova. Around Maria-Theresiopel (also known as
Subotica or Szabadka) the Serbian element contains many Roman
Catholics--the so-called Bunjevci, who were emigrants from former
Turkish provinces, mainly Herzegovina.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 49--The broken aspect of the Dalmatian coastland is strongly
  represented in this view of Lussinpiccolo and surrounding islets.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 50--Usual landscape in mountainous Montenegro.]

The old sanjak of Novibazar, which became part of Serbia after the
last Balkan war, is largely Serbian in people and speech. In the
long centuries of Mohammedan rule the Turks had become possessors
of the majority of cultivated lands. But the task of farming was
left entirely in the hands of the Serbian peasants--whether of
Mohammedan creed and known as Boshnaks, or Christians. The Moslem
element as a rule resided in the towns which grew around a castle
or fortress.

From the twelfth to the fourteenth century the great commercial
route which led from the Adriatic at Ragusa to Nish and Byzantium
passed through Sienitza and Novibazar. Prosperity never since
equaled flowed with the commerce from Venetian cities and the
Dalmatian coast to the Orient. The districts of the sanjak then
boasted of denser and wealthier populations. The Turkish conquest,
however, diverted this trade route into the Morava valley with
the result that the erstwhile frequented sanjak became almost
completely isolated and neglected. West of the Lim the sanjak has
always been predominantly Serbian. East of this river the pure
Serbian type is preserved in the districts of Stari Vlah, Novi
Varosh and Berane. The region’s earliest inhabitants are found in
the secluded gorges of the Tara and the Ograyevitza tableland.
Albanian settlements are met in Peshtera and Roshai.

Like Albania, Bosnia was originally peopled by Illyrians, a
people of Alpine race whose living representatives are found
among the Skipetars or rockmen of Albania. Although the land was
conquered by the Romans, its inhabitants were never thoroughly
Romanized. The mountainous character of Bosnia accounts for this
failure of Latinism. Many traces of the Roman invasion are being
continually discovered on the sites of ancient military camps and
in inscriptional remains which are frequently unearthed in the
territory comprised between the Adriatic and the Danube. Dalmatia
and Pannonia were the two provinces into which the Romans had
subdivided the region for administrative purposes. The Slavs who
began to appear in the middle of the sixth century left a deep
impress on the inhabitants. The influence of these latest comers is
the only one that has prevailed to our day.

The coming of Hungarians in Europe may be likened to a wedge
driven into the mass of Slavic populations. The success of these
Asiatics brought about the separation of the southern Slavs from
their northern kinsmen. In the course of these adjustments Bosnia
and its inhabitants became part of the kingdom of Croatia which
originated in the valleys of the Drave and Save. The province was
administered by a Ban, who, though a vassal of the Croatian crown,
always managed to retain a certain measure of independence.[187]

After the Hungarian conquest of Croatia, the Bans were allowed
to maintain their rule. Their policy consisted in cultivating
friendly relations with the ruling element and at the same time in
drawing closer to the Serbian populations in the east. The intimate
connection between Serbia and Bosnia dates from the end of the
twelfth century. Two hundred years later Stephen Turtko, the son
of Serbia’s greatest monarch, was crowned king of Serbia, Bosnia
and the Littoral provinces at the shrine of Saint Sava. But the
independence of Greater Serbia was short-lived. Hungarian arms were
soon in the ascendant and Bosnia became a prey of feudal lords--a
land divided against itself.

The Turks found it in this condition in the fifteenth century
and easily subdued its petty princes. They used their rights of
conquest to force Mohammedanism on the Bosnians. The mass of
the landed gentry accepted the Arabic faith in order to retain
possession of their property. Many of the Bosnian Mohammedans
are descended from adherents of Bogomil heresies who welcomed
this method of finding relief from persecution. The fanaticism of
these converts and that of their descendants became noteworthy
even in the midst of Turkish religious intolerance. It has
delayed the expulsion of the Turks from this region, prevented
the consolidation of Bosnia with Serbia in the early years of the
nineteenth century and finally paved the way for the Teutonic
advance towards eastern lands.

The Austrian occupation of Bosnia in 1879 was followed by a
current of German immigration. The new settlers came from Germany
and the German-speaking provinces of Austria. To weaken Serbian
influence in the land the flow of this human tide was favored by
the government. Engaging terms were offered to the colonists.
The land they took up was turned into homesteads which became
the property of the settler on easy terms, and after ten years’
occupation Bohemians, Poles and Ruthenians were also lured to
Bosnia. The Posavina district teems with these Slav immigrants.
German peasants however were considered the most desirable element
in the eyes of Austrian officials. Through this migration Windhorst
is now peopled mainly by Germans from the Rhine provinces and
Rudolfthal by Tyrolese. Swabians from Hungary founded a large
colony at Franz-Josefsfeld, while Germans from the same country
created settlements at Branjevo and Dugopolje. Although these
German emigrants constitute a numerically unimportant fraction of
the Bosnian population, their presence has sufficed to warrant them
the solicitude of Pan-Germanist writers in whose works they are
referred to as “Our German brothers of Bosnia.”[188]

By its geography, no less than racially, Bosnia is an integral
portion of Serbia. For over a thousand years Bosnians and Serbians
have had a mutually common civilization. The same historical
and political vicissitudes have been shared by the two peoples.
Common economic aims and the identity of inhabited territory have
furthermore acted as unifying factors. Whatever be the name applied
to Croats, Dalmatians, Slavonians, Bosnians or Serbs, all speak
the Serbian language. All have striven for centuries to promote
their individuality as a nation. To help them realize themselves
as a political unit merely implies furthering the process begun by
nature.


FOOTNOTES:

[179] I have also seen this type among Anatolian Greeks. It is
observable among Greeks living in New York.

[180] Serbian authorities usually extend the zone of their
vernacular to points farther east. Cf. J. Cvijić: Die
ethnographische Abspreuzung der Völker auf der Balkan-halbinsel,
_Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 59, 1913, No. 1, pp. 113-118.

[181] Montenegro is peopled by descendants of Serbians who took
refuge in its mountains after the crushing defeat of Serbia by
Turkey on the battlefield of Kossovo in 1389.

[182] J. Erdeljanović: Broj Srba, i Khrvata, Belgrade, 1911.

[183] E. Haumant: La nationalité serbo-croate, _Ann. de Géogr._,
No. 127, Vol. 23, Jan. 15, 1914, pp. 45-59.

[184] N. Zupanić: Zumbercani i Marindolci, prilog antropologii i
etnografiji Srba u Kranjskoj Prosvetni Glasnik, Belgrade, 1912.

[185] E. Haumant: La nationalité serbo-croate, _Ann. de Géogr._,
No. 127, Vol. 23, Jan. 15, 1914, p. 48.

[186] A. Evans: The Adriatic Slavs and the Overland Route to
Constantinople, _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 47, No. 4, April 1916, p. 251.

[187] G. Blondel: La Bosnie, _Bull. Soc. Norm. de Géogr._,
Jan.-March 1912, p. 18.

[188] C. Diehl: En Méditerranée, Paris, 1912.




CHAPTER X

LANGUAGE PROBLEMS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA


The Serbian linguistic area, noticed in the preceding chapter, is
both the political and physical link connecting central Europe with
the Balkan peninsula. Beyond Serbia, to the south or southeast,
the true Balkan domain is reached. This region is occupied chiefly
by Greeks and Bulgarians. The Albanian and Rumanian populations of
its western section, although distinct in speech, nevertheless lack
the cultural and historical background required in the formation of
nationality.

The Albanians inhabit the rugged lands which were known as
Illyricum and Epirus in classical times. Secluded within the
narrow, trough-shaped relics of ancient mountain folding, the
natives had no immediate contact with their Greek neighbors on the
south, or with Serbians on the north. Hence Albanian has survived
in the most inaccessible portions of the Dinaric rocky country. In
its grammar Skip or Modern Albanian is exclusively Aryan in form.
Nevertheless only four hundred entries out of a total of 5,140
listed in G. Meyers’ Etymological Dictionary of Albanian can be
classified as unalloyed old Indo-European. The intrusion of Tatar
modified into Turkish words is considerable and amounts to no less
than 1,180 words. Romanic enters into the total to the extent of
1,420 forms, thus predominating. Some 840 words are Greek, while
540 are of Slavic origin.

In the belief of some etymologists the name Albania is related to
the old Celtic form Alb or Alp, which means mountain. Comparison
with the Celtic form “Albanach,” used in Scotch vernacular to name
the mountainous section of Scotland, is of utmost interest and
significance. The Albanians, however, do not call themselves by
this name. They designate themselves as Skipetars or rockmen, and
apply this appellation indiscriminately to all the inhabitants of
Upper and Lower Albania who do not use Greek, Serbian or Rumanian
as a vernacular. Many resemblances in the language spoken by
Albanians and Rumanians point to a probable early association of
the two peoples.

Albania is still a land of mystery. Few European travelers have
ventured within its inhospitable confines. It is a country without
a master, a country where the head of every family is sole ruler
of his inherited plot of land. It is scantily populated. Its
inhabitants are divided into hostile groups by religion and tribal
rivalry. No common aim on which to found nationality exists among
them. The only bond that holds them together is perhaps their
intolerance of alien authority.

Latitude divides the Skipetars into two main groups. A northern
branch is known by the name of Gheks, while the dwellers of
southern Albania go by the name of Tosks. The Skumbi river valley,
running at right angles to the Adriatic, separates the country
into the two sections inhabited by each of these peoples. Each of
these branches is further divided by religion into Mohammedans and
Christians. The Christian Gheks inhabit principally the valleys
of the Drin and the Mati. The powerful Mirdite clan draws its
adherents from this group. They are Roman Catholics and strongly
under Italian influence, which dates back to the beginnings of
Venetian trading on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. The
Christian Tosks have been affected by the views of the Eastern
Church. Almost all recognize the religious authority of the
Phanariot clergy. The Mirdites form a compact community to the
south of the Drin. The group consists of some 300,000 individuals
scattered over a territory about 375 sq. m. in extent. An
hereditary chief is acknowledged head of the clan, his authority
being even recognized by many non-Mirdite tribes. With their allies
the Mirdites number approximately half a million souls while the
clan’s sphere of influence extends over a territory about 1,000 sq.
m. in area.

Both of the Christian groups of the Albanian people have been
mercilessly persecuted by the Mohammedan element, which represents
the landed gentry and nobility of the country. The name of Arnaut
applies generally to the Mohammedan Albanians. All are descendants
of converts who embraced Islam at the time of the Turkish invasion.
By adopting the faith of their conquerors, they were allowed to
retain possession of their farms and property. The Christians
became serfs, and were set to work on the lands under a system of
feudal servitude which was exceedingly onerous.

[Illustration: FIG. 51.]

[Illustration: FIG. 52.

  FIGS. 51 and 52--Albanians in native costume. The men shown in
  the upper photograph are “Arnauds” or Mohammedans. The lower
  illustration shows two Albanians of the shepherd class.]

The inhabitants of Albania are totally devoid of national
feeling.[189] Various causes militate against national unity.
Primeval patriotism, expressed by love of tribe rather than of
country, is one of them. Furthermore the peculiar shape of their
country transforms it into a number of compartment-like areas
beyond which tribal activity rarely extends. The setting up of an
independent state in 1913 was a purely political move undertaken by
Austrian statesmen to prevent Serbian expansion to the Adriatic.
Within the boundaries determined by the ambassadorial conference
held in London in that year strife and dissensions prevail now as
intensely as during the Turkish régime. Natives of the northern
sections of the country speak Serbian dialects and favor union with
Serbia or Montenegro rather than independence. Malisori tribesmen
fought side by side with Montenegrin troops in the fall of 1912
as their ancestors had done in the campaign of 1711 against the
Turks. The Albanians of Ipek, however, gave assistance to Turkish
regulars. The inhabitants of the valley of the upper Morava sent
supplies to Serbian troops against which the chieftains of central
Albania led their men. The purest type of Albanian found in
the vicinity of Elbassan, Koritza and Valona[190] is practically
submerged in a sea of Greeks. Under these circumstances, partition
of the country between Greece and Serbia might not be incompatible
with native aspirations. Political stability could be obtained
in this case without paying attention to linguistic unity.
Nevertheless Albania is not without national boundaries. The valley
of the Drin and the range of the Pindus have left their mark in
the development of the Albanian people, while the sea on the west
provides the country with a most desirable confine.

On the east and south, the limits of Albanian language and
nationality become indefinite owing to the intermingling of foreign
populations. In the Ipek district, along the northeast corner of
the country, two centuries of Albanian invasions have failed to
insure preponderance of the Albanian over the Serbian element.
Nevertheless at the London ambassadorial conference in 1913 Albania
was awarded the only available road between Montenegro and Serbia.
The route, cut in the mountainous tangle which characterizes this
region, follows the Clementi gap, a district settled by shepherds
of the tribe of the same name. The Prokleita mountains allotted
to Albania form here a natural boundary. The inclusion of this
uplift within Serbian territory would have enabled the Serbians to
maintain communication with their Montenegrin kinsmen. Albanians
would have lost little in the transaction, as can well be inferred
from the name of the mountain, which is Serbian for “accursed.”

A small strip of Montenegrin territory which extends from
Podgoritza to the sea at Antivari and Dulcigno is peopled almost
exclusively by about 10,000 Albanians. This district was annexed to
Montenegro by the treaty of Berlin in exchange for the districts of
Plava and Gusinje which were then awarded to Turkey in view of the
predominantly Mohammedan religion of their inhabitants.

Montenegrin covetings of the Lake Scutari area are based on
economic grounds. The eastern shore of this inland body of water
contains broad agricultural tracts which can supply the small
state with food products unobtainable from its rocky surface. The
award of a small strip of the old sanjak and a portion of the Ipek
district, at the end of the Balkan wars of 1912 and 1913, failed to
meet Montenegrin requirements. The new districts are separated from
the country proper by a tangle of well-nigh impenetrable mountains.
At Podgoritza, the commercial center of Montenegro, it is still
possible to buy cereals from Albania more advantageously than from
the Ipek region. Furthermore the acquired territory is relatively
densely populated and hence unfit for settlement or colonization.
Under the circumstances the economic advantages secured by
Montenegro by the increase of its territory in 1913 were slight.

The area claimed by the highland country comprises the shore
district of Scutari Lake and the Boyana valley. To satisfy
Montenegrin aspirations the Albanian boundary should follow the
Drin valley to the point of confluence of the Black and White Drin
and extend along the Drinassa river. Thence, passing through the
coast ranges, it should attain the Kiri river by way of a canal
connecting this waterway with the Boyana. Beyond, the line might
appropriately be carried to Bredizza and the Adriatic between San
Juan de Medua and the mouth of the Boyana.

Such a revision of Montenegro’s frontier would provide the soil
which the country needs for tilling. The valley of the Boyana and
the drained lake district would soon be taken up by Montenegrin
colonists who, now that the Turkish danger is over, are eager
to descend into the lowland from their mountain fastness. The
connection between the coast and inland districts would likewise be
favored by the changed course of the boundary line.

In southern Albania Greek claims to Epirus are not without
foundation. Hellenic language and customs prevail throughout the
province. The hopes entertained at Athens originally aimed at the
establishment of a northern boundary which would have included
Valona. In order to satisfy Italian demands, however, a less
comprehensive line was advocated, beginning at Gramala bay and
extending to the Serbian frontier in the center of the western
shore of Lake Okrida. It comprises the districts of Kimara,
Argyrocastro, Premeti, Koritza and Moskopolis. According to
official Turkish statistics, published in 1908, the region was
peopled by 340,000 Greeks and some 149,000 Mohammedans.

The Greek proposals laid before the London ambassadorial conference
suggested the following delimitation of the line between Greece
and Albania. Starting from Gramala bay on the Adriatic sea, the
frontier was to extend to Tepeleni and thence to Klisura. From
this point the line was to coincide with the crest of the Dangli
mountains and, crossing the basin of the middle Devoli river,
attain Lake Okrida, thus connecting with the eastern boundary of
Albania.

The thwarting of these Greek aspirations was followed by an
insurrection of the Epirote inhabitants of Albania in 1914. The
movement aimed at annexation with Greece. Rebel troops lost no
time in occupying the region of Greek speech between Kimara and
Tepeleni, comprising the coast and the northern extension of the
wide valley of Argyrocastro. On February 25, 1914, the autonomy
of Epirus was solemnly proclaimed by the inhabitants of Kimara
assembled in their cathedral. In the fall of 1914 the Hellenic
government, taking advantage of the European war, despatched
regular troops into the territory claimed by its citizens. As a
result of this invasion the Albanian area of Greek speech was
brought under the direct authority of the Greek government.[191]

The determination of the boundary between the Albanian and Greek
languages presents little difficulty. The upper course of the
Voyussa and the road from Delvino to Ostanitza passing by Doliano
mark the divide approximately. North of this line the prevailing
language is Albanian. To the south it is Greek. On the Albanian
side the village schoolhouse maintained by Greeks is no longer
found. Delvino itself is a town in which the two peoples are
equally represented. The language of commerce however is Greek
and as a rule the Albanian townsmen speak the rival tongue with
high fluency, while the knowledge of Albanian possessed by the
Greek inhabitants is restricted to the few phrases needed in daily
contact.

History, legend and myth, as well as language, testify to the
Hellenic character of the Epirote land. These ties are too strong
to allow the Greeks to relinquish complacently any portion of
Epirus to Albania. Greece’s dawning consciousness of nationality
was nursed in the mountains of Epirus long before the Christian
era. Every step in the rugged country raises the dust of Hellenic
antiquity. Among the fateful oaks of Dodona the land is aglow with
tradition. At a short distance from Filiates, at the junction of
the Kalamas and the Oremnitza, shepherds feed their flocks about
the thick walls of Passaron. Near Delvino may be seen the remains
of the once prosperous city of Phoenike. Every mountain and stream
in the Epirote districts of Albania is part of the foundation
on which Hellenism was built. The annals of modern Greece also
are replete with the heroism of Greeks who claim Epirus as their
native country. The land which produced so daring a leader of men
as Pyrrhus in ancient times, later counted Miaoulis, Canaris and
Botzaris among its sons.

The Greek occupation of Janina and the district surrounding the
city raised difficulties of a practical nature. As is generally
the case in conquered countries land was found to be held by the
dominating element, that is by Mohammedans, whether Albanian,
Turkish or Greek. The Christian Greeks forming the majority of
the population constituted the working, peasant class. The end
of Turkish rule in Europe placed Mohammedan landholders in the
unenviable situation of suppliants before a people whom they had
mercilessly maltreated. Many were ruined and their land taken
over by Greeks without compensation. A general disturbance of the
economic life of the region ensued as agriculture had been its most
important industry.

Geographically--as well as economically--the nation holding Janina
is entitled to Santi-Quaranta. This harbor is likewise the outlet
for the products of the district surrounding Argyrocastro. In fact
access to the sea for the entire Greek-speaking inland districts of
southern Albania is obtained through Preveza or Santi-Quaranta. The
latter harbor alone however is safe for large vessels.

The importance of Albania in European politics is largely due to
the commanding position of the country’s seaports at the mouth of
the Adriatic. Austrians, Italians, Serbians and Montenegrins covet
them equally. South of the Montenegro frontier the first of these
harbors is San Juan de Medua, situated on the northeast corner of
the Gulf of Drino about 11 miles southwest of the mouth of the
Boyana river.

This port, which is in reality a bay of restricted dimensions,
is considered by the natives as the most favored on the Albanian
coast. A bank extending to the south of the bay affords shelter
from high seas. The region is the resort of local fishermen and
is especially favored during winter months. In summer the swampy
nature of the environing country converts it into a malarial
district. Small vessels of the coastwise trade find shelter at the
extreme inland extension of the bay. Ocean-going steamers anchor in
the middle of the bay between the mouth of the Drin and San Juan
Point.

San Juan de Medua is the harbor of the Montenegrin town of
Scutari. It is also the proposed sea terminal of a railway to be
built between the Danube and the Adriatic. As such it might in
time become Serbia’s economic outlet to the Adriatic. But the
construction of a railroad connecting the valley of the Danube with
the Adriatic presents well-nigh insurmountable difficulties on
account of the mountainous character of the intervening country.
The bay of Rodoni, in the southern part of the Gulf of Drino, is
one of the safe anchorages. A commodious harbor could be provided
here by modern engineering devices. The southern shore of the bay
could be converted into a long wharf at no great cost. A jetty
thrown out on the northern side would afford protection from the
“bora” or northern wind.

Between the bay of Rodoni and Durazzo the two roadsteads of Lales
and Pata intervene. Both are resorts of fishermen and petty
freighters seeking refuge from the vehemence of the bora. The
shallowness of the waters in both preclude their utilization as
western terminals for central Balkan traffic. Beyond however,
to the south, the spacious bay of Durazzo offers ample harbor
facilities to Adriatic shipping.

Durazzo has undoubtedly the most commodious harbor of northern
Albania. From Cape Durazzo to Cape Laghi the bay is about 11 miles
long. Shoals and banks protect its northern entrance. Engineers
would find little difficulty in deepening the bay in conformity
with the requirements of modern navigation. This accomplished,
Durazzo might again become the naval station and port of commerce
which gave fame to its name in ancient times.

Its site is hallowed to history. To the Corcyreans by whom the
first town was founded it was known as Epidamnus, the “far away.”
The Romans changed its name to Dyrrachium. In classical times the
port was the point of transshipment for merchandise en route from
Italy to Macedonia or northern Greece. At the height of Venetian
commercial supremacy, the seaport fully retained its ancient
prosperity. The wharves to which Venetian galleys were moored are
still intact. Although the city is the modern commercial center of
Albania it has lost much of its ancient activity.

None of these Albanian harbors are comparable in strategic
importance to Valona, which is situated opposite Brindisi and on
that portion of the Albanian coast nearest Italy. The holders of
this seaport will control the strait of Otranto and thereby have
mastery of the Adriatic. From a military standpoint, the bay facing
the town is eminently suited to become a strongly fortified naval
station. It is provided with a number of safe anchorages. The
island of Sasseno facing the entrance affords shelter from the
roughness of the open sea and forms at the same time a natural
outpost. Italian and Austrian statesmen, the former especially,
are fully aware of the importance of this Albanian harbor in the
Adriatic question. The aim of each is to plant their country’s flag
on the crenelated remnants of the ancient forts which overlook the
bay. Greece also aspires to the possession of the seaport. In her
case the claim is made that the majority of the inhabitants are of
Greek descent. An attempt to obtain mastery of the position was
made by Greece in the spring of 1913 when she landed in Sasseno.
An energetic protest from the Italian government forced Greece to
recall her troops. The island was occupied by Italian troops in the
fall of 1914.

Valona is the outlet of a region whose population consists mainly
of Mohammedan Albanians. Its commercial insignificance is largely
due to the character of its inhabitants. Had it been peopled by
a majority of Greeks, or even Christian Albanians, its influence
might have been felt in the midst of international rivalries.
Whatever destiny is in store for Albania, it seems as if, in view
of the non-Greek character of the Valonian population, Italian or
Austrian claims would stand greater chance of being heeded.

Of the 8,000 or 10,000 inhabitants of Valona over one-half are
Albanian Mohammedans who adhere to the use of their vernacular.
Greek is spoken extensively by Orthodox Albanians and Greeks, who
together form the next largest religious community. Among Catholics
the cultural influence of Italian prevails. In fact most of the
Albanian Catholics residing in the town have forsaken their native
language for Italian. Through the medium of these Catholics the
only sphere of Italian influence in Albania deserving mention is
found in Valona and the environing district. This western influence
is hardly felt, however, beyond a distance of about 35 miles inland
from the harbor or by more than 20,000 souls. Albanian anarchy
holds sway to the north. Southward Greek influence is strongly
exerted through the agency of the Orthodox church.

Elsewhere in the Balkan peninsula linguistic groupings now
conform largely to the political divisions which ended the wars
of 1912-1913. The future will undoubtedly afford an increasingly
satisfactory perspective of the results which followed this
attempt to eliminate totally the Turk from this portion of the
European continent. Racial siftings followed close on territorial
readjustments. Turks from all parts of the former Turkish provinces
transferred their lands to Christian residents and emigrated to
Asia Minor. Special arrangements for this exodus were provided
by the Turkish government. Greeks who were settled in the newly
acquired Bulgarian and Serbian domain similarly sought new
homes within the boundaries of the Hellenic kingdom. A heavy
flow of Bulgarian emigrants was also directed to Bulgaria from
Bulgarian-speaking territory allotted to Serbia.[192]

But pressing need of further boundary revision on the basis of
language is felt in the peninsula. Resumption of hostilities in
this part of Europe in 1915 was due principally to the moot case
of the nationality of the Slavs of Macedonia. Serbs and Bulgars
both claim them as their own. In reality the Macedonians are a
transition people between the two. They occupy a distinctive area
formed by the twin valleys of the Vardar and Struma and surrounded
by a mountainous bulwark assuming crescentic shape as it spreads
along the Balkan ranges and the mountains of Albania and the
Pindus. For centuries this Macedonian plain has constituted the
cockpit of a struggle waged for linguistic supremacy on the part
of Bulgarians and Serbs. The land had formed part of the domain of
each of the two countries in the heyday of their national life. To
this fact in part the present duality of claim must be ascribed.

The entire northwestern Macedonian highland was under Serbian
rule until the fall of 1915. East and south of the mountains
Bulgarian speech predominates in districts peopled exclusively
by Macedonians. The Greek element is practically entirely absent
here; Serbians begin to appear in small numbers; south of Monastir
and Okrida offshoots of the Pindus Rumanians are found; but the
Macedonian element is present everywhere in overwhelming majority.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 53--Sketch map of the western Balkans. The dotted area
  represents the northern area of Greek language. Black dots show
  Rumanian settlements of the Pindus mountains and adjoining
  regions.]

Physically Macedonia is the region of the basins of the Vardar and
Struma. Under Turkish rule it was divided into the vilayets of
Monastir, Uskub and Salonica. The area is isolated from the rest
of the peninsula by a practically continuous line of mountains,
which, starting with the Pindus, Grammos and Albanian ranges on the
west, extend through the Shar, Suhagora, Osogov and Rilo uplifts
on the north and connect on the east with the Rhodope massif.
Macedonia is thus well defined on the surface. Within these natural
boundaries, it may be divided into an elevated region extending
over its northwestern portion and a lowland spreading thence to
Ægean waters. The Bistritza valley forms a convenient feature to
mark the beginning of the modern Hellenic area.

In a restricted sense physical Macedonia may be defined as the
southerly extension of the Serbian mountain belt whose drainage
leads to the Ægean. Thus it consists first of a mountain belt
extending between the upper valleys of the Black Drin and Struma.
To this zone must also be added a hill country which forms its
continuation to the Ægean Sea. The Vardar valley is entirely within
this area and divides it into equal east and west sections. The
northern boundary of the area is found at the central watershed
north of Uskub. Four important basins lie within these boundaries.
The Tetovo basin, west of Uskub, lies close to the watershed.
Southward the Monastir and Strumitza basins occupy approximately
homologous positions with respect to the Vardar cut. The twin
basin of Serres and Drama extends over the southeastern portion of
the country. These basins have been the only important centers of
Macedonian populations.

The Macedonian highland is peopled by shepherds and woodcutters.
The lowlanders are husbandmen. All are generally bilingual,
speaking either Greek and Bulgarian or Bulgarian and Serbian.
A knowledge of Turkish usually prevails among all classes.
Occupation generally affords a reliable national clue. As a rule
the Macedonians, and by this term we shall hereafter denote the
Bulgarian-speaking element of Macedonia, are tillers of the soil.
The Greeks are traders and control a large share of the commerce of
the entire region. Land is held by the Macedonians or the former
ruling Turkish gentry. It is worked however by the Macedonians.

The inhabitants of Macedonia may be divided into four groups
according to their vernaculars. The number of individuals in each
group is estimated as follows:[193]

  Bulgarians      1,172,136 or 81.5% of the total Christian population.
  Greeks            190,047 “  13.22  “   “   “       “         “
  Rumanians          63,895 “   4.44  “   “   “       “         “
  Albanians[194]     12,006 “   0.84  “   “   “       “         “

The Bulgarians form a compact mass containing slight admixture
of alien elements in northern and central Macedonia. Many
of the occasional Greek communities encountered within this
area are former Slav or Albanian centers having passed under
the sphere of the Greek religious propaganda which has been
actively carried on as a means of increasing the Hellenic
domain. The instrument of Hellenization was the Patriarchate at
Constantinople. The Patriarchs, bearing the title of Œcumenical,
considered themselves as apostles of the Greater Greece idea.
After the fall of Byzantium, and notably after the closing of the
Bulgarian Patriarchate of Okrida, the Œcumenical Patriarchate
of Constantinople was the only official church established in
Turkey for Christians. Its influence, directed through schools and
churches, aimed above all to Hellenize Christians. The clergy was
directed to convert to Orthodoxy the greatest possible number of
Christians of alien denomination and, at the same time, attempt to
enforce the use of Greek speech among non-Mohammedans.

The Greeks of Macedonia are as mixed a people as can be found on
the surface of the earth. Inhabitants of cities are strongly mixed
with Albanian and Slav populations. Strains of Tatar blood can
even be detected among them. The Mediterranean type becomes more
pronounced as Thessaly is approached. In unfrequented villages,
however, the tourist will not uncommonly find living impersonations
of the sculptor’s classical conception of the human form. This
Greek element predominates in the valley of the Bistritza, which,
regionally, should be considered as the northeastern boundary of
the area of the Greek speech.

The Slavs of Macedonia are, in many respects, distinct in character
from the other Slavs of the Balkan peninsula. National feeling
among them is less strongly developed than with the rest of the
southern Slavs. They are industrious and frugal--even grasping.
Yet there are marked exceptions which seem to prove that these
qualities are not natural to them but have been acquired under
the stress of circumstances. Macedonia is a land of poverty. It
may rank with southern Greece as the poorest land in the Balkan
peninsula. Of little fertility, extensively deforested and without
particularly good pasture land, the country cannot support its
relatively numerous population, and therefore an important
occupation with the Macedonians is the taking of service in menial
capacity in foreign countries--“Petchalba,” as it is called.

The language of the Macedonians is intermediate between Serbian and
Bulgarian. Its affinity with the latter, however, is sufficiently
pronounced to have led generally to merging. Travelers in the land
of the Macedonian Slavs soon learn that a knowledge of Bulgarian
will obviate difficulties due to ignorance of the country’s
vernaculars. Serbian, however, is not as readily intelligible to
the natives. This relation has favored the Bulgarian side whenever
controversy arose and compilers of linguistic or ethnographic
maps have generally abstained from differentiating the Macedonian
from the Bulgarian area.[195] The impossibility for Bulgarians to
regard the terms of the treaty of Bucarest as final is, therefore,
obvious. Extension of the Rumanian boundary to the Turtukai-Black
Sea line was also an encroachment on soil where Bulgarian was the
predominant language.[196]

The area of Bulgarian speech awarded to Greece by the treaty of
Bucarest in 1913 attains the Albanian boundary near Lakes Prespa
and Kastoria. The upper valley of the Bistritza river crosses
a region peopled by Macedonians. The former Turkish caza of
Kastoria contained a majority of Bulgarian-speaking inhabitants.
The domain of Greek speech begins south of Lapsista and extends
eastward halfway between Kailar and Kochana. Greek predominance is
maintained around Karaferia. The environs of Salonica contain a
slight excess of Greek inhabitants over Bulgarians, but the Greek
element is not as closely attached to the land as the Bulgarian.
The line of lakes on the north of the Chalcydic peninsula forms
the boundary between Greeks and Bulgarians, the latter element
extending north of these inland waters to the present Bulgarian
frontier.

The loss of Macedonia was bitterly resented by Bulgarians,
not only on account of the racial ties which bind them to
Macedonians, but also because their country’s economic development
is hampered by the want of the harbors which constitute the
natural sea outlets for the rearlands under Bulgarian rule. The
industrial and commercial development of southwestern Bulgaria
is handicapped at present by the necessity of shipping the
products of the region over a devious stretch of railroad through
Sofia-Philippopoli-Dedeagatch. The alternative via Serbia or Greece
is equally costly. The population of a considerable portion of the
country is, therefore, unable to compete with rival producers of
the two neighboring countries.

In the first half of 1913 negotiations between the Greek and
Bulgarian governments were in progress for the division of lands
conquered from the Turks. At that time the Greek government was
willing to recognize Bulgarian sovereignty over the cazas of
Kavalla, Drama, Pravista, Serres, Demir-Hissar and Kukush. This
was done on Mr. Venizelos’ understanding that these districts
were sparsely inhabited by Greeks,[197] and that Kavalla was the
natural seaport of the districts of Strumnitza, Melnik, Jumaya,
Nevrokop and Razlog.

Many of the districts thus offered to Bulgaria were peopled mainly
by Turks. According to Turkish statistics the caza of Kara-Shaban
does not contain a single Christian village. Its population
consists almost entirely of Turks numbering about 15,000. The caza
of Kavalla, having a population of 30,000, is likewise largely
Turkish. The Greek element is reckoned at about 4,000, while
some 3,500 Pomaks or Bulgarian Mohammedans are scattered in many
villages.

Of the 50,000 inhabitants of the caza of Drama fully one-half
were Turks, the number of Greeks hardly attained 4,000, while the
Bulgarian element consisted of 20,000 inhabitants divided into
equal numbers of Exarchists and Pomaks. In the caza of Serres, the
Bulgarians number approximately 40,000, while the Greek population
comprises 27,000.[198] The caza of Demir-Hissar contains 33,000
Bulgarians out of a population of 50,250. The Greeks number about
250. In Kukush there are no Greeks at all. The population of this
caza consists mainly of 20,000 Turks out of a total of 23,000
inhabitants. It should be remembered that the Turks emigrated en
masse from this district after the treaty of Bucarest and that,
barring forcible expulsion by the Greeks, the population of all
this section of southeastern Macedonia is now overwhelmingly
Bulgarian.

Prior to Philip’s time, Macedonia was a little-known mountainous
province constantly overrun by Thracians and Illyrians. Soon after
the overthrow of the Macedonian Empire by the Romans in 168 B.C.
the region took its place among Roman provinces and eventually
formed part of the Byzantine Empire. Rapacious Goths under Alaric
brought havoc to the land after its fortunes were bound to that of
the dominant eastern state. The Slavs made their appearance during
the reign of Justinian. Their colonies had attained importance
while Heraclius was on the throne. In the tenth century, Macedonia
became part of the great Bulgarian kingdom, but gravitated later
towards Byzantium, though not without having been the scene of
disastrous struggles between Byzantine hosts and their barbarian
foes. Turks and Tatars first overran the country in this period
and even founded colonies. The two invasions from the east, of
the Slavs and of the Turks, must have wrought profound changes in
the Macedonian populations. A short period of Serbian rule was
undergone in the fourteenth century. In the fifteenth, Macedonia
became an integral portion of the Ottoman dominions and preserved
this political status until its rescue during the Balkan wars of
1912-1913.

Ethnically Macedonians and Bulgarians consist of mixed European and
Asiatic elements. The oldest layer in the population is Thracian.
This local stock peopled the land at the time of the Roman conquest
and was strongly Romanized during the subsequent centuries. Slavs
overran the country in the sixth century. The Bulgarians made
their appearance in the seventh. Turks, or rather Mongol and Tatar
hordes, began their invasions in the eighth. These Asiatics were
nomads. They made excellent soldiers but poor settlers. Their
settlements, which were made at strategic points, can be recognized
today by their commanding sites.

It is hard to determine how much of the Slav or of the Tatar exists
in the average Bulgarian of our day. The history of the land during
the second half of the first Christian millennium is a record of
constant invasions from the east. The invaders appear at first
to have been Slavs from the southern steppes of western Russia.
As time goes on, however, Bulgaria is seen to absorb wanderers
proceeding from more and more distant districts in the southern
belts of the steppeland which forms the continuation of Europe into
Asia. Slavic culture and speech preserved by the Bulgarians seem
but the veil that hides their strong Asiatic affinity.

The fundamental difference between the temper of the Serbian and
the Bulgarian is apparent to travelers in Balkan lands. The former
are true Slavs. They are lighthearted and always ready to make
merry. Their mountains re-echo with folk songs of the genuine
Slavic type. The Bulgarian on the other hand is inclined to
silence. Both peoples are equally industrious, but in the Serbian
the mobile and restless spirit of the west is discernible, while
the Bulgarian is as slow and ponderous a thinker as ever was bred
on the vast and open stretches of Eurasia’s central lowlands.

Proof of the Altaic origin of some of the Bulgarians is derived
from philology. To be sure, the Bulgarian and Turkish languages,
as now spoken, prevent mutual understanding, even though a number
of Turkish words have crept into Bulgarian in the course of the
centuries of Turkish rule. These are mostly modern words, however,
which did not exist at the time of the Asiatic migrations. On the
other hand, a deeper etymological bond is found in the words for
both wild and domestic animals, which are very similar in the two
languages. In the same way the old stock of words relating to
agricultural or pastoral pursuits are very closely akin in Turkish
and Hungarian. An interesting feature of the peopling of Bulgaria
is the modern tendency of the Bulgarian to abandon his ancient
home in the Balkan mountains and seek the fertile lowlands of the
country’s main valleys. A steady emigration from mountain to plain
has been going on since the Turks withdrew their garrisons from
Bulgaria. This movement reflects a sense of security which followed
the expulsion of the Turks. It is not yet ended. The fertile
basins of southeastern Bulgaria are still sparsely populated. The
reason is clear. They were peopled largely by Turks who preferred
to retire on Turkish soil after the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. The
Bulgarians have not yet had time to occupy the territory abandoned
by the Turks.

After the Turkish conquest Turkish historians, particularly Evlia
Tchelebi and Sa’aeddin, constantly refer to the Macedonians as
Bulgarians. This belief was held by the Turks until the end of
their rule of the province. The first Bulgarian bishop authorized
by the Turkish government was appointed for the diocese of Uskub
and southern districts. This appointment followed census-taking in
the district which indicated Bulgarian predominance.

In southwestern Macedonia the inhabitants of the districts of
Kastoria, Florina and Kailar are generally Bulgarians. Even in the
Mohammedan villages, as, for example, Grevena and Nedilia, nothing
but Bulgarian is heard. The fundamental Bulgarian character of the
entire region is furthermore established by place names which are
Bulgarian in spite of secular infiltrations of Greeks, Albanians
and Turks.

This portion of Macedonia along with the Vodena, Yenije-Vardar
and Salonica districts which were lately allotted to Greece,
constitute an interesting linguistic zone. Here alone, of all
Bulgarian-speaking regions, have been preserved forms peculiar
to the old Bulgarian language. The speech of the inhabitants of
Kastoria in particular reveals antiquated styles which are found
only in the first manuscripts prepared for the use of Christian
Slavs.

At the ambassadorial conference of Constantinople in 1876 the cazas
of Kastoria and Florina were included within the boundaries of
the proposed autonomous province which was to have Sofia as its
capital. The treaty of San Stefano likewise comprised the districts
under the newly created Bulgaria. These considerations suffice
in themselves to demonstrate the Bulgarian nationality of the
inhabitants of the present northern confines of Greece.

The Serbian claim on portions of Macedonia acquired after the
Balkan war of 1913 rests largely on a relatively short term of
military occupation at the height of the Serbian might in the
fourteenth century. This is made the basis of an historical
plea. The crowning of Dushan, their most renowned ruler, in the
city of Uskub however did not change the national character of
the inhabitants of the city or the districts surrounding it.
Furthermore, Serbian rule in Macedonia was preceded by Bulgarian
sovereignty and was followed by Byzantine supremacy over the land.
Greeks and Bulgarians may therefore buttress their claims on
equally valid historical contentions. Samuel, one of the Bulgarian
Czars, had extended his domain as far west as the Adriatic. His
success in adding the seaport of Durazzo to his land, however,
failed to change the Serbian nationality of the western districts
he managed to conquer.

Only in recent years have Serbian claims on Macedonia been set
forth by Serbian scholars. Historians like Raitch, Solaritch and
Vouk Karadjitch formerly concurred in setting southern Serbian
frontiers at the Shar mountains. In 1860 Serbian scientific
societies had joined in the publication of Macedonian songs
collected by Verkovitch under the title of “Bulgarian Songs.”
Serbian writers of the period around 1870 describe inland
inhabitants of Thrace, Rumelia and Macedonia as Bulgarians, while
they recognized the coast dwellers as Greeks.[199]

A transition dialect between Bulgarian and Serbian is spoken by the
inhabitants of the Krajste and Vlasina valleys in eastern Serbia.
The Krajste, an ill-known region, skirts the Serbo-Bulgarian
boundary and spreads eastward to the basins of Tren and Kustendil.
The Vlasina upper valley is known to Serbians as containing the
most important peat bog in their country. The two districts are
characterized by seasonal migrations of their inhabitants which
acquire decided intensity in the Vlasina valley.[200]

In its westernmost area the delimitation of a Bulgarian
linguistic boundary is greatly hampered by the relatively large
Serbian-speaking element on the north and a corresponding mass of
Greeks on the south. Reliable statistics are still unavailable.
Figures supplied by rival nationalist propaganda institutions
are for obvious reasons open to suspicion. The region where the
determination of this linguistic boundary is most difficult is
found in the neighborhood of Pirot and Vrania. Here the language of
the Slavic natives departs equally from the Bulgarian and Serbian.
This region, however, lies north of Macedonia proper. At the same
time there appears to be little room to doubt that the area of
Bulgarian speech attains the zone of the eastern Albanian dialects
and that it attains the Gulf of Salonica. But the seafaring
population of the Ægean coast is largely Greek.

Salonica itself is by no means a Bulgarian city, but an excellent
type of the polylingual cities of the Near East. Out of a
population of 160,000 inhabitants, it contains 20,000 Greeks and
an equal number of Europeans and Turks respectively. Its Bulgarian
population is negligible. The most numerous element is made up
of Jews who, it is estimated, constitute about one-half of the
population. Next to Constantinople, Salonica is the best harbor in
the Balkans. It is coveted by the Bulgarians on the plea that the
population of the country environing Salonica is mostly Bulgar.

The city occupies a dominating position on the Ægean coast halfway
between Piraeus and Smyrna and has always been a meeting-point
of Europe and Asia. In a sense it is the eastern terminal of
continental lines with which it is connected by the railroad which
passes through Nish and Uskub. In this light the city may be
likened to one of the piles of a gigantic bridge thrown across the
Ægean to connect Europe and Asia. It is the natural outlet of the
greatest part of Macedonia. Inland towns all the way from Ipek,
Prizrend and Mitrovitza to Monastir, Ishtip and Serres obtain the
goods which they need through Salonica. The products of the fertile
valleys of the Vardar and the Bistritza are almost exclusively
directed toward this harbor. The exchange of commodities between
Salonica and its rearlands reaches a yearly value of about
$100,000,000.

Whatever be the prevailing language spoken in this city, its
greatness depends entirely on the degree of freedom with which
its inhabitants can maintain trade with the districts extending
north and northwest. To maintain its size, or grow, the city must
continue to be the receiving point of manufactured goods shipped
into Macedonia as well as parts of Serbia and Albania. It must
also remain the shipping point for the natural products from those
same districts. To separate Macedonia from Salonica, its natural
harbor, is to create an unnatural condition. The city draws its
life from the resources of Macedonia. Its prosperity is therefore
directly related to the political fate of that country.

Bulgaria was independent during three different periods of its
history. The first kingdom was founded in 679 when Bulgarian bands
led by Asparush crossed the Danube and conquered the Slavs who had
previously occupied Bulgaria. Conquest carried his successors to
the very gates of Constantinople. At the end of the ninth century
under the reign of Simon, the second Christian ruler of the
country, the kingdom comprised all of Hungary, Rumania, Macedonia,
Thessaly, Epirus and Serbia in addition to its present territory.
Preslav was its capital. Bulgaria had then an area of 233,300 sq. m.

The Byzantines conquered Bulgaria in 1018 and maintained their
supremacy until 1186. The second kingdom was reëstablished in
that year with Assen I as its sovereign. In the reign of Assen II
(1218-1241), Bulgarian territory reached the Adriatic, Ægean and
Black seas and the Danube formed its northern frontier. Tirnovo was
the capital of the second kingdom. Bulgaria was at that time one
of the great European powers. Its area was then 113,100 sq. m. The
third kingdom dates from the year 1877.

Several attempts have been made in the past to create a Bulgaria
which would extend as far as the country’s language was spoken.
Towards the end of 1876 an international conference was held in
Constantinople to put an end to the intolerable condition of
the Christians inhabiting this portion of the Balkan peninsula.
The delegates decided to form two new Turkish provinces, the
boundaries of which would coincide with the ethnographic limit of
the Bulgarian people. Sofia and Tirnovo were selected as the chief
towns of the new provinces. The Sultan’s government succeeded in
blocking the execution of this project. War with Russia followed
and Russian victories forced Turkey to sign the memorable treaty of
San Stefano on February 19, 1878.

The boundary then decided upon was practically identical with
that provided by the ambassadorial conference of Constantinople.
Bulgaria however obtained in addition a band of territory in
Thrace and access to the Ægean through the seaport of Kavalla and
the mouth of the Vardar. In exchange, the principality lost the
Dobrudja to Rumania and a portion of the sanjak of Nish with the
towns of Nish and Leskovatz to Serbia. Russia at San Stefano had,
therefore, merely enforced execution of the agreement reached
jointly by the representatives of European powers. The treaty
she imposed on the Porte was from the linguistic standpoint an
improvement on the ambassadorial plan elaborated at Constantinople.

Unfortunately for Bulgaria, the unity of the nation failed to
receive the sanction of Europe at the treaty of Berlin in spite
of the sound scientific basis on which it was founded. Political
and strategical considerations, on the plea of which many
international blunders have been committed, prevailed. After this
act of injustice Bulgarians organized themselves to reclaim the
land of which they had been despoiled. Thirty-five years were spent
in preparation. On February 19, 1913, Bulgar guns and bayonets,
backed by Bulgar determination, had almost reëstablished the
national unity for which they had striven. This new effort was not
to be crowned with success. Only in the winter of 1914-1915 were
the Bulgarians able to occupy with their arms the territories of
Bulgarian speech which had been allotted to Serbia by the treaty of
Bucarest. The permanency of this occupation is, needless to state,
subject to international approval.

The extreme southeastern angle of the Balkan peninsula, east of
the Maritza river, is probably the most polyglot region in Europe.
The valley of the Maritza is mainly Bulgarian. Numerous colonies
of Greeks settled along the coast between the Dardanelles and the
Black Sea entrance of the Bosporus ply their trade as fishermen or
sailors. The petty coastwise traffic is almost entirely in their
hands. The Bulgarians are mainly farmers. Their properties are
scattered east to the very walls of the world-metropolis which
brings fame to the region. Within Constantinople itself truck
gardens are generally owned and exploited by Bulgarians. Bulgarian
and Greek languages are therefore common in this peninsula
extremity of Europe. The latter however is in constant use by most
of the inhabitants, whereas Bulgarian is restricted to the Slavic
element.

The Turkish masters of the land were never able to impose their
language on the Christian population. Many of the Greek and
Bulgarian inhabitants of the region cannot speak a word of Turkish.
The fact is particularly observable among Greeks. The language of
the conqueror hovers over the land as the medium of administration.
Its function ceases then, as far as the Christian element of the
region is concerned. The Turkish population in this bit of the
Balkan peninsula is numerous, owing to the attraction exerted by
the capital. Reliable census figures are unavailable. Thanks to
the presence of a strong garrison and a host of civil-service
officials the Turkish population of Constantinople, added to the
Turks remaining in the strip of European Turkey still owned by the
Sultan after the treaty of Bucarest of 1913, probably musters as
many individuals as those to whom Greek is vernacular. An important
Armenian colony is centered at Constantinople and radiates in
settlements without the capital. These Christians also have held
fast to their native speech, although most of them can claim
proficiency in Turkish. This familiarity with the language of their
conquerors betrays their Asiatic origin, in contrast with the
ignorance of Turkish found among the Greeks, who never forget their
European affinities.

In Europe the Turk, child of the ungrateful Asiatic steppeland, has
always been the heartily despised intruder. He has shown himself
incompetent to follow up the task of conquest by assimilating the
peoples he subdued. Perhaps his lack of national ideals lies at
the root of his failure. The language he imposed on his Christian
subjects never replaced their vernacular. It was spoken only by the
males of the subdued populations. Only in rare instances did it
penetrate within their households. Hence, Turks never felt at home
in Europe. They knew that their nomad’s tent was pitched only for
a while on the continent in which they sojourned as conquerors and
as strangers. They were emigrants who had lost all memory of their
land of origin and who nevertheless could not adapt themselves
to the land which their bravery had won. The state they founded
had a weak head and no heart whatever. Under these conditions the
expulsion of Turks from Europe could always be foreseen in spite of
the weary years it took to accomplish it.

Every boundary revision that marks the successive shrinking
of Turkish territory in Europe has been attended by wholesale
emigration of Mohammedans from lands reclaimed by Christians.
Immediately after the Balkan wars of 1913 about 50,000 Turks
voluntarily departed for Asia Minor from territory allotted to
Greece. An equal number left sections of Macedonia taken over by
Serbia, while about 25,000 abandoned land annexed by Bulgaria.

The historical fact is that Turks have never consented to live in
a land governed by Christians. In 1882 Thessaly was annexed to
Greece by a decision of European powers. No armed conflict between
Greece and Turkey took place on that occasion and racial hatred had
not been increased by the horrors of war. The Greek government at
that time offered special inducements to the Turkish inhabitants
of the ceded territory to remain on their land and continue their
agricultural pursuits. The Turks, however, preferred to emigrate to
the Sultan’s domain.

When Crete was awarded to Greece over 50,000 of the 80,000 Turkish
inhabitants of the island abandoned their homes and decided to
settle in Asiatic Turkey. This exodus took place in spite of the
perfect security of life and property that had prevailed in the
island since its administration was taken over by a committee of
Europeans in 1877. This tendency of Turks to forsake Christian
countries is observable even in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where the
Austrian government has shown decided favor toward Mohammedan
inhabitants, considering them more loyal than other elements of its
southeastern population.

The Turk’s last stand in Europe marks the final stage of his
colossal struggle to retain mastery over the Dardanelles and
Bosporus to which the highways of Europe and Asia lead. The
Bosporus is the junction of two important world routes. One
of these connects the peoples of central Europe with the
crowded settlements of British India. The other is the line of
communication between the commercial ports of the Mediterranean
and the caravan terminals on the Black Sea coast. Each of these
highways has constituted a channel through which the trade
between eastern and western lands has been directed from the very
beginnings of commerce. The narrowness of this Eurasian waterway
permitted continuous travel between two continents, while the
straits allowed uninterrupted maritime travel from Black Sea
harbors to distant seaports of the western world. Modern railway
communications have benefited by the former circumstance. The sea
commerce of medieval days thrived on the latter.

The entire European coast of the elongated waterways which
connect the Ægean and Black seas is inhabited by peoples speaking
languages each of which symbolizes conflicting aims and aspirations
without being strong enough to silence its rivals. From the
political standpoint the linguistic factor appears to be of slight
value in this case. Economic needs, to the exclusion of other
considerations, will probably determine the destiny of this region.

The relation of a region to the world depends in general upon its
economic value. The importance of this southeasterly strip of the
Balkan peninsula is therefore affected by its central location with
reference to the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. Between
Paris and Bagdad, or the Cape of Good Hope, the overland route
is continuous save for a short mile of water at the Bosporus and
an equally insignificant crossing at the Isthmus of Suez, in the
case of African travel. Herein lies the economic relation of this
portion of the Balkan peninsula to the rest of the world. But the
European coastland of the intercontinental strait separating Europe
from Asia does not constitute a complete region. The Asiatic coast
of the waterways must be taken with the European and a single
district formed out of the Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and
the Bosporus with their coasts and shores. This region is the
threshold of Asia and conversely the entrance to Europe from the
east.

A Balkan zone of depression extending west and south of the Balkan
uplift affords natural access between the valley of the Danube
proceeding from the heart of Europe and the Dardanelles-Bosporus
passage. This convenient gap is provided by the wide valley of the
Morava and the narrower Nishava course which lead to the Sofia
basin, whence penetration into the Thracian plains is obtained by
the Maritza valley. The corresponding function for the Asiatic
shore is performed by the valley of the Sakaria and in a less
degree by the Pursak river depression--both trending westward from
the high plateau of western Asia.

The main roads from the Bosporus and the Dardanelles to the Sakaria
river valley skirt the shores of the straits of the Marmora,
as they follow a coastal lowland which fringes the Dardanian
and Bithynian heights. At Panderma however the old highway
strikes inland slightly south of east to Brusa in order to avoid
the elevated plateau intervening between the Marmora and Lake
Abullonia. Thence, still following a line of least elevation, it
winds towards the small harbor of Ghemlik (the Cius of Graeco-Roman
times) until beyond Isnik (ancient Nicaea of ecclesiastical fame)
it debouches into the waters of the Sakaria.

These natural features connect the heart of Europe with the high
plateaus of western and central Asia as well as with the fertile
Mesopotamian lowland and the Indian peninsulas. The silk sent to
Europe from eastern Asia in medieval days followed this road. The
route has declined since the construction of the Suez waterway.
Railway lines planned to connect Channel ports with the Gulf of
Persia will restore the commercial value of the region. The value
of the Bosporus as an avenue of trade remains unimpaired in modern
days. It is the only maritime outlet for the export of the cereals
and farm products of southern Russia and the oil of the Caucasus.

Hence the commercial importance of Constantinople. The city is a
huge caravanserai--the meeting place of traders from the world’s
remotest corners. Control of its commanding position is coveted by
every nation whose citizens depend on industry and trade for their
welfare. The commerce of three continents lies within its grasp.
The political status of the extreme southeastern corner of the
Balkan peninsula, together with that of the extreme northwestern
corner of Asia Minor, therefore affects the interests of the entire
community of European nations.

We have in this a factor which may exert greater weight than
language in the eventual formation of an independent political
unit comprising the elongated zone of coastland inclosing the
Dardanelles, the Sea of Marmora and the Bosporus. A convenient
boundary for this territory in the Balkans might start at the
Gulf of Saros and, coinciding thence with the heights overlooking
Rodosto, might reach the course of the Chorlu. From here to the
Black Sea coast the administrative boundary of the vilayet of
Constantinople might be converted into an international frontier.
This delimitation would leave the valley of the Maritza in
Bulgarian hands. This award is justifiable not because the beauty
of the river banks is proclaimed in the Bulgarian national hymn,
but rather on the grounds of Bulgarian linguistic preponderance in
this valley. Substantial coincidence between Bulgarian political
and linguistic boundaries on the southeast would then have been
obtained.[201]


FOOTNOTES:

[189] Reliable estimates of the population of Albania are given by
Petrovich in “Servia: Her People, History and Aspirations,” London,
1915, p. 175. According to this author the country is inhabited by:

  Arnauts (Mohammedans)         350,000
  Tosks (Orthodox)              350,000
  Mirdites (Roman Catholics)    300,000
  Serbs (Orthodox)              250,000
  Greeks (Orthodox)             150,000
  Bulgarians (Orthodox)          50,000
  Turks (Mohammedans)            50,000
                               --------
       Total                  1,500,000

[190] G. Gravier: L’Albanie et ses limites, _Rev. de Paris_, Jan.
1, 1913, pp. 200-224.

[191] L. Büchner: Die neue griechisch-albanische Grenze in
Nordepirus, _Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 61, Feb. 1915, p. 68.

[192] Such migrations generally follow boundary revisions. The
crossing of Alsatians into French territory since 1870 has been
already mentioned. A large number of Danes abandoned their home in
Schleswig-Holstein in 1865, and wandered into Denmark.

[193] D. M. Brancoff: La Macédoine et sa population chrétienne,
Paris, 1905.

[194] The number of Serbians scattered in the highland region of
northern Macedonia has been omitted, probably owing to its relative
inferiority.

[195] D. M. Brancoff: La Macédoine et sa population chrétienne,
Paris, 1905. The Serbian viewpoint is resumed by J. Cvijić in
“Ethnographie de la Macédoine,” _Ann. de Géogr._, Vol. 15, 1906,
pp. 115-132 and 249-266.

[196] R. A. Tsanoff in the _Journ. of Race Develop._ (Jan. 1915, p.
251) estimates that 1,198,000 Bulgarians have passed under foreign
rule as a result of the treaty of Bucarest. Of those 286,000 have
become subjects of Rumania, 315,000 of Greece and 597,000 of Serbia.

[197] A. Schopoff: The Balkan States and the Federal Principle,
_Asiat. Rev._, July 1, 1915, p. 21.

[198] Brancoff: op. cit., p. 23.

[199] _L’Écho de la Bulgarie._ Dec. 20, 1914.

[200] R. T. Nikolić: Krajste i Vlasina, _Naselia Srpskikh zemalia_,
Vol. 8, 1912, pp. 1-380.

[201] On the Asiatic side the valley of the Sakaria and a long
fault revealed by the line of lakes east of the Marmora provide
ready-made frontiers which could be conveniently extended to the
Gulf of Adramyt on the Ægean. This line constituted the Asiatic
boundary of the Latin Empire of Constantinople in the period
intervening between the years 1204 and 1261.




CHAPTER XI

THE GEOGRAPHICAL CASE OF TURKEY


Turkey, by virtue of position, has always stood closely related
to every section of the European mainland. The country’s fate
has affected the destiny of every European nation. The modern
importance of Turkish affairs in European international problems is
a measure of the extensive influence of the Near East over Europe.
A study of European nationalities cannot therefore be complete
without reference to the empire of Turkish Sultans.

A strong contrast constantly engages attention in the history of
Ottoman lands. Of old, the world’s highest civilizations, its
purest religions, arose within their confines. In modern days
decadence on the heels of a steady recessional marks their lot.
The explanation usually advanced is that Mohammedanism has impeded
Turkish progress. But this religion was no obstacle to cultural
growth in the countries surrounding Turkey. In Egypt, as in
Arabia, Persia and northern India, the thought of the natives grew
to splendid maturity. The intellectual life of these Mohammedan
countries is altogether beyond the grasp of the Turkish mind.

The foundation of Turkey’s weakness as a nation and the failure
of the cause of civilization within its boundaries lie in the
country’s situation. The land staggers under the load of misfortune
which its central position in the eastern hemisphere has heaped
upon it. Its native populations have never been able to develop
freely. The country is an open road alongside or at the ends
of which nationalities have blossomed. It has been the prey of
invaders by which it has been overrun. The Turks find themselves
on this land today because they are descendants of wanderers.
They have occupied the road because they ignored the ways of
stepping off its path. Having come in numbers sufficiently strong,
they managed to subdue the original inhabitants, who in their
groping for the higher life had given the world a number of great
conceptions in learning, art and religion. But hardly had the
easterners occupied the road before the process of clearing it
began.

Turkey has been a highway of commerce and civilization between
Europe on the one hand and Asia and Africa on the other. The
history of this country and of its inhabitants cannot be understood
unless one is thoroughly impressed by this fundamental fact. On
the east the Persian Gulf followed by the Mesopotamian valley,
its natural prolongation, formed a convenient channel for the
northwesterly spread of human intercourse. To the west, land travel
between Europe and Africa drained into the Syrian furrow. Both of
these natural grooves led to the passes which carried the traveler
into Asia Minor. The peninsula therefore was both an important
center of human dispersal and a meeting place for men of all
nations.

The through roads converging into Turkish territory are probably
the oldest commercial routes of the world. At any rate they
connected the sites on which the most ancient civilizations
rose. The remotest past to which the history of humanity carries
us centers around the large river valleys of the tropical and
subtropical zone in the eastern hemisphere. The banks of the
Nile, of the Euphrates, of the Indian rivers, or of the broad
watercourses in Chinese lowlands were nurseries of human culture.
Abundance of water, together with a profuse flora and fauna, gave
early man ease of life. Hunters, fishermen and shepherds were
naturally converted into farmers. A short wait and the seeds they
planted would grow to maturity without exacting other attention
than the preliminary act of sewing. The life men led afforded time
for thought. Curiosity was awakened regarding lands beyond. Ample
provision of natural products furnished them with stocks available
for barter. These conditions favored the development of commerce
and stimulated the creation of trade routes, which were coveted by
many as they became more and more trodden.

Between Europe and Asia the great movements of peoples have
followed two parallel directions north or south of the central belt
of high Eurasian mountains extending from east to west. Men have
traveled back and forth in these two lines from the earliest known
period. But exchange of ideas has been practically confined to the
southern avenue. In the cold of the Siberian or northern European
lowlands men had little opportunity to acquire refinement. They
were active and energetic, while the followers of the southern
pathways were thinkers.

From the dawn of history to our day only two departures of
importance have taken place from this east-west traffic. Both
were modern events. One occurred in the middle of the fifteenth
century as soon as the Turks acquired mastery of western Asia
and the Balkan peninsula. The Christian sailor-trader of that
time was then obliged to circumnavigate Africa in order to reach
eastern seaports. The other change took place when the Suez Canal
was completed. This waterway diverted to its channel much of the
overland Asiatic traffic routed between the Black Sea and the
Persian Gulf or the Indian Ocean. But even these two diversions
failed to eliminate entirely the picturesque caravans which plied
over Turkish roads. Thus it may be assumed that these routes have
been used uninterruptedly for about 10,000 years at least, that is
to say, before the time in which their known history begins.

The southeastern portal of these celebrated highways is situated at
the head of the Persian Gulf. The broad Tigris and Euphrates thence
mark the northerly extension of the routes. On the western river,
the natural road leaves the valley above Mosul and penetrates
into the Armenian highland through the gorges in the neighborhood
of Diarbekir. The very name Mosul, a contraction of the Greek
“Mesopylae” or Central Gates, suggests its origin. The city
grew at the meeting point of routes from the Caspian, Black and
Mediterranean seas and from the Persian Gulf. The through highway
links once more with the Euphrates in its upper reaches around
Keban Maden in order to reach the Anatolian plateau. The passes
are precipitous and the waters flow southward closely hemmed in by
steep and rocky barriers. Access to the billowy surface of Armenian
mountain lands is obtained by means of either the Murad Su or the
Kara Su. The union of these two rivers into the single watercourse
known as the Euphrates at a short distance above Keban Maden has at
all times attracted much of the traffic and travel between Armenia
and Mesopotamia. The eastern affluents of the Tigris south of Lake
Van, on the other hand, reach the uplifted core of Armenia where
they are lost in the tangle of steep valleys and deeply broken
surfaces.

Because it is a region of water dispersal, Armenia is also the
gathering-site of the heads of outflowing watercourses. If the
distance at the divide between the uppermost reaches of two
divergent watercourses be short, it is hardly a barrier to human
intercourse. This condition prevails in the uppermost reaches of
the Euphrates and of the Aras. The important town of Erzerum is the
symbol of this union. Within its walled area the traffic of the
central plateaus of Asia joined with Mesopotamian or Black Sea and
Mediterranean freight, after having followed the easterly approach
to Turkey through Tabriz and the southern affluents of the Aras,
north of Urmiah Lake. Through this eastern avenue of penetration
Asiatic peoples and products have been dumped century after century
into Turkish territory.

The valley of the Euphrates, rather than that of the Tigris, is
therefore the main artery of communication between north and south
in eastern Turkey. It is the avenue through which the ideas of Iran
came into contact with Semitic thought. But the uniting influence
of the great river was far from being exerted on Oriental peoples
alone. In its broad southern course, the river provided ancient
merchants with a short-cut which greatly facilitated land travel
between the Ægean or Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. Another
city, Aleppo, is the geographical monument which grew with the
increase of travel in this stretch of the Euphrates or declined as
the channel became less and less frequented. It is the western
counterpart of Mosul in the sense that it also is a point of
convergence for routes proceeding from every quarter of the compass.

The chief Turkish route leaves the Euphrates at the angular bend
near Meskeneh. A two-days’ journey across the desert brought the
traveler to Aleppo. Beyond, the ancient road hugged the shores of
the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean and, passing over the
dull gray of the broad Cilician plain, headed for the huge cleft
in the limestones of the Taurus, known as the Cilician Gates. Past
this breach it is the plateau of Anatolia--a region whose physical
isolation has always influenced the life of its inhabitants.
Today, south of the Cilician Gates, the land is Arabian in speech
and Semitic in thought, while in the country to the north the
prevailing language is Turkish, which differs from the refinement
of Arabian as markedly as the crudity of the Turkish mind differs
from the intellectuality of the Arabian.

Thus through mountain tract and mountain trough the east found its
way into the Anatolian plateau. Conversely the west made several
successful scalings of its slopes. The valleys leading westward
into the Ægean or northward into the Black Sea acted as breaches
which facilitated human travel. Among these the Meander, Gediz and
Sakaria are noteworthy. The “Royal Road” of the Persian period
connected Ephesus with Susa by way of the Cilician Gates. It is
described by Herodotus. Official despatch-bearers traveled over it
in the fulfilment of their missions. Ramsay places this road north
of the desert center of Asia Minor[202] and considers the southern
route as the highway of the Graeco-Roman period. This last road is
the shortest and easiest between Ægean ports and the Cilician Gates.

The history of inland Asia Minor is the record of travel over
the network of the region’s roads. Its chief events consist of
military marches and trade travels. Urban life on this section of
the peninsula had its origin in caravan halts. The cities of inner
Anatolia represent successive stages of east-west travel. Their
alignment serves to trace the course of the road. To our own day
this part of Turkey has not been a land of settlement.

In the southeastern half of Turkey human life has also been
confined to highway regions. This part of the world is known to
us as Syria or Mesopotamia. Both are depressed regions--channels
of human flows--bordering the western and eastern sides of the
Great Syrian desert which, wedge-like, interposes its shifting
solitude of sand between the two as far as the foothills of the
mountains on the north. West of Syria lies the Mediterranean; east
of Mesopotamia the mountains of Persia. With such a pattern of land
carving, it was natural that life and activity should have gathered
in the precise regions where the historian finds them.

A dominant fact recurs in every stage of the region’s history.
Turkey is so placed that its possession is the goal of every nation
which has risen to eminence in or around Turkish lands. Its control
ushers in a period of great prosperity in every instance. Trade
flows freely in the highways, carrying prosperity in its wake. The
energy of the fortunate nation is spent to maintain the economic
advantages secured. The loss of the highway zone is accompanied by
national decline. A new nation rises and obtains the mastery of the
road, and the cycle is repeated. The western Asiatic highway may
aptly be named a highway of wealth or of misfortune.

At the beginning of the first pre-Christian millennium the struggle
for the possession of this highway was as keen and sanguinary as
it is at present. The empires of the Nile and Mesopotamian basins,
of the Syrian strip and of the Hittite mountain lands mustered
the flower of their manhood in yearly arrays for the purpose of
seizing or guarding the great arteries of west Asiatic traffic.
The short-lived prosperity of the Jewish empire, at the time of
Solomon, was attained immediately after the country’s boundaries
extended from the Red Sea and the Mediterranean to the Persian
Gulf. Judea grew to splendor by becoming sole mistress of the
international routes which traversed Syria and Mesopotamia. Her
greatness was transmitted to Assyria with the loss of the land
routes to that same empire in the eighth century B.C. A hundred
years later the Chaldeans obtained possession of the highways. It
is now their turn to impose their will on neighboring nations.
Another century slips by and with it the greatness of Semitic
states. In the east, men of Aryan speech, mostly Persians, have
begun to value the present Turkish land routes. In 560 B.C. Cyrus
is at the head of cohorts which soon after give him mastery of
Turkish Asia from the Ægean to the Persian Gulf. To this conquest
Darius adds Egypt and India.

All these events center around one of the greatest struggles ever
fought between men. It is the conflict between Europeans and
Asiatics immortalized in Hellenic literature,--the clash between
two continents, each battling for the exclusive control of the
highway connecting them. The contestants met on this Turkish
highway, they fought over its plains and defiles, and battled for
its possession in the realization that the economic prosperity upon
which national wealth and greatness rest could be secured only by
its conquest.

A significant fact of the celebrated struggle is revealed by the
inability of the Greeks to conquer the Persians. They defeated
them and checked their westerly advance. The Ægean and Eurasian
waterways of Turkey proved an impassable moat to the Persian
invaders. As long as the Persians retained control of the highways
the menace of their brutal despotism faced the liberal spirit of
the Greeks. The danger was dispelled by Alexander’s conquest of the
highway. No better instance of the power vested in the effective
hold of these lines of communication between the east and west can
be found.

All the history of Turkish lands is conditioned by their location
on the map. The region has occupied a conspicuous position on the
stage of world events since the earliest known times. Faint rays of
prehistoric light reveal it as the bridge over which the race of
round-headed men crossed into Europe from Asia. During antiquity
we find it to be the original seat of civilizations which radiate
outward in every direction. In medieval times it is the great
half-way station of the main artery of world trade. We know of it
in modern days as the center of a mighty international struggle
familiarly known as the Eastern Question.

A world relation of such an enduring character must obviously rest
on exceedingly firm foundations. A search for its causes leads us
straight into the field of geography. Three elements, namely, those
of position, form and natural resources are primarily accountable
for the extraordinary interest which Turkey has always awakened.
The region is the Asiatic extension of Mediterranean lands nestling
against the great central mountain mass of Asia. It is sharply
separated from the rest of the continent by a mountain wall which
extends continuously from the Black Sea to the Persian Gulf and
is made up of the Armenian and Zagros ranges. It is a peninsula,
itself formed by two distinct peninsulas, and one of the unit
divisions of the Asiatic continent in the sense that it is the
only part of the entire Asiatic continent subject to Mediterranean
climatic influences.

By position first, at the junction of three continents and
therefore on the main field of history; secondly, as the site of
convergence of the main avenues of continental travel and, thirdly,
by its situation in one of the two regions in which climatic
conditions proved most favorable for the early development of
humanity, Turkey, at first glance, appears to have been eminently
favored by nature. These advantages made it the meeting place of
races which are generally associated with the three continents
which the country unites. Aryan, Tatar and Semitic peoples
therefore are strongly represented in the land.

In considering Turkey as the meeting place of three continents
it is necessary that we should confine our conception of this
fact to the strictly literal sense of the term. The country is a
meeting place and nothing more. It has never been a transition
zone physically and, as a consequence, there has been very little
mingling of the different elements in its population. The very
shape of the land prevents fusion of the inhabitants into a single
people. The interior upland rises abruptly above a narrow fringe
of coastal lowland. Its surface features, consisting partly of
deserts and saline lakes, recall the typical aspect of central
Asia. On the other hand, the rich vegetation of the maritime fringe
reflects European characteristics. No better relic of Asia Minor’s
former land connection with Europe exists than this strip of the
west soldered to the eastern continent. But the physical union is
clean-cut and, as a result, the change from the low-lying garniture
of green scenery to the bare tracts of the uplands is sharp. These
features make of Turkey a land of strange contrasts. Its coasts
are washed by the waters of half a dozen seas and yet in places
a journey of barely twenty-five miles from the shore lands the
traveler squarely in the midst of a continental district.

So diversified a country could not be the land of patriotism, and
as we pick up the thread of its troubled history we find a woeful
absence of this spirit. In Byzantine times as in Ottoman a selfish
bias towards local interests, a parochial attachment of the sordid
type, pervades its population. A medley of peoples, each filling
its particular geographical frame and animated by widely divergent
ideals, are constantly engaged in looking abroad rather than
toward the land for the attainment of their hopes. Nature fostered
this condition. Communications between the different regions have
always been difficult. From the narrow fringe of coastland to the
interior plateau the ascent is steep. More than that the maritime
dweller of the lowland dreaded the total lack of comfort which he
knew awaited him on the arid highland. Conversely the indolent
inhabitant of this elevated district realized that were he to
settle near the coast he could not compete successfully with the
more active seafarers. As time went on the coastal peoples--mainly
Greeks--accustomed themselves to look beyond the sea for
intercourse with the outside world while the Turkish tenants of
the interior land still kept in their mind’s eye the vast Asiatic
background out of which they had emerged.

In the same way the imposing barrier of the Taurus prevented
contact between the occupants of the districts lying north and
south of the mountain. The significance of this range to Europeans
cannot be overestimated. The mountain has proved to be the chief
obstacle to the northward spread of Semitic peoples and their
civilizations. Successive waves of southern invaders, invariably of
Semitic descent whether highly civilized or drawn from tribes of
savages, spent themselves in vain dashes against the rocky slopes.
The fact is verified historically whether we consider the failure
of Assyrians in antiquity, of the Saracens during Middle Ages, or
of the Egyptians and Arabs led by Mehemet Ali in modern days. At
present the linguistic boundary between Turkish and Arabic occurs
in this mountain chain and Hogarth has expressed the fact in a
realistic phrase by stating that, at an elevation of about 2,000
ft., the Arabic speech is chilled to silence.

To come back to the factor of Turkey’s geographical position, we
find that while this feature has generated an attracting force
the shape of the land, on the other hand, promoted a constantly
repellent action. We have in this situation a remarkable conflict
which has exerted itself to the detriment of the inhabitants. The
centripetal action of position was always reduced to a minimum by
the centrifugal effects of form. The mountainous core made up by
the Anatolian table-land and the western highland of Armenia was
a center of dispersal of waters, and hence to a large degree of
peoples. Furthermore, however much the land was a single unit with
reference to the broad divisions of Asia, the fact remains that it
was greatly subdivided within itself. The six main compartments
into which it may be laid off have fostered totally divergent
civilizations. All of these conditions were fundamentally fatal to
the formation of nationality. They only favored intercontinental
travel and trade. In this respect the country has been of the
highest importance in the history of the eastern hemisphere, and at
present commands world-wide attention.

In only one respect did position and form operate harmoniously.
Both agencies combined to create Turkey’s relation with the world
beyond its borders. This relation was facilitated by the admirable
set of natural routes which led in and out of the country.
Beginning with the broad band of the Mediterranean Sea, land and
water routes succeed each other in close sequence. The inland sea
itself is prolonged through the Ægean and the Turkish straits
into the Black Sea, the shores of which are closely dotted with
the terminals of great avenues from northeastern Europe, as well
as all of northern and central Asia. On the European mainland,
the far-reaching Danube has an outlet into Turkey through the
Morava-Maritza valleys in addition to its own natural termination.
The Dnieper valley plays an exceedingly important share in
connecting Turkey to northern lands. To the east the trough-like
recesses in the folds of the mountains of Armenia and Kurdistan
lead to the great Tabriz gate beyond which the Persian Gulf affords
sea travel to centers of civilization of the monsoon lands or
westward to the African coast. Land connection with this continent
also exists in the rift valley of Syria where the beginning of
the African rift system is found. Through the occurrence of all
these channels of penetration the history of Turkey finds place as
a special chapter in the history of the world’s great nations. A
greater share of responsibility falls on the land for this relation
than on the Turks themselves.

The world relation of Turkish lands antedates, however, the
coming of the Turks by many a century. Problems summarized in the
familiar term Eastern Question have their origin in the existence
of the narrow waterways consisting of the Dardanelles, Marmora
and Bosporus. This water gap has exerted profound influence in
shaping the relation of Turkish territory to the outside world. The
Eastern Question is as old as the history of civilization on this
particular spot of the inhabited world. It could not be otherwise
because, fundamentally, this momentous international problem is
merely that of determining which people or nation shall control
the strait. Who shall gather toll from the enormous transit trade
of the region? This is the economic problem which has always
deeply agitated the leading commercial nations of the world. Its
continuity is a proof of its geographical character. As long as
these straits exist at the point of nearest convergence of the
Balkan and Anatolian peninsulas, identical problems are bound to
recur on their site. Beneath the shifting scenes of human events
the abiding stage persists in directing them into its own channels.

Accordingly as early as in late Minoan times and surely in full
Mycenean period, some fifteen hundred or two thousand years before
our era, we find the Eastern Question already vexing the world.
It centers first around Troy, because the city commanded the
southwestern outlet of the straits and played the same leading part
in the history of its day as Constantinople has played since then.
The shifting of the site to the northeastern end of the waterway
represents the gradual spread of Hellenic influence in northeastern
maritime territory.

We can only come to an adequate conception of the rôle of Troy in
history by a clear understanding of the value of its site. The city
was a toll-station. Its citizens accumulated wealth in the manner
in which the burghers of Byzantium laid the foundations of their
vast fortunes. Schliemann’s excavations brought to light amazing
treasures of precious metals and jewelry. These riches may well be
regarded as the price paid for the right of the passage of vessels
and their freight through the straits. Nor is it strange to find
that coincident with the decline of the Homeric city, the earliest
mention of Byzantium, its successor, appears. Consistently with
this method of viewing Trojan history it becomes possible to reach
a rational understanding of Homer’s classic epic as the account of
a secular struggle for the possession of an eminently profitable
site.[203] The testimony of history on the number of sieges which
Constantinople has undergone is at least precise, although no
literary masterpiece sheds lustre on the events. It is impossible
to escape from the parallelism in the histories of Byzantium and
Troy simply because the geographical background of both sites is
similar in every respect. In the case of Troy, it meant convenient
access to the Pontine rearland, probably the first El Dorado
recorded by history--the land of fabulous treasures, in search of
which the Argonautic expeditions were equipped. With Byzantium, it
meant access to the luxuries which Asia could supply as far as the
Pacific.

So much for the antiquity of the Eastern Question. Passing to
another phase of Turkey’s world relation we find that the land’s
influence has even affected the discovery of America. We now stand
on the threshold of modern history and deal with a broad economic
problem which affected late medieval commerce and which is an ever
recurrent theme in that splendid period of active human enterprise
known as the Age of Discovery. The dominant idea of the day was
to find means of facilitating east-west trade in the eastern
hemisphere.

From earliest times commercial relations between the land of
Cathay and Europe had been one-sided. The east sold and the west
purchased. There was very little exchange. The products which came
from the east could all be classed as luxuries. They constituted
freight of small volume such as precious stones, fine woods,
essence and spices, the value of which generally ran high. These
commodities had been shipped to Europe for about two millenniums
prior to the fourteenth century of our era. Overland the caravans
plowed their way across the southern expanse of Russia’s
interminable steppeland and penetrated finally into the plateaus
of Iran and Anatolia. Their home stretch lay in Turkey. By sea the
traders were accustomed to end their journeys at the head of the
Persian Gulf, whence the valuable wares would be shipped farther
west via Mesopotamia. In this case again the home stretch is found
on Turkish soil. It was not until about the end of the fourth
century B.C. when the Egyptian hamlet of Rhaecotis changed its name
into that of Alexandria, that this sea route was extended into the
Red Sea and Mediterranean. At this time the vision of acquiring
wealth through the eastern trade began to dawn on the minds of the
inhabitants of the Mediterranean seaboard. Many centuries were to
elapse, however, before westerners realized that fortunes could
be made by venturing into eastern fields. The profits and the
splendor of the eastern trade were popularized by Christendom when
the accounts of Marco Polo and the friar travelers of his time
became available. Then the ambition of every adventurous merchant
was to act as middleman in the trade with Cathay.

The bulk of the east-west trade in medieval time flowed through the
same two main arteries. The northern land route from China through
central Asia passed through the Tabriz and Erzerum gates and ended
at Trebizond, the rest of the journey being made by sea through the
Bosporus-Dardanelles passage. The southerly course was an all-water
route from the sea of China to the Mediterranean.

The incentive to reduce cost of transportation was as strong in
those days as it is at present. The northern route being mainly
overland was a source of incessant worry to the trader. The unrest
which followed the appearance of Mohammedanism, the reluctance of
the adherents of Islam to deal with infidels, rendered commerce
more and more risky. Transportation by land was slower and less
profitable than by sea, as it is now. Caravans could not avoid
brigands as easily as ships could escape pirates. It was not only
a case of argosies reaching port but also of camels escaping
highwaymen. In addition, duties had to be paid at four or five
different points of transshipment. If we examine the pepper and
ginger trade alone--the supply of both of which came from the
east--we find that from Calicut, the great emporium of trade on the
Malabar coast, these spices were carried by the Arabs to Jiddah and
thence to Tor, on the Sinaitic peninsula. Overland journeys began
at the last point and extended to Cairo. From the city a river
journey on the Nile to Rosetta followed, after which the freight
was packed on camels and sent to Alexandria. All these conditions
made for the increase of cost of the eastern wares which were
supplied to Europe.

With the cost of eastern commodities rising higher and higher,
as land transportation became more and more hazardous, the minds
of navigators naturally turned to the possibility of discovering
a sea-way to India and Cathay. The discovery of America in the
course of these endeavors to lower prevailing freight rates was an
inevitable consequence of economic conditions. The chief point of
interest resides in the fact that the discovery which immortalized
Columbus’ name was accelerated by fully half a century through the
falling of Constantinople into the hands of the Turks in 1453.

The capture of the Byzantine capital came as the death-blow to an
already declining commercial intercourse. Henceforth the Moslem
was to stand guard at the western gate through which east-to-west
intercontinental trade had passed; and there seemed to be no doubt
that he was firmly resolved to prevent the Christian from traveling
back and forth through his dominions. It meant the definite closing
of the western gate to eastern commerce. The first evil effects of
the Turkish conquest were felt by the Venetians and Genoese. The
Venetians especially incurred the wrath of Mohammed the Conqueror
on account of the aid they had rendered to the beleaguered capital.
Greater leniency was shown by the Turks to the Genoese, who had
refrained from open manifestations of sympathy with the Byzantines.

The Sultans themselves as well as their ministers were willing to
foster the trade which traversed their lands. It left a share of
its proceeds in the Turkish treasury. As a matter of fact, commerce
between Turkish lands under Mohammedan rule and the west existed
only because of the income it brought to the Turkish government.
But the Turk could not compete successfully with the Christian in
the markets of the world and this proved a barrier to commerce.
The significance of the Turkish conquest of the Byzantine Empire
is to be found therefore in the fact that it practically cut off
land communications between western Europe and eastern Asia.
Incentive to western exploration was intensified. Before the fall
of Constantinople the discovery of a western sea route to the east
was regarded as highly desirable. It now became a necessity.

The possibility of reaching the Far East by a voyage through the
pillars of Hercules had suggested itself to the active intellect of
the Greeks and Romans, yet the incentive to undertake exploration
did not acquire intensity until the latter half of the fifteenth
century. The Turkish advance into western Asia came, therefore, as
a shock whose impact forced trade out of the Mediterranean through
the straits of Gibraltar into the wide Atlantic.

But there was another important result of the Turk’s conquests in
the Balkan and Anatolian peninsulas. The diversion of the eastern
trade from European land routes into sea lanes impoverished the
German-speaking inhabitants dependent on the Danube artery of
continental life. The land on either side of this main highway was
blessed with natural wealth, but its treasures had been drained
by the Vatican. The reformation, which combined religious and
political aspirations, was an excellent opportunity for the chiefs
of the small states scattered in the long valley of the great river
to pounce upon the landed property owned by the Roman church and
establish economic conditions favorable to themselves.

The present world relations of Turkey may be summarized by the
statement that the country lies squarely in the path of both
Teutonic and Slavic advance. A natural course of expansion is
leading Germany to the southeast across the Balkan peninsula into
Turkey. The extension of frontiers required by Russia likewise
impels Slavic conquest of Turkey. Overpopulation in the one case
and the need of access to ice-free waters in the other make the
contest inevitable. The Teuton is answering the call of the land,
the Slav that of climate. In both the problem is mainly economic.
At bottom it is the modern phase of the Homeric struggle idealized
in the Iliad.

The dismemberment of Turkey into European colonies is the
goal steadily held in view since the loss of the Holy Land to
Christendom. It will be the last chapter in the long history of
Europe’s commercial conquest of western Asia. Three causes militate
in favor of an eventual partition. The country is rich in natural
resources. It is held by a people whose incompetence to convert
nature’s gifts into use or profit is historically patent. It
also happens to occupy a commanding situation with reference to
the trade of Europe with Asia and Africa. These three points are
fundamental in the solution of the Turkish problem.

The European nations most vitally concerned in the dismemberment of
the Sultan’s dominions are four in number. Great Britain’s interest
is born of the Empire’s relation to Egypt and India. The cause of
Russian progress depends on the country’s access to warm seaports.
Germany is the newcomer on the scene and, as a land power, is
engaged in extending her land area. To her sons Turkey offers an
attractive colonization area and at the same time the land route
which will render them independent of the sea-way passing through
Suez to the east. As a colonial power of the first magnitude, no
less than on account of her millions of Mohammedan subjects, France
cannot be disinterested in the fate of the corelands of Islam.

Turkey is the Asiatic pendant of the intercontinental highway
represented in Europe by the Balkan peninsula. Through Asia Minor
the land provides a convenient causeway between Asia and Europe.
Through Arabia it connects Asia to Africa. Again, through the
combined position of Asia Minor and Syria it becomes possible to
maintain continuous land travel from Europe to Africa. Turkey is
thus the ideal center of the eastern hemisphere. Mastery of its
territory is bound to turn the flow of intercontinental trade into
the lap of its holders. The entire history of European conflict
over Turkish lands is wrapped up in this geographical fact.

Italians were the pioneers of European trade with Turkey after
the consolidation of Ottoman power. In this Genoese and Venetian
traders merely followed in the footsteps of their fathers, whose
dealings with the Byzantines had been considerable. French
merchants were not slow to compete with Italians. In the fifteenth
century British drapers and commissioners begin to appear in the
Levant. Germans show signs of activity a hundred years later, but
confine their operation mainly to the European dominions of the
Sultans. From these beginnings to the twentieth-century territorial
claims of the great powers is but a natural economic unfolding.

Turkey’s remarkably central position in the eastern hemisphere
makes the country the threshold of Great Britain’s Asiatic
dominions as well as the natural land connection between British
Africa and British Asia. From India westward and from the British
zone in southern Persia as defined by the Anglo-Russian convention
of 1907, to the Sultanate of Egypt, southern Turkey, represented by
Lower Mesopotamia and Arabia, is the only stretch of territory in
which the British government does not exercise direct control; and
the task of consolidating British influence in these two regions of
the Turkish Empire is well advanced.

In the economic life of modern Mesopotamia British influence is
paramount. About 90 per cent of the trade of Basra and Bagdad is in
British hands. Steam navigation on the Euphrates and Tigris with
its attendant privileges of transportation is a monopoly exercised
by the British. This means that all the Persian trade which enters
or leaves the country through its southern Turkish border must pay
toll to British capital. Most important of all, the stupendous task
of reclaiming the great twin-river valley has been undertaken by
British enterprise.

The area of agricultural lands in Lower Mesopotamia is generally
calculated at ten times the total surface of farming land in Egypt.
The territory suited for cultivation extends northward from the
Persian Gulf roughly to a line drawn from the bend of the Euphrates
at Anah to Tekrit on the Tigris. Its eastern boundary is defined
by the Zagros and Pusht-i-Koh mountains. On the west it reaches
the Great Syrian desert as far as its junction with the plateau
of Arabia. Thus defined the region is the great alluvial plain of
Mesopotamia. A stretch of land remarkably rich in humus, it only
needs a just rule and competent engineers in order to become highly
productive.

In olden days the entire district was one vast field. Its fertility
had earned it the name of granary of the world. Herodotus extols
its productivity: “ ... In grain it is so fruitful as to yield
commonly two-hundred fold. The blade of the wheat plant and barley
plant is often four fingers in breadth.”[204] In their present
state the once productive lands present the appearance of a desert.
The old irrigation ditches are in ruins. Mile upon mile of parched,
cloggy soil or dreary marsh take the place of ancient fields.

The reclamation of this arid country was undertaken in 1908
by British engineers headed by Sir William Willcocks. In the
Delta region of Mesopotamia, comprising the entire drainage
valley extending south of Hit on the Euphrates and of Samarra
on the Tigris, between 12 and 13 million acres of first-class
irrigation land were to be converted into productive areas. In
spite of Turkish opposition the work advanced with sufficient
rapidity for the Hindiyeh Barrage to be inaugurated in 1914. At a
distance of twenty centuries a handful of plucky northerners had,
notwithstanding well-nigh insurmountable obstacles, put the last
touches to a drainage project begun on the same spot by Alexander
the Great, the construction of a new head for the Hindiyeh branch
or Pallocopas having been that monarch’s first public work in
Babylonia.[205]

In the Persian Gulf British influence advanced by great strides
during the present century. Within the last ten years the policing
of the gulf waters and harbors has been undertaken by Britain’s
men-of-war. An appreciable curtailment of the trade in firearms
followed the tracking of gun-runners by British captains. The
important towns of the Persian and Arabian coast are virtually
British possessions. Bushire[206] on the eastern shore, Koweit
on the west are protectorates. The trend of it all is to advance
India’s western frontier to the line of the Euphrates.

For Great Britain’s attitude toward Turkish politics is dictated by
Delhi rather than London. As ruler of the most numerous political
group of Mohammedans in the world, the king of England’s residence
in his European capital cannot affect India’s geographical needs,
among which the maintenance of a clear road from its shores to
the mother island is of prime import. Thus the establishment of
a British zone in southern Persia and the attempt to substitute
British law in Mesopotamia where, after all, the Sultan’s authority
is most precarious in character, merely reveal England’s necessity
of consolidating her power over the approaches to her great Asiatic
colony.

In dealing with Indian geography and the vast body of Mohammedan
Hindus, attention is necessarily riveted on the question of Arabia.
British stewardship of the peninsular table-land seems inevitable.
Not that those huge wastes of burning sand contain resources
convertible into profit; but Arabia represents a wedge of barbarism
driven in between the civilizing influences exerted by Great
Britain in Egypt and India. The danger of its becoming a generating
center of revolutionary currents involving British colonial
policies in destruction is not mythical. Millions of Indian Moslems
turn daily in prayer toward the direction of the Kaaba. A glance at
India’s history suffices to reveal the extent to which the Sea of
Oman has linked the two peninsulas.

To detach Arabia from a shadowy allegiance to the Sultan of Turkey
and bring it within the uplifting sphere of British activity was
part of the political program elaborated at Downing Street after
the bombardment of Alexandria in 1882. In pursuance of this policy
British influence is now markedly felt along Arabia’s three coasts.
It is firmly planted on the southeast, where Arabia is nearest to
India. From Koweit to Muscat every petty potentate exercising an
antiquated patriarchial authority has learned to rely on British
protection against Turkish encroachments. Aden, on the southwest
coast, is a lone outpost of civilization from which western ideas
radiate and occasionally reach the plateau land of Yemen or the
niggardly wastes of Hadramut. This British seaport is the natural
outlet of Yemen. Products of the favored districts around Kataba,
as well as between this town and Sana’a, can be transported with
greater facility to Aden than by the arduous routes which lead to
Red Sea harbors.

The question of Arabia involves other considerations. Mecca and
Medina, its holy cities, are essentially the religious center of
the Islamic world. From their sites Mohammedanism has spread about
4,000 miles both east and west. Among Arabs as well as the majority
of Mohammedans outside of Turkey desire for the restoration of
the Caliphate at Mecca is strong. Arabs especially consider the
Sultans as usurpers of the title. Selim I had been the first to
adopt it after the conquest of Egypt and Arabia in 1517. Arabs
however refuse to recognize the right of any but descendants
of the Prophet’s family to this supreme post of the Mohammedan
ecclesiastical hierarchy. According to Islamic traditions the
Caliph must be a member of the Koreishit tribe. This explains why
any ambitious leader who succeeds in circulating the report of his
relationship with Mohammed’s progeny has always secured a following
among his co-religionists in Asia or Africa.

The Arabs have aired this chief grievance of theirs in English
ears. They found ready sympathy among British officials no less
than among the leaders of their faith in Egypt or India. The
complete severance of the Mohammedan Caliphate from the Turkish
Sultanate will, therefore, be a probable result of Franco-British
success in the present war. The reëstablishment of the Prophet’s
family in its hereditary right and capital will have the advantage
of providing Islam with a geographical center at the very point of
its birth.

Modern German ascendancy in Turkey has constituted the gravest
menace to the British project of uniting Egypt to India by a broad
band of British territory. German diplomacy has exerted its best
efforts during the past generation in the attempt to defeat this
design. In overcrowded Germany the need of land for colonization
is felt as keenly as the necessity of providing new markets for
the country’s busy industries. Germany does not contain within
its borders an agricultural area of sufficient extent for the
requirements of its fast-growing populations. Against this it has
been estimated that with adequate irrigation Asia Minor can turn
out a million tons of wheat annually, as well as at least 200,000
tons of cotton. The basis of Teutonic southeasterly expansion
lies in these facts. The immediate aim of German imperialism is
to spread through Austria and the Balkan peninsula into Turkey
down to the Gulf of Alexandretta and the shallow waters of the
Persian Gulf. But its realization implies the shattering of British
projects.

This rivalry in the west Asian field became inevitable from the
moment that men of German speech became conscious of the power
they had acquired in 1870 by banding together in a single state.
The task of national consolidation once accomplished, the thought
of German leaders naturally turned eastward in the direction in
which land extended. Eight years later the prestige acquired by the
newborn empire gave it a decisive voice in the treaty of Berlin.
The first peg in the line of the Teutons’ southeasterly march was
driven then by the revision of Bulgarian frontiers delimited by the
treaty of San Stefano. The Slavic obstacle seemed removed from the
Teutons’ path and its place filled by the more easily negotiable
Turkish obstruction.

From the date of that treaty to the events of these years of war
Germany’s conduct in Turkey has been determined entirely by the
call of the land. In 1882 a German military commission undertakes
to reorganize the Turkish army. In 1889 the Deutsche Bank--whose
directors are leaders of Germany’s oversea affairs--is granted
a concession for a through line from Constantinople to Konia.
This concession has since been modified so as to comprise the
trans-Anatolian trunk railway which connects the capital with
Bagdad. In 1898 the Kaiser visits Damascus in person, there
solemnly to proclaim assurances of his unalterable good-will to
the millions of Mohammedans scattered over the surface of the
earth. In 1902 the Bagdad line is definitely awarded to a group
of capitalists, among whom Germans represent the majority of
investors. From that date on, railroad, mining and irrigation
concessions in Turkey seemed to have been reserved exclusively
for Germans. The transfer of Turkey’s unexploited riches to German
ownership became almost an accomplished fact.

It was the “Drang nach Osten,” a movement directed primarily
by the valleys of the Danube and the Morava, and forking out
subsequently along the Vardar and Maritza gaps. To clear this road
to Turkey, Serbia was wiped off the map of Europe in the fall of
1915 by Teutonic armies. For this too had Serbian nationality
been split into three separate bodies at the behest of Teutonic
diplomatists. Bosnia and Herzegovina, lands Serbian in heart and
logic, were administered by Austria, an empire in name like Turkey
but virtually ruled by Prussia since the day of Sadowa. Montenegro,
of old the refuge of martyred Serbia, had always been prevented by
Austria from uniting with its sister state. In truth Serbia lay
under the bane of a geographical curse. It was always in the way.

The misfortune of position is shared fully by Turkey. Coming at
right angles to Germany’s southeasterly drive, Russia’s steady
southwesterly advances in the nineteenth century foreshadowed the
conversion of all the Black Sea and its Bosporus entrance into
Russian waters. With the most inaccessible parts of the Armenian
mountains in Russian hands since 1878, further expansion through
western Armenia into Anatolia cannot be delayed much longer.

The Russian viewpoint deserves every consideration. Russia lies
benumbed by the cold of her frozen land. She has had one long
winter since the dawn of her nationality. The chief reason why her
sons have been laggards in the liberal progress of the past hundred
years must be sought in this simple fact of geography. Russia does
not need more land or fresh resources. She only seeks the warmth
of the sun’s rays. Geographically it is Russia rather than Germany
who is entitled to “her place under the sun.” Today more than ever,
and because of her newly-won liberty and democratic institutions,
Russia needs a window on the sunny side of her national dwelling.

Russian access to the open sea in the southwest can be secured
either at Constantinople or Alexandretta. The Bosporus route is the
more advantageous, as the markets for products of the plains of
southern Russia are strewn along Mediterranean coasts. But mastery
of the Bosporus is of little value to Russia without possession of
the Dardanelles strait. The Marmora is but the lobby of the Black
Sea. The entire Bosporus-Dardanelles waterway must, therefore, be
Russian in order to allow the country to reap the full advantages
of attaining ice-free seas. If fifty years ago the question was
merely one of political foresight, today it has assumed vital
importance, for southwestern Russia’s economic development, in
the present century, has made the country absolutely dependent on
Balkan and Mediterranean markets.

As an alternative, the harbor of Alexandretta finds favor among
Russians. It lies at a distance of only 450 miles from the southern
Caucasus frontiers. Moreover, it is part of the ancient land of
Armenia, which sooner or later is destined to become a Russian
province in its entirety. Such an extension of Russian territory
to blue water on the Mediterranean has significance in two ways.
It would redeem a land that has remained Christian in spite of
centuries of Mohammedan yoke and it might effectively bar German
access to the Persian Gulf.

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Underwood & Underwood_

  FIG. 54--View of the harbor of Odessa.]

[Illustration:

  _Copyright by Underwood & Underwood._

  FIG. 55--Export wheat ready to be loaded at Odessa.]

Russian influence in Turkey differs signally from the control
exerted by its three western competitors. British, German and
French encroachments on Turkish sovereignty have increased in
proportion to the amount of capital expended by each of these
countries for the development of Turkish resources. In this
respect Russia, which is not a country of financiers, stood at
a disadvantage. To overcome this handicap Russians resorted
to borrowing from France and England, mainly the former, and
invested the funds thus obtained in Turkey. Such transactions have
in reality been the means of strengthening French and British
ascendancy in the Ottoman land. The northeastern region of
Anatolia, which, owing to its contiguity to Russia, was regarded as
a sphere of Russian influence, has lately been looked upon often as
a zone of French interests, owing to the participation of French
capital in its development. But from a geographical standpoint
this French zone is artificial. Its dependence on Russia cannot be
altered as long as its position on the map remains unchanged.

France’s natural sphere of interest in Turkey will be found in
the Syrian vilayets. This is not due to the financing of Syrian
public utilities and industries by French capitalists as is often
alleged. It is the offspring of the Mediterranean which, since the
dawn of history, has connected the southern French coast to Syrian
harbors. Phœnician oversea trade in the first millennium before the
Christian era had reached the coasts of Provence and Languedoc.
Marseilles, a city born of this intercourse, has maintained
commercial relations with Syria uninterruptedly down to the present
time.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 56--French states in Syria at the time of the Crusades.
  Scale, 1:11,500,000. Based on Pl. 68, Historical Atlas, by W. R.
  Shepherd, Holt, New York, 1911.]

Franco-Syrian ties were strengthened considerably during the
Crusades. The conquest of Syria and Palestine by the Arabs diverted
the thoughts of Christendom from the economic importance of these
lands to their religious appeal. France, “the eldest daughter of
the Church,” took the lead in the attempt to wrest the Holy Land
from its Mohammedan conquerors,--“Gesta Dei per Francos.” Many of
the petty states founded by noblemen who took part in the Crusades
were ruled by Frenchmen. Antioch and Tripoli had French princes,
Jerusalem a French king. The title of Protector of Oriental
Christians conferred by the Papacy on French kings had its origin
in the active part played by France in the Crusades.

France has exercised a dominant intellectual influence in the
Levant for at least seven centuries. Turks bestow the appellation
“Frank” on Europeans without discrimination of nationality.
Western ideas which have trickled down to Turkish soil are French
in character. French schools in Turkey are more numerous than any
other. The civilizing power of French culture showed its strength
by the readiness with which it asserted itself in the midst of
uncongenial Turkish thought. France’s hold on Turkey is thus of
a high moral order. It differs in this respect from the material
claims of the other European powers.

At the same time through the investments of French capitalists a
well-defined zone of French interests has been created in Syria.
Excepting the Hejaz line every railroad in the province has been
financed in France. The silk factories of the Lebanon, around which
the whole industrial life of Syria clusters, were started by French
citizens. Their annual product, usually estimated at half a million
kilograms of silk, is exported to France. Syrian silk farmers in
need of funds for the annual purchase of cocoons raise their loans
exclusively among the banking houses of Lyons. French interests are
not confined to Syria alone; fully one-half of the amount of one
billion dollars representing Turkey’s official debt to Europe has
been advanced by French financial institutions.

It is difficult to assign a place to Italy in the array of
European claimants for Turkish territory. The trade between
Italian and Turkish seaports has lost the relative importance it
had acquired in medieval times. Italian pretensions to Adalia
Bay and its rearland are of quite recent date and the result of
conquests in Libya. But beyond vaguely formulated promises for
railway concessions from the Turkish government no ties bind the
region to Italy. Italy however created its own sphere of interest
somewhat unintentionally by the occupation of the islands of the
Dodecanesia. By this act it distanced every other European country
in the race for a share of Turkey.

The group of islands lying off the southwestern coast of Anatolia
is now held by Italy in virtue of stipulations covenanted with
Turkey at the treaty of Lausanne. According to the terms agreed
upon, Italy was to occupy the islands in guarantee of Turkish
good faith pledged to prevent anti-Italian agitation in Libya.
Upon complete pacification of the latest territorial addition to
Italy’s African domain, the political fate of the islands was to be
determined jointly by the six Great European Powers.

The islands, between twelve and fifteen in number, are peopled
exclusively by Greeks. Hellenic customs, language and religion have
survived upon each in spite of centuries of Turkish rule. Italian
sovereignty, however benevolent or likely to promote the welfare
of the islanders, is disliked equally at Patmos, Leros, Cos and
Rhodes. The remaining islands are relatively unimportant, some
consisting of mere uninhabited rocks emerging two or three hundred
feet above the sea. But to the smallest inhabited islet, annexation
to Greece is keenly desired. The Italians were hailed as liberators
from the Turkish oppression by the hardy fishermen who labored
under the impression that their island homes had been rescued in
order to be annexed to Greece. Their disappointment was expressed
in mass meetings at Patmos and Cos in 1913.

Racial and historical considerations add their weight to the
linguistic claims advanced by Greeks in Greece and the Dodecanesia.
As sailors the islanders have maintained to this day classical
traditions of Hellenic maritime activity in the region. The islands
in fact constitute lands of unredeemed nationality whose natives
are without a single exception akin to the continental Greeks.

This fact combined with a distribution of a numerically
preponderant Greek element along the western coast of Anatolia
makes the Ægean a truly Greek sea. Structurally the coast lands
encircling this body of water are identical. In the east as in the
west they constitute the warped margin of a subsided area. Identity
of land and peoples has given rise to Greek claims on western
Turkey. Greece, therefore, keeps in line with other European
nations in expecting a share in the inheritance of the moribund
Turkish state.

The claim is historical no less than economic. The association
of the Ægean religion with centuries of Hellenism and fully one
millennium of Byzantinism is by no means severed in modern days.
For the second time in its glorious history the ancient city of
Athens has become the social, political and intellectual center of
the Greek world. In one and the same prospect the Greek capital can
point with pride to the Hellenic splendor exhaled from Anatolian
ruins and to her modern sons achieving daily economic victories
over the Turk in his own land.

In this spectacle of nations lying athwart each other’s path the
clue to the adequate settlement of the Turkish problem may be
found. Turkey is before anything else a roadway--a bridge-land.
As soon as this point of practical geography is recognized it
will be easy to provide international legislation in which the
claims of interested powers will be harmonized. But no solution of
the political problem involved can ever be attained without full
consideration of its geographical aspects. Failure to recognize
this would leave the Eastern Question in the hopeless tangle in
which it has lain for over a century.

As the seat of through routes Turkey and its railroad play a
great part in international transportation. Hence it is that the
Turkish lines, with exception of the Hejaz railroad, are controlled
by financiers grouped according to nationality. At present the
majority of shareholders in each of the concessions belong to one
or the other of the great European powers.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. V_

RAILROADS IN TURKEY SHOWING THEIR CONNECTIONS AND EXTENSIONS]

The broad Eurasian landmass contains three densely populated areas.
Of these central Europe is the westernmost. The Indian peninsula
follows, situated approximately midway between the European
area and the coastlands and islands of eastern Asia, which form
the easternmost of the three. In these three regions only does
the average density of population exceed 64 inhabitants to the
square mile. The speediest and most convenient routes between the
westernmost and the two Asiatic regions must inevitably cross
Turkey. This feature, together with the fact that Asiatic Turkey
is a land richly endowed with natural resources and that, although
lying at Europe’s very door, it is still undeveloped, confer upon
Turkish railroads an importance which has always been keenly
realized by enterprising business men the world over.

All travel between Europe and Asia is deflected into northern and
southern channels by a central mass of mountains which separate a
vast lowland of plains and steppes on the north from the tablelands
of southern Asia. Age-old avenues of human migration and of trade
in the northern area have the disadvantage of traversing sparsely
inhabited regions. To build trans-continental railroads along
this route implies scaling some of the highest mountain ranges in
the world in order to tap the populous centers of India. Although
this is not beyond the engineer’s ability, capitalists decline to
consider it. Southern routes, on the other hand, link with the seas
that set far inland on Asiatic coasts. The function of the Turkish
trunk lines is to provide the shortest connection between European
railways and the steel tracks of southern Asia or to connect with
the sea routes that link harbor to harbor from the Persian Gulf to
the China Sea.

Although lying at Europe’s very door and in spite of its extreme
antiquity as the abode of civilized man, Asia Minor presents
the strange anomaly of being one of the world’s least developed
regions. It was only after the Crimean War that railroad
construction was undertaken within the peninsula. The granting of
railway concessions enabled the Sultan to pay his debt of gratitude
to the western nations which had assisted him in checking the
natural efforts of the Russians to add a strip of ice-free coast
to their country’s southwestern boundary. With the exception of
a single line every kilometer of track in the peninsula has been
built by Europeans. As is always the case in undeveloped areas,
the districts tapped by the various lines became economically
dependent on the roads that hauled their products and supplies.
This circumstance induced tacit recognition of spheres of
foreign influence in which commercial, and attendant political,
preponderance leaned strongly towards the country which supplied
the capital with which the railroads were built. Wherever, as in
Syria, vaguely defined spheres of European influence had previously
existed, the advent of engines and cars contributed to strengthen
them considerably. The routes determined by the steel-clad tracks
may therefore be considered as approximate center-lines of these
spheres of foreign influence. It is on this basis that six distinct
spheres may be marked out as follows:

(1) A British sphere extending over the entire drainage basin of
the Meander and traversed by the British-owned Aidin railway.

(2) A French sphere which was originally confined to the drainage
of the Gediz river, the ancient Hermos, but which, through
privileges acquired as a result of the successful operation of the
French-owned Cassaba railway, now extends northwards to the Sea of
Marmora. This additional sphere is divided into two equal east and
west areas by the French-owned Soma-Panderma railroad.

(3) A German sphere--the most important of these spheres of foreign
influence--which, beginning at the Bosporus, traverses the entire
peninsula diagonally by way of the inviting routes provided by
surface features and extends southeasterly through Mesopotamia to
the Persian Gulf.

(4) A Franco-Russian sphere which was originally allotted to Russia
and which comprises all of the area north of the German zone
described above. Russia’s inability to finance railway enterprise
in this area, no less than political ties which bind this country
to France, led to French participation. As a result of this dual
arrangement construction on the French-owned Samsoun-to-Sivas line
was begun in 1913.

(5) A second French sphere comprising all of Syria. It is
considered by Frenchmen as their most important sphere of influence
in Turkey. The French-owned Beirut-Aleppo, Tripoli-Homs and
Jaffa-Jerusalem lines are operated in this area.

(6) An Italian sphere extending inland from the extreme
southwestern coast of Asia Minor so as to include the hinterland of
the Gulf of Adalia. Italy is a recent invader of this field. Its
ambitions were revealed in the fall of 1913, after it became known
that negotiations had been carried on between the representative
of the Italian bondholders of the Ottoman Public Debt and the
Turkish government for the concession of a railway line to connect
the seaport of Adalia and the town of Burdur, the southeasterly
terminus of the Aidin railway.

(7) With these six spheres a contested seventh should be mentioned,
which is constituted by the exceedingly rich mineral district
situated at the northern convergence of the valleys of the
Tigris and Euphrates. Russian, French and German interests claim
respective rights of priority to its exploitation.

None of these divisions would be recognized officially as
such in Turkey. But then ethnographic boundaries are likewise
strictly ignored by the rulers of that country. Definite official
recognition of these spheres is nevertheless implied in the terms
of a number of commercial covenants signed by Turkey and various
European powers according to which the right to operate railroads,
and even mines sometimes, is granted by the Turkish government
exclusively to a single company which in almost every instance is
owned by capitalists of the same nationality. The Russo-Turkish
convention of 1900, which reserved to Russians rights of preëmption
on railroad building in the area called the Franco-Russian sphere,
may be mentioned as an example. Similarly the Bagdad Railway
Convention of 1902, formally signed by the German ambassador and
the Turkish Minister of Public Works, recognized the exclusive
rights of the Bagdad Railway Company--a German enterprise--to build
the important trans-peninsular route which will link Europe to Asia
and Africa.

One might infer that the existence of these six spheres should be
attributed to Turco-European agreements. Closer scrutiny brings to
light, however, the working of purely natural forces, explanation
of which is to be found in the geography of Asia Minor. These
international railroad conventions, and the areas determined by
their text, represent in reality the outcome of the geographical
conditions which are grouped here under the two major heads of
world relation and regional features.

World relation is an attribute of geographical location. Situated
as a junction area, a bridge as it were, between two continents,
Asia Minor stands out as an excellent type of an intermediate
region which has participated in the life of both. This two-fold
influence has been particularly marked whenever general progress
in either continent culminated in an overflow beyond continental
boundaries. The feats of Greeks and Persians, and of Byzantines
and Turks, may be considered as successive cycles in which the
spirit of Europe or of Asia predominated in turn. At the end
of each cycle life on the peninsula would revert to conditions
determined largely by regional influences. The past sixty years
have witnessed the beginning of a process of slow liberation from
the effects of the last cycle of Asiatic invasion. The spirit
of the west is ushered in once more for the simple reason that
it has become necessary to maintain a clear road over which the
products of overworked European factories will be transported to
populous markets in southern Asia. The primary cause of European
influence must therefore be traced back to Asia Minor’s location,
by virtue of which the peninsula has always been the site of an
important world route. Aryans of the present century are merely
preparing themselves to travel by rail the highway over which their
far-removed ancestors tramped on foot.

Besides offering the shortest overland route between the Baltic Sea
and the Indian Ocean, Asia Minor’s favored location affords the
same convenience with regard to land communication between Europe
and Africa. Any line diverging southwards at a suitable point on
the main trunk which traverses the peninsula diagonally may be
prolonged through Syria to the Turco-Egyptian frontier and extended
in Africa so as to connect with the Cape-to-Cairo railroad. While
no definite steps have yet been taken to secure this desirable
connection, the project has been under consideration for over
a decade and it may be surmised that its execution will not be
deferred much longer.

But world relation is also determined by a region’s natural
resources. Notwithstanding its undeveloped state, Asia Minor is
known to have been abundantly endowed with all the primary products
required by modern man’s complex life. The valleys connecting its
coast line with the inland ranges are exceedingly fertile. This
is particularly true of its western and northern area. The high
plateau of the interior needs only to be irrigated in order to
become a vast granary. Its mineral wealth is so abundant and varied
that it may be asserted that no other area of the same dimensions
can be compared to it. Its flora is extremely diversified. Its
forest belts are still considerable, despite a lack of legislation
for insuring their conservation and rational exploitation. The
slopes facing its three seas from the upper coniferous belts to
the lower olive tree zone, support a great variety of economic
species. We have here all the elements which satisfy man’s
natural desire for space after he has reached a given stage of
development. This desire is imposed by economic requirements
which impel activity in fields that must be kept expanding. The
zones must be hence regarded as spheres of economical rather than
political influence. They indicate natural foresight on the part
of powerful political agglomerations preparing the way for future
industrial and commercial advantages. At bottom it is an expression
of man’s growing ability to shape his destinies according to
his requirements and free himself from the limitations imposed
by frontiers. The economic phase of Asia Minor’s geography thus
contributes its full share in the determination of these spheres of
foreign interests.

Asia Minor may be considered as the eastern emergence of the
continental shelf supporting the European peninsula. Its salient
physical features are a central plateau surrounded by a rim-like
succession of ranges which are fringed in turn by a coastal strip
of land. A gradual ascent from west to east can be observed. The
western ranges have a mean altitude of about 2,000 feet above
sea level. The plateau has an average height of 3,000 feet.
The Armenian upland generally exceeds 4,000 feet. Access from
the sea to the interior is impeded by the mountainous barrier
reared as a natural bulwark. The gaps made by watercourses alone
permit communication. As most of the rivers are not navigable,
an important method of exploration is thus closed to adventurous
roamers, whether native or foreign. This lack of fluvial
communication has greatly hindered intercourse. Rivers have
constituted the ancient ethnic boundaries between the inhabitants
of the peninsula.[207] Communication between districts has been
carried on mainly from harbor to harbor. Although the peninsula
is in direct contact with three seas its mountainous rim prevents
benign maritime influences from extending to its interior. Its
climate may therefore be classed as extreme Mediterranean in type.
All these combined factors annul to a large extent the effects of
peninsular conditions.

The region is not as salubrious as its elevation might imply. It
is an area which has been occupied by communities of men actively
engaged in human pursuits at various periods of history, and which
has been subsequently abandoned to itself or rather to the working
of causes in which man had no part. Gradual desiccation of the
plateau is evinced by the presence of desert wastes coated with
alkaline precipitates, by receding lakes and all the manifestations
accompanying the decline of a hydrographic system. The salt lake
occupying the central part of the plateau is in reality nothing but
a vast marsh. Hydrographic changes are not confined merely to the
interior of Asia Minor but exert their action on the coast itself.
The bays of Tarsus and Ephesus are now much shallower than they
were two thousand years ago.[208] The general result is to impair
settlement. Reoccupation of the soil must often be preceded by
sanitation and it is only within recent times that this important
tool has been perfected by man so as to enable him to wield it
effectively in the conquest of fresh sites of occupancy.

Viewed therefore from its broadest aspect the problem of European
control of Asia Minor resolves itself into one of renewed
settlement. It is therefore pertinent to inquire how this condition
coupled with regional influences has affected each of the six
spheres.

Englishmen were the first to engage in Turkish railway building.
The Aidin railway, which links the thriving port of Smyrna to the
Anatolian plateau at Dineir, represents an investment of about
$50,000,000, or about a third of all the money invested in Turkey
by the British public. This road taps the fertile Meander valley
and has proved a remunerative undertaking to its owners, although
it has not been subsidized by the Turkish government. The line is
credited with the best management in Turkey. Its well-ballasted
track and the splendid condition of its rolling stock impress the
traveler most favorably. English capital is also represented in
other lines built in Turkey, though only as minority holdings.

This British zone of influence is at present the best developed
region in Asia Minor. Its northern boundary is determined by the
divide separating the watersheds of the Gediz and the Meander
rivers. The Aidin railway follows the course of the last-named
river to its very sources at about 1,000 feet below the general
western level of the plateau.[209] The eastern boundary of the
sphere is defined by the end of the natural road at one of the
abrupt slopes leading to the plateau in the vicinity of lakes
Burdur and Ajituz. Its southern frontier reaches the districts
which supply the railroad with traffic drawn from the border line
of the Carian ranges and the foot of the northern slopes of the
Lycian Taurus.

The sound establishment of Great Britain’s commercial influence in
this locality dates from the year 1856, when construction on the
Aidin railway was inaugurated. Its real beginning can be traced
back to the dawn of the nineteenth century, when English naval
supremacy replaced France’s hitherto paramount maritime influence
in the Levant. In recent years an interesting expansion of British
trade ascendancy in this zone can be detected since the products
of the area tapped by the Aidin railway, whether they consist of
cereals, fruit, ores or local manufactured goods such as rugs, are
mainly exported nowadays to Great Britain, the United States and
Australia.

Throughout history the valley of the Meander has constituted a
region in which natural features of the surface have been eminently
favorable to man’s development. In addition to the wealth of its
natural resources it is provided with a deeply indented coast
line, in which commodious natural harbors occur. Here is found
the maximum density of population for the entire peninsula--70
inhabitants to the square mile.[210] Within this restricted area
Greek influence first took root about 2,600 years ago before
spreading throughout Asia Minor. The origin of this movement must
be ascribed to the local advantages which invited human activity by
the display of favorable regional features. It is safe to surmise
that the same geographical agencies have been again responsible for
the striking parallel afforded by the first establishment within
contemporary times of a sphere of western influence in the region.

Italy’s connection with Turkish railroads has consisted in
providing labor and in laying claim to franchises in southern
Asia Minor. These claims are of recent date, and have been put
forth since the occupation of the islands of the Dodecanesia by
Italian troops. Specifically the claim is made for the right to
build a railroad from Adalia northwards to Burdur. The region to
be tapped by this line is a strip of broken lowland intervening
between the Lycian and Cilician Taurus. The valleys of the Aksu and
Keuprusu, bordering the east and west slopes of the Ovajik massif,
join in forming a deltaic area in which sub-tropical cultures,
rice, cotton and tobacco thrive. Plains and wide valleys, which
are probably ancient lakebeds, occur between the smaller ranges
of the zone. They contain arable lands which might be turned to
account were the region more thickly settled. A number of smaller
rivers discharge their contents into the gulf of Adalia. The gulf
itself is shallow, devoid of harbors, and open to southerly winds.
Lack of natural harbors and remoteness from the main highways of
the peninsula have contributed to the sphere’s isolation. It is
still imperfectly known through a few route surveys and occasional
descriptions.

The most important road in Turkey is the partially completed
trunk line running diagonally across Asia Minor and beyond into
Mesopotamia. The line is German-owned, although French and English
capital is represented. The concession for the first stretch,
extending from Constantinople to Konia, had been granted to German
and Austrian railroad builders in 1888. The celebrated Bagdad
railroad is the prolongation of this line. Its construction was
turned over to German promoters by a firman (decree) dated January
21, 1902. The financial burden of the enterprise was estimated at
about $200,000,000.

The Bagdad railroad is the final link of the shortest overland
route between Europe and Asia. In the minds of Germans it is
destined to compete with the sea-way controlled by England. The
road was conceived in order to connect Teutonic centers of industry
and Asiatic markets. The speediest sea route between Europe and
Asia passes through straits guarded by British sentinels. As long
as Gibraltar, Suez and Aden form part of Great Britain’s colonial
domain, they can be closed at will to competitors of British
manufacturers.

The great trade routes which link Europe to Asia have always
crossed Turkish territory. One of the most widely traveled of these
highways formerly connected the classic shores of Ionia to the
fever-laden coast of the Persian Gulf. It was the road to India.
The spices, gems and silk of the East reached European buyers by
way of this trunk land route. For countless centuries caravans have
plied back and forth over the barren plateau of Asia Minor and the
sweeping plains of the Mesopotamian depression. This traffic is
still maintained although it is now much on the wane. Long files of
camels proceeding leisurely at a swinging gait are met occasionally
by the traveler in Anatolia. A patient ass leads the way as of
old. The turbaned driver plods along unmindful of the historical
associations accumulated over his path. He knows however that the
steam engine, devised by western ingenuity, is about to deprive him
of the scanty pittance which his journeys yield.

Germany is essentially a land power. It was natural that the
country should seek to establish land routes over which its control
would prove as effective as England’s oversea highways. With this
aim in view, the German government lent unreserved support to
German captains of industry striving to obtain sole mastery of the
great Turkish trunk line. Asia, teeming with thickly populated
districts, lay at hand. Britain’s unrivaled sea power afforded its
people adequate transportation to these centers of consumption. The
Germans realized that a land power could not compete successfully
with rulers of the waves. They resolved to acquire commercial
supremacy in Asia by the creation of a land route. The Bagdad
railroad is the outcome of this realization.

The road starts at Konia at the southeastern terminal of the
Anatolian railroad, also a German line, whose tracks reach the
Asiatic suburbs of Constantinople. Konia lies in the very heart of
the Anatolian plateau, a stern and melancholy land, destitute of
trees and sparsely peopled. Here at an average elevation of 2,500
feet above sea-level, the tracks are laid over the ancient highway
which leads to Syria. In spite of its mournful scenery, the region
is a veritable paradise to the archeologist. It is studded with
prehistoric ruins and contains secrets of Hittite history which
await the scholar’s investigation. Here and there along the line
the dilapidated remnant of a Seljuk building reminds the traveler
of the peculiar charm of Mohammedan art.

Beyond the plateau the road plunges into a tangled mountainous
district known as the Taurus. The famous Cilician Gates are the
only practicable gap provided by nature among bold and abrupt peaks
in this region. The armies of Pagan, Christian and Mohammedan
monarchs have marched through this gorge in the long struggle
between the East and the West which enlivens the history of the
ancient East. Cyrus with his retinue of Persian lords and his
bands of Greek soldiers found it a convenient opening. Alexander
the Great stepped between its narrow walls on his way to conquer
the world. Detachments of Crusaders under Tancred and Baldwin bore
the banners of the cross through the rugged pass. Later Mongolian
hordes sang of loot as they swarmed through the mountain cut.

Unfortunately the ride through this mountain section of the
Bagdad line will not be made uninterruptedly in broad daylight.
The engineering problems involved are of considerable magnitude.
The mountain can be conquered only by means of tunnels and the
cost of this method of advance is naturally enormous. It has been
estimated at a minimum of $140,000 per mile. In addition to tunnels
considerable stretches of very heavy earth-work are required. If
the undertaking delights the engineer’s heart, it is on the other
hand apt to dismay the capitalist.

The drive through the Taurus does not end the difficulties of
construction. This mountain is succeeded immediately by the
equally lofty and precipitous Amanus range. Another arduous
tunneling section is encountered. Of the two the last is the most
difficult and costly. An idea of the heavy expense incurred in this
construction work is conveyed by the cost of the wagon road built
to reach the mouth of the first tunnel. It has been estimated that
over one million dollars have been spent in this preliminary work.

The descent towards the Cilician plain is steep. To the west
Tarsus, the birthplace of the Apostle Paul, looms a blot of white
over the grayish green of the surrounding land. The change from the
dreary scenery of the plateau is a delight to the eye. The valleys
leading to the Mediterranean coast are wooded. Vegetation soon
assumes a southern aspect of luxuriance. The sensation of finding
oneself in an altogether different country is especially felt on
hearing the sonorous accents of Arabic now spoken in place of
Turkish.

From the site of the Amanus tunnels to Aleppo the line was
completely built in 1915. Thence it strikes eastward only to
turn south after reaching the Euphrates river. From here on to
Bagdad trains will run through the great alluvial flood plains of
Mesopotamia. This is a rainless district. The present large cities,
Mosul, Bagdad and Basra, have no important share in world affairs
in comparison with the political and cultural influences which
radiated far outward from the precincts of ancient Nineveh and
Babylon.

Between Konia and Bagdad the railroad is 1,029 miles long.
For convenience of operation it is divided into sections of
approximately 130 miles in length or more correctly of 200
kilometers. Construction on the first section was begun shortly
after the award of the concession. This portion of the road was
opened to traffic in 1904. Building was abandoned until 1910 owing
to lack of funds. In May of that year operations were resumed at
different points of the line. By the middle of 1913 about 400 miles
had been completed.

Since the beginning of the European war, construction has been
pushed with increasing speed. In northern Mesopotamia the
construction of a bridge over the Euphrates at Jerabluz allows the
laying of tracks with a fair degree of rapidity in the northern
stretches of the Syrian desert. Work was also undertaken at Bagdad
in a northerly direction. In the last days of 1914 trains were
running regularly in the valley of the Tigris between this city and
Samarra. Since then, according to reports, the tracks have advanced
farther north.

Work on the sections in northern Mesopotamia does not present
great difficulties. There is reason to believe that construction
here proceeded with feverish haste during the European war. The
main obstacles to rapid track-laying are found in the mountainous
district which intervenes between the Anatolian plateau and the
plains of Syria and Mesopotamia. According to reports the tunnels
in the Amanus mountains were driven from end to end by the summer
of 1915. It will probably take longer to complete construction
through the mountainous wall which connects the Chakra valley to
the Tarsus river in the Cilician Taurus. This section of the road
is only 22 miles long. It crosses however an extremely rugged
district and requires four separate tunnels which together measure
some 10½ miles. In May, 1914, three tunnels had been started and
the ground cleared at the approach of the fourth.

A number of branch lines are included in the concession of the
Bagdad railroad. The products of some of Turkey’s most promising
districts will pass over their tracks toward the trunk line, thence
to be finally transported overland through the Balkan peninsula and
Austria to German manufacturing centers. A side line projected to
extend northeast of Aleppo will tap eventually an exceedingly rich
mineral belt situated at the northern convergence of the Tigris and
Euphrates. In this district the celebrated copper mines of Argana
are found. They are worked in desultory fashion by the Turkish
government. In spite of crude methods of extraction and long
camel-back hauls the ore is of sufficiently high grade character to
yield ample returns. Silver, lead, coal and iron also exist in the
same zone of mineralization.

An important branch connecting the trunk line with the
Mediterranean at Alexandretta has been in operation since 1913.
The line is only about fifty miles in length and traverses the
heart of a rich orange-growing district. The northern track of this
branch crosses the plain of Issus where Alexander battled against
Darius. At about six miles from its southern terminal the line
hugs Mediterranean waters and crosses the spot where, according
to statements of the natives, the whale relieved itself of the
indigestible burden of the prophet Jonah.

In central Mesopotamia, branch lines extending in easterly
directions will tap rich oil-fields and may eventually provide
connection with future trans-Persian railroads. The history of
this Mesopotamian region abounds in stirring chapters. The most
favored section is found in the narrow neck of land extending for
a short distance at the convergence of the courses of the Tigris
and Euphrates. This site was marked by nature for the heart of
great empires. After the fall of Babylon, the neighboring cities
of Seleucia and Ctesiphon became in turn the capitals of Greek
emperors and of Parthian and Sassanid sovereigns. Here Bagdad,
rich in human history, grew to world fame. The farms and palm
groves surrounding the city spread on the east and west until they
almost reached the banks of the rivers which carried life and
fertility in their waters. At the time of Arab prosperity Bagdad
was one of the most magnificent cities of the Mohammedan world.
As a center of Mussulman art the city had no peer. The Turkish
conquest, which swept light a blight over the land, put an end to
the city’s prosperity.

In modern times, Persians and Turks have vied with each other
to retain possession of the land. Bagdad then became the center
of the struggles waged between Caliphs and Imams. The conflict
which splits Islam into the two rival camps of Sunnis and Shiites
revolved around the city. The mausoleums and mosques which annually
attract thousands of pilgrims are the sanctuaries in which
upholders of the divergent beliefs elbow each other oftener than in
any other Mohammedan city.

Should the Bagdad railroad be destined to remain German property
the line is bound to become the backbone of German supremacy in
western Asia. Germania, helmeted and carrying sword and shield,
will ride over its rails to conquer Palestine and to wrest the
wealth of the Nile and Ganges from British grip. But the foreign
interests of every European nation are affected by the construction
of this celebrated railway. It is the most direct route to Asia
for all of Europe. The question of its internationalization is
therefore one of the problems of European diplomacy.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 57--One of the many shops in a Turkish bazaar. All commerce
  in Oriental cities was formerly centered under a single roof.
  This feature of Oriental commerce is gradually disappearing.]

The extensive zone traversed by this railway comprises the fertile
and well settled valleys of the Sakaria and the Pursak, practically
the whole of the interior plateau to the foot of its surrounding
mountains and the eastern section of the Mesopotamian valley.
Within this belt the most populous inland towns of the peninsula
succeed each other at regular intervals. This circumstance
indicates their former importance as stages on the long journey
between the Bosporus and the Persian Gulf. Casual inspection of
their crowded bazars would dispel doubt on this score. Attention
must be called here to the geographical significance of these
bazars in the Orient. Every urban center is provided with one. It
is usually a roofed inclosure within which the city’s business
is carried on. Caravans proceeding from remote sections of the
continent have their rendezvous outside their gates. The size of
these bazars and the activity displayed in each is the measure
of an eastern city’s intercourse with the rest of the world. In
the geographer’s mind their significance is the same as that of
railroad stations.

By acquiring this trunk line the Germans succeeded in taking a
first mortgage on Turkey. It was the first signal success of the
policy of directing Teutonic ambitions into eastern channels which
Bismarck had adopted immediately after the consolidation of the
German Empire. He had a vision of an all-German line of traffic
starting at Hamburg and crossing the Bosporus towards the Far
East. In one direction German calculations miscarried. Germany was
unable to finance the undertaking without the support of British
and French capitalists. The international character of the line
became more and more pronounced between the years 1908 and 1911.
During this period a number of agreements were signed between Great
Britain, France, Germany and Turkey in which a notable percentage
of German interests passed over to the two rival countries, the
Germans emerging out of the transaction with a bare control.

The project of an all-German route received another setback when
England was awarded the final section of the Bagdad line. This
successful stroke of British diplomacy consolidated British
influence in the Persian Gulf. Koweit and the environing districts
ruled by petty Arabian chiefs became British protectorates and the
long-planned German through line merely butted against a solid wall
raised by British ability.

The French have invested twice as much capital as the English
in Turkish railroads. The lines they manage and own directly
are the Syrian railroads and the Smyrna-Kassaba line. They are
also interested in the construction of roads in the northeastern
districts of the country where concessions have been awarded to
Russians. Muscovite inability to provide capital is responsible for
the transfer of the building and operating grants to Frenchmen.

The sphere of French influence comprising the Gediz valley and its
adjacent territory to the Sea of Marmora lies entirely out of the
beaten track of intercontinental travel. Its economic prosperity is
therefore governed by purely regional influences. The valley of the
Gediz river itself compares in fertility with that of its southern
consort, the Meander. Tracts of arable land in its northern area
and the occurrence of extensive mineral deposits, a few of which
are among the most heavily exploited in Asia Minor, combined
with genial climate and the accident of position which places
the zone directly opposite the European mainland, all tend to
impart elements of economic significance which have allured French
enterprise.

As has been shown already, the zone of paramount French influence
in Asiatic Turkey lies, south of Asia Minor, in Syria. “La France
du Levant” is a term which is not uncommonly applied by Frenchmen
to this Turkish province. The origin of this intercourse may be
traced to the trade relations between Gaul and Syria in the fourth
century B.C. During antiquity a widely traveled road, albeit
of lesser importance than the peninsular highway of Anatolia,
connected the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf. This route
started from Egypt and Syrian harbors and skirted the western and
northern edges of the Arabian desert before assuming a southerly
strike which led it through the Mesopotamian basin. The populous
cities of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo lie on this ancient
avenue of trade. Here, as in the case of the Anatolian cities
mentioned, their present population is altogether out of proportion
to their resources or activity. It can only be regarded as a
sign of the importance they once had as stages in this southern
east-west route. The Syrian littoral, described by Hogarth as
the garden of Arabia,[211] must be regarded therefore as an
intermediate region connecting Asia and the country lying west of
its Mediterranean border. This influence of location prevailed
throughout history.

The conquest of Syria by Frankish Crusaders gave renewed impetus
to commercial relations between Syria and France. A regular trade
route between Marseilles and Syrian ports was established. The
treaty of alliance between the Sultan of Turkey and the King of
France in the first half of the sixteenth century contributed
to bind this province more firmly to France. At the end of the
seventeenth century French trading-centers had been established
in all the important cities of Syria. Napoleon’s invasion of
this province as a result of the Egyptian campaign and French
intervention in the Lebanon in 1859 likewise increased French
prestige in the region. The confinement of this western hold to
Syria can be ascribed to the influence exerted by the boundaries of
the province. It forms with Palestine an excellent type of regional
unit consisting of an elongated mountainous strip barely 50 miles
wide. With the Mediterranean on the west, and deserts on the south
and east, its only outlet to the world lay on the north.

French builders first undertook to connect the province of Lebanon
with the sea by constructing the Beirut-Damascus line. The tracks
were subsequently extended to Aleppo, a city whose greatness was
founded on its situation along the natural road which connects the
Mediterranean with the Persian Gulf. As a railroad center Aleppo’s
future looms bright, for the city lies also in the path of the
tracks which will connect the Black Sea with the Mediterranean.

In southern Syria, the outlook for French enterprise was dimmed
for a few years by the construction of a Turkish line from
Damascus southwards. Branch lines were carried to the sea. Harbor
concessions, however, were granted to French firms. French
interests thus retained a notable share of the control over the
traffic in and out of Syria. Furthermore, a concession for a line
from Rayak to connect with the Jaffa-Jerusalem road which they
obtained in 1914 will enable them to compete with the Hejaz line.

The last railroad agreement between the French and Turkish
governments was signed on April 9, 1914. Concessions on the part of
the Turkish government are bestowed in return for French financial
support. The lines granted will tap northern Anatolia and Armenia.
Connection with the German lines will be made at Boli and at
Argana. The area tributary to this line contains fertile plains and
plateaus. It is known to be rich in mines, notably in copper. The
advent of the railroad will undoubtedly brighten the outlook of the
Turkish mining industry.

In southern Arabia a railroad concession was awarded to French
promoters in 1908. The line was to connect the seaport of Hodeida
with Sana’a. It was intended to divert into Turkish territory
the large trade with the interior which now passes through Aden.
Strategic reasons also weighed heavily in the decision to build
this road. At no time have the Arabs of the Yemen shown sympathy
for their Turkish rulers. Every commander sent to quell their
incessant rebellions ascribed his failure to lack of transportation
facilities. It was mainly in view of this condition that steps were
taken to connect this section of the Arabian table-land with the
sea.

The Franco-Russian sphere is the outcome of privileges originally
conceded to Russia by Turkey. The terms of the agreement under
discussion call for the construction of railroad lines as follows:
The trunk line is to start at Samsoun and to end at Sivas.[212]
A westerly branch line will diverge from Tokat towards Yozgat
without reaching this city, however, or extending beyond the divide
between the Yechil and Kizil rivers. A second branch will start at
Tokat and reach Erzindjian, whence it will be turned northwards
to Trebizond. Beyond Sivas the line will be extended to Kharpout
and the vicinity of the important Argana copper mine. Connection
with the Bagdad railway will be made beyond this point. Finally an
important branch will leave the trunk line at Kazva to extend to
Kastamuni and Boli.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. VI_

EUROPEAN SPHERES OF INFLUENCE AND TERRITORIAL CLAIMS IN TURKEY]

The zone defined by these projected lines covers the greater
part of northern Asia Minor. It forms a region in which relief
and the rigor of the climate have retarded the development of the
population.[213] These geographical disadvantages are compensated
by ample natural resources. The eastern section is known to
contain a rich copper belt which bids fair to become the site of a
thriving industry. The deltaic strips and river valleys will permit
extensive tobacco culture and fruit raising. The passing of this
zone under the sphere of western influence is a mere result of
Russia’s constant endeavor to obtain a coast line which will not be
closed to navigation during the winter.

The only line owned by the Turks in their country is the
narrow-gauge railway known as the Hejaz line which starts from
Damascus and is intended to reach the holy town of Mecca. The
financing of this line has been unparalleled in the annals of
railroad building. Ostensibly the purpose of the construction was
to provide traveling conveniences to 250,000 pilgrims who, it is
estimated, came annually from all parts of the Mohammedan world to
worship at the Kaaba. In the belief of many, the line was built for
strategical reasons and to enforce Turkish sovereignty among the
Arabs, who have always been loath to admit the Sultan’s claims to
the Caliphate.

The funds for the construction and equipment of the road were
obtained by appealing to the religious feelings of the 230,000,000
Mohammedans scattered in widely separated regions of the globe.
Stress was laid on the pious character of the undertaking.
According to reports, $14,000,000 were collected soon after
the enterprise was launched. Thereafter about $12,000,000 were
contributed annually for several years. The operation involved
no responsibility to the promoters, headed by Abdul Hamid, the
former Sultan of Turkey, all the funds being bestowed in the form
of donations. The road has thus no shareholders and no bonded
indebtedness, its capital being spontaneously wiped off.

The religious character of the undertaking is apparent in the
mosque-wagon attached to each train. Seen from the outside, the
prayer carriage is distinguished only by means of a diminutive
minaret six and a half feet high. The interior is fitted out
according to religious custom with rugs on the floor and framed
Koranic verses in letters of gold on the walls. The direction of
Mecca is indicated by a map at the end of the car, so as to enable
the faithful to orient themselves properly when engaged in prayer.

A hopeful view of the future of Turkey’s economic position may be
entertained by remembering that the land is still unexploited and
that the resources of its soil and subsoil await the handling of
western energy. It is expected that as fine a cereal crop as can be
obtained anywhere in the world will be raised in the region between
Eskishehir, Angora and Konia. Five million dollars spent by Germans
on irrigation at Chumra in the vicinity of the last-named city has
proved conclusively that a thriving agricultural industry can be
established on the interior plateau of Asia Minor. The Cilician
plain, where cotton and cereals are cultivated, contains vast
tracts of swamp land which can be reclaimed. Here, too, irrigation
would greatly improve cotton culture. Many of these rich soils are
parts of Turkish crownlands which have been estimated by some to
amount to one-tenth of the entire area of Turkey. The lands owned
by the Evkaf, or Ministry of Religious Foundations, also cover
vast areas. Estates held under either of these forms of tenure
can be rendered highly productive under western management. The
southernmost end of the Bagdad line taps rich oil fields which are
situated in the area of transition between the plateau of Iran and
the Mesopotamian depression. The railroad traverses the western end
of this oil basin. Its eastern section in Persia has been developed
since 1908 by British firms.

The international control of Turkish railroads reflects the
transitional character of the land over which they are built.
Ownership in Turkish lines is of practically no value to so
backward a people as the Turks have proved themselves to be. It is
of vital importance to the industrial communities of the countries
which hold the extremities of the roads of which the Turkish
system is but a link. Germany, Austria and France at the western
extremity of the transcontinental line, Great Britain in India at
its eastern end, have interests which affect a large proportion
of their population. In the west the great through line starts in
some of the busiest industrial centers of the world. In the east it
taps coveted markets. The attention of European manufacturers is
directed towards densely populated India or China simply because
profitable trade is found where numbers exist.

A comprehensive glance at the spheres of foreign influence in
Turkey shows that the most satisfactory evidence of the control
of geography over the development of railway zones and spheres of
foreign influence in Asia Minor is obtained by mere reference to
the regions in which adverse geographical conditions prevail. The
Italian and Russian spheres are both characterized by physical
and climatic conditions which have stood in the way of human
development. The map reveals the absence of railways in both.

In the more favored zones western influences are shown by the
presence of modern surface features. Striking examples of German
enterprise can be observed along their extensive sphere of action.
Grain warehouses at Polatli on the Angora line receive the crops of
the environing country. In the plains of Konia canals and locks of
varying dimensions have been built and the former swampy area is
fast becoming a heavy producer of wheat. Farther south near Adana
over 200,000 acres have been reclaimed mainly for cotton growing.
In this district important harbor works have been undertaken at
Alexandretta which it is planned to make both the outlet of all
southern Asia Minor and the terminal of the sea route from Europe
to the east.

Similarly French influence in Syria is observable in the
macadamized highways of the Lebanon no less than in the development
of a thriving silk industry. In the British zone of the Meander
valley mines have been opened up by British capital. Along with
this economic progress education is also advancing. Numerous
European and American schools were in existence in Asiatic Turkey
prior to the European war. The mere presence of European employees
of the railroads in the Anatolian towns is enough to infuse new
thoughts into the minds of the inhabitants. On the whole the
locomotive is performing its civilizing work and Asia Minor is
gradually becoming Europeanized.

Summing up we find that we have dealt with a connecting region
which may justly be considered as the classical type in geography.
A land which by its position was everyman’s land, and which,
because of its geography, was of greater interest to the outsider
than to its own inhabitants. Being a part of three continents it
became part of the life which flourished in each. A nation formed
on such a site belongs more to its neighbors than to itself. In
this respect its future will resemble its past.


FOOTNOTES:

[202] The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, _Roy. Geogr. Soc.
Suppl. Papers_, Vol. 4, 1900, p. 27.

[203] W. Leaf: Troy, A Study in Homeric Geography, London, 1912.

[204] Bk. 1, Chap. 193. Babylonia’s fertility is also noticed by
other ancient writers. Cf. footnote of Rawlinson’s Herodotus, New
York, 1859, Vol. 1, p. 258.

[205] W. Willcocks: The Irrigation of Mesopotamia, New York, 1911,
pp. 13-14.

[206] Bushire with a population of about 20,000 inhabitants owes
its importance to its being the southern sea terminal of the
caravan route which starts at Teheran and passes through Isfahan
and Shiraz.

[207] Vivien de St. Martin: Asie Mineure, Vol. 11, p. 386.

[208] Reclus: Asie Antérieure, pp. 509 and 522.

[209] Hogarth: The Nearer East, New York, 1902, p. 33.

[210] Hogarth: op. cit., p. 155.

[211] Op. cit., p. 194.

[212] _Asie Française_, Oct. 1913, p. 402.

[213] Hogarth: op. cit., p. 244.




CHAPTER XII

THE PEOPLES OF TURKEY


The peoples and ideas emanating from within the realm which still
bears the name of Turkey have left an indelible mark on the rest
of the world. Crossed by some of the great highroads of history,
the land is inspiring in every aspect in which it is regarded. Its
heritage of memories and the prestige of a happier and grander past
are undisturbed by marks of decadence. Most of the foundations
of our progressive spirit were laid in that eastern region. From
a purely scientific standpoint, its human grouping and surface
configuration present highly interesting interdependence.

The region is divisible into six major geographical sections.
Each forms a background against which distinct types of the human
family are displayed. The various groups differ from one another
in religion and language, often even in race. A fringe of fresh
and verdant coastland which surrounds the elevated shelf of Asia
Minor is largely Greek and Christian. The only foothold which
western thought, art or temper ever obtained in Asiatic Turkey is
found within this wave-washed strip of land. The plateau-heart of
Anatolia is predominantly Turkish and Mohammedan. The Christian
element scattered on its steppe-like surface is unable to assert
itself and yields to Oriental ascendancy. The high and broad
mountain masses which border it on the east are the home of the
Armenoids, generally Christians, sometimes Mohammedans, but almost
always characterized by broad-headedness accompanied by a peculiar
flattening of the back of the skull. Beyond this mountain barrier
Asiatic Turkey becomes entirely Semitic, being mainly Arabian in
speech and overwhelmingly Mohammedan in creed. Three main regions
characterize this southern area. The long and narrow corridor of
Syria became the highway which in antiquity bound the flourishing
empires of the Nile basin to the powerful kingdoms of the Hittite
highlands and the Mesopotamian lowlands. Its motley population,
containing representatives of every race, is a relic of former
to-and-fro human displacements along its trough-like extension. In
the adjoining desert Bedouin tribes find their favorite tramping
ground. The twin valley of Mesopotamia is the home of peoples in
whom fusion of Semitic and Indo-European elements is observable.

The history of this land is that of its invaders. Successive
streams of humanity poured into it from four superabundant
reservoirs. Its central mountain zone was the motherland of a
virile race whose sons went forth at intervals to breathe vitality
into gentler populations scattered between the Ægean coast and the
valleys of the Nile and Mesopotamia. Armenians and a number of
Mohammedan sects represent today this Alpine race. Mediterranean
men proceeded constantly from the south and west to new homes in
the pleasant valleys that connected eastern Ægean shores with the
interior table-land. Mobile Semitic hosts abandoned the plateau of
inner Arabia before the time of our earliest records and drifted
naturally northwards towards the fertile Tigris-Euphrates basin
or the commercial routes of Syria. Finally a Turki element, lured
out of its mountain cradle in the Altai by scattered grass lands
extending westwards, swarmed in successive hordes into Asia Minor
and even beyond, well into the heart of Europe.

In addition to the foregoing fundamental wanderings, the inflow
of an Iranian element, composed of men of Aryan speech, may be
observed. This contingent marched out of the plateau of Iran and
reached the Turkish highland without having to scale its slopes.
As a result of this migration Persian words permeate Armenian[214]
extensively. The Turks also have appropriated a certain amount of
Persian words and culture from the same source. Racially, however,
the eastern element was absorbed by the Armenoid population.

The present inhabitants of the diversified domains of the Sultans
have been welded by the run of history into a shadowy political
unity which has failed to harmonize their incompatibilities of
origin and ideals. Turkey is a thoroughly theocratic state.
Its sovereign-caliph and his subjects have always considered
it their most important mission to bring Islam to the infidel.
So great is the hold of ideals over the human mind, however,
that the non-Mohammedan populations have clung passionately to
their religious beliefs. We are forced to seek in creed the main
distinguishing traits which, outwardly at least, divide the
inhabitants of Turkey into groups of different names. We shall see,
however, that in the minds of many of them, language or historical
traditions have little significance. At the same time it is
believed that distinctions of a more fundamental character will be
brought out in the course of this chapter.


THE GREEKS

Our knowledge of the first appearance of Greeks in Asia Minor has
undergone radical revision in recent years. Their prehistoric
culture can be traced as far back as the Neolithic. The chief
interest of modern discovery centers around the now accepted fact
that Greek culture originally invaded the region from the south
and that the Indo-European element which brought Aryan speech to
the land is a later wave which flooded the original Mediterranean
stock at some time during the transition from the Age of Bronze to
that of Iron.[215] The southwestern coast was first colonized. A
northerly extension occurred thence and proceeded mainly along the
coast.[216]

The sequence of geological events preceding man’s appearance upon
the Ægean coast of Asia had imparted features which were destined
to favor human development to an exceptional degree. A land-bridge
connecting the Balkan and Anatolian peninsulas occupied the site
of the Ægean Sea at the dawn of quaternary times. The subsidence
of the land during this period was accompanied by heavy fracturing
trending in east-west lines. The Ægean archipelago, studded with
islands and surrounded by deeply indented coasts, conveys a vivid
picture, on the map, of the crustal deformity which occurred.

Climate also conferred its share of advantages. The long and narrow
valleys are sheltered by mountains on all sides except to seaward.
Northerly air currents cannot reach them. Frosts or snows are
therefore unusual.[217] The course of moisture-laden winds blowing
landward from the seas that wash the three coasts of Asia Minor is
arrested by the mountainous rim of the peninsula. Precipitation
is almost entirely expended upon the narrow shore lands. Copious
rainfall and flowing rivers thus provide this historic Anatolian
fringe with patches of luxuriant vegetation and green valleys. The
interior plateau, on the other hand, remains parched and barren
during the summer months.

A splendid stage for Greek history was thus built during the
prehuman period. Early Mediterranean oncomers discovered sheltered
havens and fertile inlets along the entire development of the
fancifully dissected coast. A natural festoon of outlying islands
increased their security by providing them with advanced posts for
the detection of hostile raids. Erosion along the parallel lines
of east-west rifts had carved fair valleys in which the winding
rivers of classical literature found a channel. But above all, the
sea contributed commerce and cosmopolitanism, both great elements
of world power. These in turn favored the growth of tolerance,--a
trait which has ever marked the western mind and which, at that
particular spot, was to constitute a bastion destined to remain
impregnable to the opposing spirit of the east.[218]

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. VII_

PART OF ASIATIC TURKEY SHOWING DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLES]

Intermediate site, low relief above sea level and genial climate
combined to give the Greeks a full share of the joy of life.
These are the physical elements upon which the striking cultural
superiority of Hellenism is founded and without the concourse of
which it has never set permanent foot anywhere. The brilliant
florescence of Greek civilization in pagan time attained its apogee
wherever these three geographical factors prevailed. The Byzantine
Empire succumbed before eastern onslaught because it was gradually
converted into an Asiatic state and thus exceeded the boundaries
marked by nature for Greek humanity.

The sixth century of the pagan era was the Golden Age of Hellenism
in Asia Minor. The elongated seaward valleys became the seat of
flourishing and independent nations. A strong democratic spirit
prevailed among their inhabitants. City states or self-governing
communities were numerous. Their merchant princes drew on the vast
eastern rearland for supplies which they sold to Europe. They also
collected heavy tolls from freight going eastwards. A double stream
of wealth thus flowed into their treasuries. The prosperity of this
period has never since been paralleled in the region.

Creative art found a home upon a site so eminently favored by
nature. The heart and mind of its inhabitants throbbed responsively
to the stirring events which were the result of their country’s
situation at the junction of the most important sea and land
highways of the then known world. There the antagonism between
east and west, out of which so much world history has been made,
broke into violent clashes after periods of commercial interchange.
Talent was spurred to high achievement under the stimulus of
foreign contact, wealthy patronage and genial environment. Imposing
ruins and prolific discoveries of masterpieces of art convey ample
testimony of nature’s concentrated prodigality on this famous
coastland.

The present Greek occupants of the Anatolian shores reflect the
pleasant character of their environment in the lightness of heart
which is one of their distinguishing characteristics. Their
craving for gaiety, society and enjoyment is unfailing. Even the
gloom of Asiatic dominion does not prevent merrymaking at every
opportunity. In these respects the Greeks share to an eminent
degree the feelings of the nations of the western world.

With the exception perhaps of the Circassians, the Greeks are the
handsomest of the inhabitants of Asiatic Turkey. Classical forms of
the head and of the general cast of countenance are met in every
nook of the Anatolian seaboard. Their profiles are those of the
gently curving lines of ancient Greek statues and medals. Among
women graceful carriage of the head and neck adds to their charm.
The men are erect and firm of gait.

Fishing and sailoring are the hereditary occupations of the coastal
Greek populations of Asia Minor. Inland they become traders. The
“corner” grocery or the village butcher shop is generally owned by
a Greek. In recent years the Greek has learned to play the part of
the promoter in the growing development of Asia Minor. He is often
the middleman who brings western capital to eastern opportunity.
Herein his rôle differs but slightly from that of his Lydian or
Carian ancestors.

The true Greek is met only as far inland as a whiff of the salt sea
air can be inhaled. Eastward, on the Anatolian table-land, Greek
communities of the ancient Phrygian and Cappadocian lands differ
from kindred coastal populations as widely as the fascinating
greenswards of the one vary from the semi-arid steppe of the other.
Once beyond the range of maritime influences, Greeks often forget
their own language and adopt Turkish instead. This is frequently
the case in many of the inland settlements where Turkish is now
the only medium of oral expression for Christian thought.[219]
Racially, too, the Greeks of the inland towns and villages betray
Alpine or Armenoid origin rather than Mediterranean descent.
Short stature, ample chest development and broad-headedness are
conspicuous among them. The rock-hewn villages south of Mt. Argaeus
afford a clue to the origin and antiquity of these mountain
Greeks.[220] They are descendants of the natives who were conquered
by the armies of Greek pagan states or by Byzantine troops. The
conquerors brought language and culture to the upland populations
but were numerically insufficient to impose a new racial stratum.
Later the wave of Turkish invasion drove out Greek and forced
Asiatic speech on the same mountain populations without always
replacing Christianity by Mohammedanism.

Duality of language is sometimes accompanied by a strange duality
of creed among Anatolian Greeks. At Jevizlik, on the road between
Trebizond and Gumushchane, dwell crypto-Christian Greeks who
publicly profess Mohammedanism while maintaining in secret the
Greek orthodox faith.[221] The inauguration of a constitutional
form of government in 1908, with its promise of religious liberty,
gave the members of the community an opportunity to renounce their
outward form of faith and proclaim complete adherence to the
religion they had never really forsaken.

To the philologist these ancient Greek communities are veritable
treasure grounds, especially when found in mountainous districts.
Archaic forms of speech are in current use among their inhabitants.
In many, the purity of the ancient Greek dialects of Asia Minor has
been preserved with but slight contamination from later literary
influences. The very names of those who speak these vernaculars
show interesting connection with the classical period of Hellenism.
Socrates or Pericles will cook daily for the traveler, and
Themistocles supply him with tobacco. More than that, they all
make themselves intelligible in the style--and the spirit, too--of
inscriptional language. But the old Hellenic dialects should not be
confused with the still unknown Lycian, Lydian and Carian languages
found in inscriptions. There is reason to believe that these
primitive speeches of the Anatolian plateau represent exceedingly
early stages in the development of Indo-European forms.

Many of the Greek communities owe their survival to the proficiency
of their members in a particular industry. The settlements of
Greek miners scattered in the Pontic and Tauric mining districts
are instances in point. The Turkish conquest of the Byzantine
Empire was accomplished by Asiatic barbarians who knew how to
fight but included no artisans in their ranks. They were therefore
obliged to rely upon the populations of the conquered lands for
the maintenance of industrial and commercial activity. This
notorious incompetence of the Turk for any pursuit other than that
of soldiering is, at bottom, the prime cause of the survival of
Christian communities within Ottoman boundaries.


THE TURKS

The appearance and establishment of the Turks in a land which was
not that of their origin follows their life as nomad tribesmen of
the vast steppeland of central Asia. They were men at large upon
the world’s largest continent, the northerners of the east who
naturally and unconsciously went forth in quest of the greater
comforts afforded by southern regions. The flatlands which gave
birth to their race lie open to the frozen gales of the north.
Their continental climate, icy cold or burning hot in turn, is cut
off from the tempering influences prevailing behind the folds of
tertiary mountain piles to the south. As the steppemen migrated
southward their gradually swelling numbers imparted density to the
mass they formed because expansion on the east or west was denied
them. China and the Chinese, admirably sheltered by barriers of
deserts and mountains, stopped their easterly extension. Christian
Russia stopped them on the west, though at a heavy cost to herself,
for no obstacle had been raised by nature to meet their advance.
The open plain of central Asia merges insensibly into that of north
Europe. That is why incidentally Russia is half Tatar today. The
Asiatic was forced upon her. She sacrificed herself by absorbing
him into her bosom, saving Europe thereby from this eastern
scourge, but forfeiting the advantages of progress.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 58--A group of Turks who have none of the racial traits
  indicated by their name. The seated members in the foreground are
  typical inhabitants of the Anatolian plateau. The Greek type,
  closely resembling the Italian, appears in the background.]

Cut off from east and west in this manner, the only alternative
left to the Turk was to scale the plateau region of western
Asia and to swarm into the avenues that led him to conquered
territory where he succeeded in attaining power and organizing
his undisciplined hosts into the semblance of a state. The presence
of the Turk upon the land to which he conferred his Mongolian name
and the very foundation of the Turkish state can in this manner be
attributed to outward causes rather than to local development. It
was essentially a process of transplantation. The consolidation
and rise to power of the Ottoman Empire between the thirteenth
and sixteenth centuries were largely due to foreign conditions,
for during that interval Europe was busily engaged in extirpating
feudalism and the objectionable phases of medieval clerical
influences from its soil.

The Turks and their name were first known to the western world in
the sixth century of our era. But their invasion of Asia Minor
should rather be considered as a gradual infiltration begun in
prehistoric times. Hittite carvings represent, among others, a
recognizable Mongoloid type of Tatar soldiers who fought as allies
of the great mountain state.[222] Pig-tails, high cheek-bones and
oblique eyes have been conspicuously modeled by the sculptor. Tatar
migrations are thus discerned in the morning of the history of
Asia Minor. The early invaders were steadily reinforced from the
east by their kinsmen. The rise of the Seljuk Turks to dominance
was the explosion of energy accumulated in the course of the
centuries in which this movement of Altaic tribes had persisted.
The consolidation of Ottoman power marked its culmination. A single
tribe could never have acquired sufficient strength to establish a
mighty empire had not its ranks been swollen by members of kindred
groups encountered during its migration. This is what actually
happened when Jenghiz Khan and Timur appeared on the stage of
history. Turkish accounts describe both as fiery leaders, men who
could command the adherence of the vast swarm of descendants of
their kinsmen, in whose footsteps they marched. Sultan Osman, the
founder of the present Turkish dynasty and reputed to be of the
same caliber, likewise drew on a human legacy of centuries for the
accomplishment of his designs.

Unfortunately, the Turks bear a name which is utterly void of
significance. They themselves apply it to every Mohammedan
inhabitant of Asia Minor without discrimination of race or origin.
But for fully eight centuries they have stocked their harems with
women seized from conquered populations. It is no exaggeration to
say that this human tax has been levied on almost every family
of the Caucasus, western Asia and the countries of the Balkan
peninsula. Today the net result of this variegated intermixture is
that the Tatar origin of the average Turk, so called, is entirely
concealed by the mingling with Mediterranean, Armenoid-Alpine and
even Nordic elements. Except in a few isolated instances the Turki
type of central Asia is rarely met within Turkish boundaries.
Clearly no valid claim to racial distinctiveness can be set up by
the Turks.

In religion the Turk is no innovator. He has merely taken unto
himself the idealism of Arabia. And yet his efficient wield of
the fine edge of Mohammedan fanaticism failed to sever the ties
which bind Islam to this land. Even his language is not his own.
The splendor of Arabian syntax and the supple elegance of Persian
style alone confer literary flavor upon it. Over 70 per cent of the
words in Turkish are Arabic retained in unalloyed purity. A scant
sprinkling of Tatar words merely recalls by their sound the raucous
articulations which form the nomad’s speech, while their paucity is
a true measure of the limited range of concepts which find lodgment
in his mind.

Turkish nationality is equally meaningless. The descendants
of Asiatic nomads became masters of western Asia without ever
conferring the boon of government or of nationality upon the land
and its peoples. In Gibbon’s mordant words “the camp and not the
soil is the country of the genuine Tatar.” And Turkey is still a
vast field in which the Turk has pitched his tent and merely waits,
knowing that the day is not far off when he will have to break camp
and seek new pasturages for his herds and flocks. But the site on
which he has settled for the past five centuries had been the seat
of a highly organized government. Seeing himself master of this
estate the Turk unhesitatingly adopted its institutions. Thus,
under the mantle of Islamic theocracy, Byzantine government and
customs have continued to flourish in Ottoman dominions. Barring
special features belonging to Mohammedanism, the ceremonials of the
Sultan’s court may be traced, step by step, to Byzantine forms.
The very absolutism of the caliphs is alien to the fundamentally
democratic character of both Tatar societies and Koranic teaching.
It is Byzantine and a relic of the despotism of the Roman Caesars.

In speaking of the Turks it is necessary to carry two distinct
types in mind. The pure Tatar vagrant, true to his native
indolence, which unfits him for sedentary occupation, is in
the minority. The mass of the Turkish population consists of a
mixed element in which the racial strain of given localities
persists along with characteristics imparted by fusion with Turki
conquerors. This mingling is indicated further by the spirit which
moves this people in the performance of their daily tasks. Its
members are recruited among the plodding, gentle-mannered and
kind-hearted peasants of the land. Local influence accounts for
these qualities. Occasionally, however, the foreign strain will
crop out. Then, like their nomad ancestors, who, from peaceful
shepherds roaming leisurely from patch to patch of green, are
transformed into fiends incarnate by the approach of a thief or
a beast of prey, or whom a passing storm will throw into fits of
uncontrollable rage which vents itself in passionate outbursts of
shrieking and gesticulation, the Turkish peasants can cast their
natural softness of character to the winds and become either
bloodthirsty murderers smiting unarmed Christians or else heroes
performing gallant deeds on the battlefield.

The majority of this Turkish population finds a congenial home on
the Anatolian upland. Their ancestors beheld here an environment
in which the physical characteristics of the plateaus of central
Asia were reproduced. They took to it naturally. The table-land
is a rolling expanse mournfully devoid of vegetation, save for
rare clusters of stunted trees. Scanty plots of grass, surrounding
sickly pools or streams, resemble holes in a ragged garment spread
over its surface. Sun-baked in summer, chilled in winter, with a
climate too deficient in moisture for the favorable development
of human societies, the land could only appeal to Asiatic sons of
semi-arid areas. In recent years, the tendency of Turks to retire
to this region is observable wherever the industry of Christian
populations of the encircling coastland has rendered life too
arduous for Turkish love of ease.

The penetration of this table-land by nomads from the heart of
Asia goes on today as in the past, albeit with abated intensity.
It is no rare occurrence in Asia Minor to meet Tatars or Turkomans
who have been on a slow westerly march for periods of from five to
ten years at a time. Most of them come from the Kirghiz steppes.
A vague desire to change their residence from a Christian to a
Mohammedan country impels their wanderings, according to their own
accounts. Constantinople looms as an objective nebulously impressed
in their minds. But the goal is rarely attained. In reality their
migration is as unconscious as that of their forefathers and merely
carries them out of sheer necessity from pasturage to pasturage in
the manner it affected former generations.


MOHAMMEDAN IMMIGRANTS

Ever since the establishment of Turkish authority in western
Asia the policy of the Sultan’s officials has been directed
towards attracting Mohammedan settlers from foreign countries
to the unpopulated districts of Turkey. Particularly at the end
of unsuccessful wars, special efforts are made to induce Moslem
inhabitants of lost provinces to return within Turkish boundaries,
where land often exempt from taxation is assigned to them. Widely
distributed Circassian, Tatar and Turkoman settlements owe their
origin to this Turkish method of increasing the Mohammedan
element in the country. The Bithynian peninsula, where Cretaceous
limestones and sandy Eocene beds provide excellent soils, is a
region favored by immigrants.

Russia’s southwesterly spread of empire is responsible for the
movement of some 500,000 Circassians from the Caucasus highlands
to Asiatic Turkey. Lithe of figure, brilliant-eyed and nimble in
mind, these immigrants are morally and physically far superior to
their new countrymen. They bring with them the higher standard of
living of their native land. Their dwellings are more solidly built
than the customary shanties or hovels of the Anatolian table-land,
and their food is of the average European quality. Wherever
settled, they live in a degree of comfort unknown to the Turkish
peasant. Flourishing farming communities have grown up around their
villages. In cities they are distinguished by a natural aptitude
for commerce, and many an able government official has been
recruited from their numbers.

In race, language and religion the Circassians of Turkey present,
according to tribal origin, the confusion existing in their cradle
land. The Kabardian group of the Uzun Yaila are of western Caucasus
extraction and speak an incorporative language. The Chechen
settled in Syria are derived from Daghestani highlanders. In some
cases Circassians bear Christian names, but worship in mosques.
Representatives of central Asiatic, European and even Semitic races
are found among them.

A colony of Noghai Tatar refugees was founded in the lower Jeihun
valley after the Crimean War, at which time it consisted of some
60,000 individuals. Their numbers were speedily reduced, however,
by the malaria and fevers of the unhealthful Cilician coast land.
A decimated remnant is now engaged in farming the marshy lands
originally bestowed on their fathers. They maintain excellent
relations with the Turks, with whom they intermarry.

The Turkomans of Asia Minor are, according to their statements,
refugees from Muscovite Christianity. In reality they seek escape
from Russian pressure exerted to force them to abandon nomadism.
This name is applied generally to immigrants coming from Turkestan
who preserved their roving habits. The cruel Turki type of
lineament and expression is observable on their faces. They are
Sunnis, or orthodox Mohammedans, and a Turkish-speaking people,
but have little intercourse with native Turks.

The Karapapaks, or Black Caps, known also by the name of
Terekimans, are Shiites, or adherents of the eastern branch of
Mohammedanism, from Russian Armenia, who have crossed the Turkish
frontier and settled near Patnoz in the Van vilayet. The original
seat of this people is between Chaldir and Daghestan. Racially they
are of Turki stock. Tatar types predominate among them, although
Circassian and Persian physiognomies are by no means uncommon.

The Lazis of northeasternmost Turkey, who are sometimes known by
the name Tchan, form the connecting link between the Caucasian and
Anatolian populations. Many of them have forsaken their Russian
homes in the past thirty years for the land of their kinsmen on
the Turkish side of the frontier. They occupy, in fairly dense
communities, villages nestling on the forested seaward slopes of
the Pontic Alps, as well as the narrow strip of coast east of
Platana. Former generations looked on them as pirates or brigands.
They now follow less irregular pursuits, but still bear the
reputation of being daring smugglers. The Turkish navy recruits
sailors from among them.

By race the Lazis are allied to the Georgian group of Caucasus
peoples, and their intermixture with ancient Armenian populations
is probable. Their adherence to Mohammedanism is lax. They speak
a southern dialect of the Grusinian language closely allied to
Mingrelian but mingled with Greek and Turkish words. In some
localities Turkish entirely replaces their vernacular. The limits
of their language in Turkey coincide with the western boundary of
the sanjak of Lazistan. They extend thence eastward, in a belt
fringing the southern base of the Caucasus, all the way between the
Black and Caspian seas.[223]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 59--“Turkish” crowd in an Anatolian city (Trebizond). A
  gathering in these Turkish cities contains representatives of
  almost every race in the world.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 60--A group of Maronite women. Their sturdy appearance
  suggests their highland origin.]


MOHAMMEDAN DISSENTERS

A number of communities whose origin is wrapped in obscurity are
found off well-beaten avenues on the Anatolian table-land. A
mild, temperate lot, broad-shouldered and open-faced, they have
much in common, in spite of diversity of worship and isolation.
Racially they present few of the Turki features. Their speech
is usually Turkish, but they keep rigidly apart from the Turks.
They are Mohammedans in name only. Having secured immunity from
the fanaticism of the masters of the land, they have secretly
maintained ancestral beliefs to their full extent. When the light
of ethnographic research shall have been fully shed on their rites,
it is likely that the transition of religious thought from the
paganism of Hellenic times to the Christianity of the Byzantine era
will be made clear.

To this group belong the inhospitable Tahtajis (known also as
Chepmi and, in their westernmost extension in the Aidin vilayet,
as Allevis), who are the woodcutters of the upper recesses of the
Lycian mountains. A people of almost primitive manners, they form a
community of about 5,000 souls. Eastern and western culture swept
by their mountain homes, leaving the faintest of traces among them.
Having neither priests nor churches they are held in disrepute
by the Turks. Similarity with eastern religions can nevertheless
be traced in their worship. They wail over the corpses of their
dead as do the Egyptians. A vague connection with Iranian ideas
is discernible in the belief they hold regarding the incarnation
of the devil in the form of a peacock. They cannot be induced to
discuss their rites with strangers. In their simple minds faith is
all in all, and well accentuates the separatist tendency determined
by their rugged mountains.

A more important group, the Kizilbash, present racial
characteristics peculiar to the Nordic race, although they too have
mingled extensively with the Armenoid natives of the Anatolian
mountains over which their settlements are scattered. The name
is pure Turkish for “red head,” but cannot be traced to head-gear
in Turkey. In Persia however allied communities are known whose
members wear scarlet caps. The bends of the Kizil Irmak[224] and
of the Yechil Irmak contain their villages.[225] They also have
settlements in the highlands which extend from the Taurus to Upper
Mesopotamia.

A Turkish-speaking people of peaceful habits, engaged exclusively
in the tillage of their lands, submissive to authority, frugal and
industrious, such are the Kizilbash in the midst of their Turkish,
Kurdish and Armenian neighbors. They are usually on excellent terms
with the Christians. But to this day, after centuries of occupation
of the valleys of the Sakaria and Halys, they have remained as
foreigners among the Turks who colonized their territory long after
them. Probably on account of religious divergences the newcomers
have always held them in contempt.

It is not unlikely that the Kizilbash are lineal descendants of the
Galatae of Asia Minor. This western people entered the peninsula
through the notch cut by the valley of the Sakaria--an avenue also
chosen by the Phrygians sung by Homer. Later the Cimmerians also
followed the same route. All these invasions from the west brought
blondness into Turkey--though not of the pure Nordic type, for the
roads leading out of northern Europe had their longest stretches in
the brunet territory of central and southern Europe. Nevertheless
mingling incurred in the course of migration, as well as after
settlement, has not obliterated entirely the fair ancestral type.
The strongest argument in favor of the relationship between the
Galatae and the Kizilbash lies in the identity of the territory
occupied by both peoples. The racial distinction between the two
lies in the greater admixture of Tatar blood in the Kizilbash of
our times. Gradual change of the Galatian of European provenience
into the Kizilbash type of Asiatic affinity was accompanied by the
replacement of Celtic by Tatar culture.

Galates to the Greeks meant any western barbarian. The term was
applied to the foreigners whose coming was always marked by
destruction and who, in the third and second centuries B.C.,
terrorized Thrace before crossing into Asia Minor. Here they
introduced Celtic forms of speech which were current in their
settlements as late as the fourth century of our era. At that
time the language spoken in parts of Anatolia was similar to the
dialect of the Traveri, a Celtic tribe on the Moselle whose name
has been perpetuated in that of the city of Trèves.[226] Arrian,
a native of Bithynia, describing the customs of the Celts gives
accounts of usages, such as the worship of the oak, which prevailed
in his country and which on investigation are found to have their
counterparts in Europe.

In religious thought, the Kizilbash may be classed as the most
liberal among the Mohammedans of Turkey. Their interpretation of
the Koran exempts them from keeping fasts and allows them the use
of wine. They permit their women to go about with a freedom which
has never been tolerated among Sunnis. Christian rites, such as the
custom of praying over bread and wine, are performed among them.
Fragmentary survivals of pagan observances likewise form part of
their worship.

The Kizilbash are closely affiliated with the Bektash
confraternity, a once powerful Islamic organization which still
owns a large number of convents (tekkes) and churches in Turkey.
Indiscriminate use of the two names has led to much confusion in
the writings of travelers. It seems preferable to restrict the
name of Kizilbash to the group of Anatolian people whose mountain
origin is amply proven by somatic traits and whose cultural
development denotes amalgamation with invaders of the table-land.
The term Bektash can then be applied to the form of religion to
which this people adheres at present. The connection is probably
founded on the ease with which Bektash proselytism drew recruits
from among Kizilbash populations. In the light of this distinction
the so-called Bektash people of the Lycian mountains are merely a
sub-group of the Kizilbash, to whom they are related in part by
race, language and religion.

The Balikis, or Belekis, living on the southern fringe of
Sasun,[227] are probably also a remnant of the old highland
population. The Mohammedanism they profess is tainted with dim
reminiscences of Christian worship and was probably adopted as a
self-preservatory measure. Religious beliefs weigh lightly however
on this community. Its members possess neither church nor mosque.
A term of residence among them would probably enable an observer
to discover survival of very ancient customs. The passing traveler
can do little more than note the unusual freedom with which their
women go about unveiled or note the mixture of Arabic, Kurdish and
Armenian words in their language.

The Avshars, descended from Persian immigrants mingled with native
hill populations, are settled mainly on the eastern slopes of the
Anti-Taurus facing the northern end of the Binbogha range.[228] The
two elements which are blended in this people are also represented
in their religion. The newcomers brought Shiite Mohammedanism
and insured the predominance of their views over the relics of
the nature cults of the aboriginal groups. Traces of Christian
influence are observable in their daily life. Around Cesarea these
Avshars give the shape of a cross to the loaves of unleavened bread
they bake. In view of the deep-rooted aversion of Mohammedans
towards any trace of Christian symbolism, it is evident that we
are here in the presence of an old-established usage rather than
one adopted in post-Mohammedan times. But in speech, custom and
occupation the community differs in no respect from neighboring
Turks.

The nomad element of the Anatolian plateau is represented mainly
by the Yuruks, whose wanderings range from the northern landward
slopes of the Cilician Taurus to the mountainous tract surrounding
Mt. Olympus. They are divided into tribes of varying size, some
not exceeding twenty tents. Their number is estimated at about
200,000. Roving over barren districts, the members of this group
are half-starved human products bred in areas of defective food
supply. The men know no other occupation than that of tending their
sheep and horses. The women are noted carpet-weavers. Strangers
passing within sight of their tent settlements can generally rely
on finding the nomad’s proverbial hospitality under their felt
roofs.

In common with kindred plateau communities, the Yuruks hold
severely aloof from the Turks. But they have adopted Turkish
speech, and it is gradually replacing their ancient vernacular.
They have sometimes been connected with European gipsies,
although the little that is known concerning their history and
traditions hardly warrants such an assumption. A promising field
for ethnographic research still awaits exploitation among their
settlements. They call themselves Mohammedans and circumcise, but
have no priests or churches.[229]

The Aptals of the lofty valleys of northern Syria also have nomadic
habits and appear to be closely related to the gipsies. Although
they claim to be Sunnis they rarely intermarry with settled
Mohammedans. Their roaming life carries them from village to
village, generally in the capacity of musicians and entertainers.
According to their traditions they were expelled from the lower
Tigris regions in the ninth century.[230]


THE ARMENIANS

The table-land on which Armenian life unfolded itself was faulted
into blocks and covered by flows of huge volcanoes after the
Miocene. Pontic ranges fringe it on the north and thereby forbid
access to the Black Sea.[231] On the south, the folds of the
Anti-Taurus mountains likewise act as successive barriers. But no
mountain obstacles intervene to the east or west of Armenia. Close
racial, linguistic and historical relations can therefore be traced
between Armenians and Persians today. Furthermore, the existence
of important Armenian communities scattered all the way west of
Armenia to the coasts of the Ægean becomes intelligible. The very
crowning of Armenians as Byzantine emperors may ultimately be
explained by this east-west extension of relief in western Asia.

The heart of the Armenian plateau is found in the gently folded
limestones and lacustrine deposits surrounding Lake Van. Here an
elevated plain relieves the ruggedness of environing peaks. Here,
too, our earliest knowledge of Armenian history is centered.
But the formation of nationality upon the surrounding sites of
intricate relief was a long-drawn process. A highland dissected
into numerous valleys could not become the seat of a united
people. The region, being broken up, favored division. Accordingly
feudalism flourished undisturbed throughout its extent. Each
valley or habitable stretch was governed by its own princeling.
These petty chiefs relied on the security provided by their rugged
environment and were naturally disinclined to acknowledge authority
emanating from outside their valley homes.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 61--The plain of Van. The photograph shows the three
  features which make the site a center of Armenian history. The
  plain afforded farming land and was dominated by a lone eminence
  to the protection of which Armenians have resorted to this very
  day. The broad lake in the background added to the natural
  strength of this position.]

The plain of Van has always loomed large in the history of Armenia.
This interesting depression occupies the southeastern corner of
the great central plateau and lies surrounded by volcanoes which
were centers of lively eruptive activity during the Pleistocene.
Together with the plain of Mush it forms a single basin which
was once a lake bed. The heavily saline waters of Lake Van still
cover its deepest section. The exposed lake bottom consists of
volcanic matter carrying fertilizers in abundance. Rich brown
loams contributed to the region’s famed fertility. Between the
tenth and ninth centuries B.C. the Vannic community became the
nucleus of a confederacy of mountain tribes forming the kingdom
of Urartu,[232] which extended to the heads of the valleys
debouching on Assyrian territory.[233] After successful resistance
against Assyria the independence of the Armenian state became well
established about 800 B.C.

The ancient history of the Armenians is closely related to that
of the Hittites. The appearance of the former is coeval with
the disappearance of the latter. The probability of a common
origin is strong. Enough light has been shed on the history of
the Armenian table-land prior to 700 B.C. to enable us to divide
its political subdivisions into two great groups. The Vannic
states of the kingdom of Urartu held sway in the northern ranges.
Hittite dominance extended to the southern group of mountains. It
may be assumed that the Armenians of the present day are direct
descendants of these ancient populations, due allowance being made
for the invasion of Iranian peoples who brought eastern culture
to the land. The free inflow of this eastern element was impeded,
however, by the highly dissected table-land of Armenia. It trickled
westward without ever assuming the proportion of a flood. Hence
the Armenian physical type is preserved with considerable purity
beneath the shroud of Aryan culture.

The Armenians call themselves Hai and trace their descent to a
mythical mountain chief Haik. Hai-istan is the name of their
native land in Armenian. The word Armenia itself is of Persian
derivation and foreign to Armenian. A remote possibility of the
connection of Hai with the old name Hit or Hatti may be advanced
in view of the frequency with which the elision of the letter _t_
and the replacement of _d-t_ sounds by _y_ occur in Armenian.[234]
The etymology of the name, however, still awaits more thorough
elucidation.

Although the relation between the Hittite and Armenian languages
yet remains to be determined, and the secrets of the old Vannic
language are not fully revealed, enough is known to prove Armenian
an Aryan infiltration from the west. Herodotus refers to them in a
natural manner as the Φρυγῶν ἄποικοι (VII, 73), “Phrygian
colonists.” It is significant to note that this Greek appellation
was bestowed on the Armenians at a time when western Asia was
better known to the civilized countries of the world than it is at
present. Modern research, however, places the inhabitants of the
plateau of Anatolia and of the Armenian mountain land in the same
racial type.

Planted squarely on the scene of the secular conflict between
the civilization of Europe and Asia, Armenia became the prey of
the victor of the moment. But the united influence of site and
configuration was more than once during this long struggle strong
enough to confer independence on the Armenian. As a buffer between
eastern and western empires the country enjoyed three distinct
periods of native rule prior to the Ottoman conquest.

Throughout these vicissitudes, Armenian life centered mainly around
its mountain home. Nevertheless, altitude alone does not suffice
to explain the characteristics of the people. Climate must also be
taken into account. Armenians are distributed in a belt extending
one degree on either side of the line of north latitude 39°. Within
this zone the products of the soil as well as the customs are those
of temperate regions bordering on the warm. The narrow highland
valleys are wonderfully fertile. Wheat is harvested before July at
an elevation of 3,600 feet in many districts. The country enjoys
fame for the variety and excellence of its fruits.

Little wonder, then, that traits which distinguish populations
reared in sunny lands should also prevail among the dwellers of
this rugged mountain zone. Voluble in the extreme, endowed with a
highly developed imaginative sense and with an innate tendency to
aggrandize and glorify the facts of ordinary life, the Armenian is
often an eastern counterpart of the celebrated Tarasconese created
by Daudet’s genial fancy.

But a rocky environment is equally reflected in the minds of the
Armenians. Harshness of manner and a certain degree of uncouthness
are present along with tenacity of purpose and moral fortitude.
Through the latter, endurance of Turkish persecution, which has
generally assumed exceedingly savage form, was made possible.
Armenians are also known for their martial spirit. Dwellers of many
of the less accessible recesses of the Tauric or Armenian highlands
held their Turkish foes in check for centuries and managed to
maintain a state of semi-independence in their conqueror’s land
until confronted by modern artillery.

Again, the influence of the mountain home of the Armenians is
expressed in their art. Poems and songs often extol the fairness
of the valleys where rest will be found after descent along
interminable slopes. Sometimes the beauty of lakes, embosomed in
high plateaus, fires the poet’s fancy. Towering summits figure in
legend as steeples from which melodious chimes send forth their
tones. Armenian music, too, resounds with echoes that seem to
reverberate from valleys cut deep in the sides of their mountains.

Perhaps it is these varied influences which convert the rough and
mannerless mountain boors into the most polished and cultured
citizens of Turkish cities. Armenians have the reputation of being
energetic business men. Their honesty was proverbial among the
Turks, who generally intrusted the management of estates or domains
to their hands. Among them alone throughout the inland districts of
Asiatic Turkey, western progress found receptive minds.

The size of the Armenian population of Asiatic Turkey has never
been accurately determined. The inaccuracy of Turkish statistics
is notorious. Furthermore the boundaries of Turkish administrative
provinces have been drawn with the sole view of creating groups
in which the Mohammedan element would predominate. The estimate
of 2,100,000 Armenians for Asiatic Turkey given by so reputable a
writer as Major-General Sir Charles Wilson[235] is undoubtedly
high. Cuinet’s figures given by Selenoy and Seidlitz[236] probably
come nearer the truth. The wholesale massacre of Armenian males
which has been systematically conducted by the Turks for the past
twenty years and which culminated in the massacres and deportations
of the past two years, makes it improbable that over 1,000,000
Turkish Armenians still live. Prior to the European war, the only
districts of any size in which they constituted a majority of the
population were found west of Nimrud Dagh in the plains surrounding
Mush as well as in the Kozan district north of the Cilician
plains.[237]

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. VIII_

DISTRIBUTION OF ARMENIANS IN TURKISH ARMENIA]


THE KURDS

An Alpine zone of transition connecting the plains of northern
Mesopotamia with the surrounding mountains on the north and east
became the homeland of the Kurds. In a broad sense it is the
drainage area of the Tigris and Euphrates. It is also the site of
important mountain gaps through which human movements from east
to west or vice versa have proceeded. Before the consolidation
of Turkish authority in this region, a matter of less than a
century ago and still in an imperfect stage of completion,
Kurdish clans, each under the sole leadership of their respective
Chieftains, controlled the pass through which traffic from the
southern lowlands or the eastern plateau was directed towards
the Anatolian table-land. They exacted heavy tolls from passing
caravans and derived their chief source of revenue from these
levies.

Their manner of living conforms with the intermediary character of
their habitat. The semi-nomads of the plains and southern hills
seek cool uplands during the summer months. In winter they descend
to the warm plains with their flocks and herds and mingle with
their Arab neighbors. Their instinct for seasonal migrations has
been developed to such an extent that they cannot refrain from
maintaining their semi-annual movements in the Armenian districts
to which they have been forcibly removed by the Turkish government,
desirous of insuring Mohammedan predominance in the Christian
valleys of Armenia.

Language and religion carry the Kurds back to eastern ancestry.
However diverse their dialects, Aryan roots forming the framework
of their speech have survived in spite of the admixture of Turkish
and Arabian words. By creed they are generally upholders of Shiite
tradition in its westernmost confines. But their religious views
vary from tribe to tribe and present as composite a character as
their race. Many are Sunnis. Wandering into eastern Asia Minor
since hoary antiquity they have culled from Paganism, Christianity
and Islamism alike. The predominance of the ideals which inspire
these faiths among the individual clans probably affords a clue
to the period of their arrival in the localities which they now
inhabit.

Similarly, the racial relation of the Kurds with peoples found
east of their land is well established.[238] They undoubtedly
belong to the European family, though perhaps not in the sense
suggested by von Luschan, who would connect them with inhabitants
of northern Europe. From the writer’s own observations the
“generally blue eyes and fair hair” are by no means dominant in
the regiments of Hamidyeh cavalry recruited exclusively from
among Kurdish tribesmen.[239] The three groups studied by the
eminent anthropologist near Karakush, on the Nimrud mountain, and
at Sinjirli were probably remarkably pure, as might be inferred
from the nature of their secluded districts. As early invaders of a
transition land the Kurds have intermingled extensively with both
highland and lowland populations.[240] The Kurd varies therefore
according to region, the inhabitants of the elevated sections being
stocky and of massive build, while the tall and sallow Semitic type
appears among those on the southern plains.[241]

The Kurds, particularly in the semi-nomadic state, are noted
freebooters. Travel in the districts they occupy is generally
unsafe. Armenians and other Christians find them an inexorable
foe. They are none too loath to prey even on Turks, although as a
rule the latter obtain immunity in return for the lenient dealing
of the government in cases of Kurdish depredations on non-Moslem
communities. The strong arm of an organized police alone will end
the lawlessness with which their name is coupled in Turkey.

Good qualities are not wanting among them. A Kurd is generally true
to his word. The rude code of honor in vogue among their tribes
is rarely violated, and, whenever disposed, the Kurd can become
as hospitable as his Arab neighbors. The tempering influence of a
settled existence among sedentary tribes is marked by harmonious
intercourse with surrounding non-Kurdish communities. At bottom
their vices are chiefly those of the restless life they lead in a
land in which organized government has been unknown for the past
eight centuries.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 62--A Kurdish village in Upper Mesopotamia with
  characteristic stone shanties peculiar to semi-arid regions.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 63--A harvest scene in Upper Mesopotamia with Kurds at work.]


THE SYRIANS

Syria is the elongated land passage, barely fifty miles in width,
which connects northern Africa with western Asia. It is one of
the world’s best-defined natural regions. The sea on the west, and
the desert on the east, sharply mark off its fringe-like extension.
On the north the Amanus ranges constitute a wall that has proved
well-nigh impassable to Semites. To the south the land naturally
ends in the Sinai peninsula.[242]

The province is mountainous in its northern half. Its mountains are
the monuments that throw light on the utter failure of the cause of
human progress in northern Syria. A single redeeming feature, the
Orontes river valley, favored foreign contact. At its mouth on the
Mediterranean western ideas filtered into the land while a blend
of eastern influences, Persian and Arabian, flowed down with its
waters. All converged at Antioch, the region’s greatest center of
life and a true product of the Orontes’ lower course. Absence of
relief in southern Syria, however, was coupled to a Mediterranean
climate and fertile soils. These permitted the development of the
flourishing civilizations of antiquity. Herein lies the physical
basis of the historical evolution of the Syrian fringe and the
explanation of the growth of nations and of world religions in its
southern lands.

As a land-bridge of early humanity Syria was necessarily the
scene of much coming and going at a time when the civilization of
the world was largely confined to what is now known as Asiatic
Turkey. Its population therefore presents a mixed character.
Hittites, Arameans, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs
and Turks conquered the land in turn and imparted their native
customs to its inhabitants. The inhabitants of its southern area
are now transformed almost beyond the possibility of analysis. The
settlements of the elevated and broken northern area, on the other
hand, represent very ancient communities.

The mountains of Syria harbor strange denizens in their northern
end. In the northern Lebanon many villages of the western slopes
are inhabited by the Metauilehs, who are Shiite dissenters and
bear unenviable reputation for ignorance and inhospitality.[243]
Their own traditions point to Persian or Arabian origins. Religion
seems to confirm the former claim. At the same time they are known
to the Syrians as a sturdy mountain people. Scattered through the
same mountain districts the Ismailyehs, another highland folk who
under the name of Assassins enjoyed sinister fame during the Middle
Ages, maintain their abode in inaccessible valleys. The epithet
which is coupled to their name is an altogether illogical rendering
of the Arabic “hasheeshin” and does not convey any worse meaning
than that of “hasheesh” fiends. They live mainly in groups around
old Saracen castles.


THE ANSARIYEHS

The Ansariyehs, or Nusariyehs, form an important group among
northern Syrians. Their settlements are generally confined to the
grassy seaward slopes of the mountains stretching north of the
Nahr-el-Kebir towards the Gulf of Alexandretta. They also occupy
villages in the plains surrounding Antioch. In recent years they
have shown a tendency to abandon their mountain homes for the
less arduous life of the plains. Officially they are regarded as
Mohammedans and bear Mohammedan names, but the religion which
differentiates them from the other inhabitants of northern Syria
teaches Christian and Sabean doctrines alike. It is believed that
they still maintain observances of exceedingly ancient nature
cults. The fundamental principles of their creed are transmitted
by word of mouth and with injunction to secrecy.[244] Their
deification of the conception of fertility is couched in highly
metaphorical language in which the productivity of the earth
and of the human race is extolled. By making proper allowance
for the imagery which clothes the wording of their prayers it
will probably be found that their religion resolves itself into
a relic of the worship of the mother-goddess which was deeply
rooted throughout the mountain districts of Asia Minor. Hints of
nocturnal orgies accompanying their worship should be taken with
a grain of suspicion, as orthodox Mohammedans are prone to such
imputations whenever dissension from the Koran is suspected. In
this Mohammedans merely follow the lead of Byzantine Christians in
whose eyes the relics of Anatolian paganism were as obnoxious as
the heresies of their own times.

The ancestors of the Ansariyehs and other small sects in northern
Syria were closely related to their powerful Hittite neighbors.
These peoples all occupy, together with the Druzes and Maronites,
the southern limit of known Hittite monuments.[245] Their land
is the frontier zone between Syria, Asia Minor and the Armenian
highland. It is studded with ruined strongholds which figured
prominently in ancient battle.


THE DRUZES

The southern Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges in the rear-land of
the Haifa-Beirut coast[246] are inhabited by Druzes. Tribes of this
people are met as far southeast as the Hawran volcanic uplift,
whither they have steadily emigrated from the Lebanon in the
course of the past hundred years and where they have succeeded in
dislodging the former Bedouin inhabitants. These Druzes are best
known for their warlike disposition. Although numerically inferior
to the Christian population of their native districts, their
bellicose qualities have won them predominance in central Syria. In
religion they are pure monotheists. Their standard of morality is
high. They call themselves Mohammedans but do not maintain mosques
and rarely practise polygamy. Orthodox Moslems generally repudiate
them on account of the discrepancy between their teachings and the
tenets of the Koran. As far as can be determined the doctrines
of the Mosaic law, the Gospels, the Koran and Sufi allegories
are represented in their creed. Often when with Christians they
will not hesitate to assert belief in Christianity. The leaven of
Iranian influences which pervades their doctrines estranges them
from the surrounding Semitism just as their highland home separates
them from the plainsmen settled around them. The dominance of this
eastern strain in their thoughts does not, however, necessarily
indicate racial migrations. Historical testimony is available to
prove that the known form of Druze religion can be traced to the
teachings of Hamze, a Persian disciple of Hakem.[247] The case is
more probably that of an infiltration of foreign ideals and its
retention within a region deprived by its relief from intercourse
with the more progressive life of the surrounding lowland.


THE MARONITES

Closely related to the Druzes are their northwestern neighbors, the
Maronites, a Christian people, who seceded from the Roman Church
in the great schism that followed the council of Chalcedon in 451
A.D.[248] They form a compact mass settled on the western slopes of
the Lebanon mountains between the valleys of the Nahr-el-Kebir and
the Nahr-el-Barid. Mountain isolation and intermarriage among them
have maintained an old type with remarkable purity. Being better
farmers than warriors they have suffered from the oft repeated
depredations of their war-like neighbors.[249] Enmity with their
Mohammedan neighbors dates from the time of the Crusades when the
Maronites had sided with the Christian knights.


THE JEWS

The Jews of Turkey include a small remnant of the captivity settled
around Jerusalem and in Mesopotamia.[250] After the destruction of
Jerusalem, the valley of the Tigris became the most important seat
of the Hebrews. Parthian tolerance granted them a partial autonomy
under the authority of a chief chosen from among the descendants
of the house of David.[251] This liberal régime ended with the
decline in power of the Abbasside caliphs of Bagdad. The Jews were
then forced to abandon Chaldea. Many emigrated to Spain. Later,
under the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, they were compelled to
flee from Spanish persecution and seek a home again in Turkey.
Descendants of these emigrants, known as Sephardim, are settled in
cities of Asia Minor and Syria. Small colonies of Ashkenazim Jews
are also scattered in various Turkish towns. An old colony of a few
hundred Samaritans survives in the vicinity of Nablus.

The Jews are an exceedingly composite people and, contrary to
popular belief, do not represent as pure a type of the Semitic race
as the Bedouin Arabs. Southern Syria was a prey to invaders from
every quarter of the compass. It was the clashing ground of Hittite
and Nilotic civilizations. From the west, Mediterranean seafaring
populations swarmed in from earliest antiquity. At least three
great waves of Semitic migrations overwhelmed the land prior to
the coming of the Arabs. The Jew, therefore, represents the fusion
of four distinct races of men. The purity he has retained is that
of the fused type. His language alone is Semitic. His physical
appearance recalls Hittite traits more prominently than Semitic
and this probably accounts for the frequent mistaking, in western
Europe and in the United States, of Armenians for Jews.


ARAMEANS

The Arameans are either direct ancestors of modern Jews or else
close congeners of early Hebrews. Both peoples are closely allied.
They represent one of the many waves of Semitic humanity which have
rolled out of Arabia’s highland steppes. A period of settlement in
the fertile districts around the mouth of the Euphrates and Tigris
precedes their spread throughout Mesopotamia and northeastern
Syria. References to their history abound in sacred texts, as well
in inscriptional remains[252] found throughout western Asia. The
accounts, however, are fragmentary and so far have made possible
only partial reconstitution of their history. An Aramean nation or
a number of Aramean states undoubtedly existed in the tenth century
B.C. This body subsequently acquired considerable power and founded
colonies all over Mesopotamia and Syria. Damascus and Hamath, both
in the latter province, became the greatest centers of Aramean
power, owing to the natural resources of the districts around their
sites as well as to their commanding position on important trade
routes.

It seems established that the vast territory designated by the
Assyrians by the name of “Mat Aram,” or land of Aram, did not
necessarily contain Aramaic populations. It was more probably
conquered by Arameans, who imposed their language on the subjugated
peoples. Soon after the capture of Damascus by the Assyrians in 732
B.C. the Aramean nation disappears from history. Aramaic, however,
survived and was even adopted by the victors.[253] But, in common
with other Semitic languages, it could not withstand the advance
of Arabic. The only locality in which it is now spoken is found
northeast of Damascus in the environs of the villages of Malula,
Bakha and Yubb Adin, where the natives still use a dialect similar
to the Palestinian Aramaic spoken thirteen centuries ago. There
is reason to believe that this sub-group of Syrians represents
today the old Aramean stock in as pure a degree as is consistent
with the secular mingling of peoples which has taken place in the
region.[254]


THE YEZIDIS

The Sinjar range of hills stretching in a westerly direction from
Mosul is the only upland of importance in the Mesopotamian valley.
The largest compact mass of Yezidis are domiciled in this hilly
country. A minor group occupies the Samaan mountains in Syria.[255]

The appellation of devil-worshipers which generally accompanies
the name of Yezidi conveys a totally erroneous impression
regarding their beliefs. They recognize, in fact, a benign deity,
the Khode-Qanj, who reigns supreme over creation but with whom
is associated an inferior divine essence, the Malik-i-Tawus, or
Peacock King, who is lord of all evil and whom they consider
necessary to propitiate in order to avert misfortune. But the
ceremonies and sacrifices performed in honor of the subordinate
deity do not interfere with the primary worship with which the God
of Good is revered.[256] This interpretation of divinity bears
deep analogy to the Iranian cult which revolves around the central
figures of Ormuzd and Ahriman, respectively the good and the evil
principle. The language of the Yezidis, which is akin to Kurdish,
brings added evidence of the eastern derivation of their culture.

According to their own traditions the Yezidis came originally from
the districts of the lower Euphrates. Certain Sabean features of
their religion indicate intimate contact with Semitic populations.
Little is known about their curious religious celebrations, to
which strangers are never admitted. Their practice of bowing before
the rising sun is a clear relic of Zoroastrian influence. They also
perform rites which have analogy to Christian commemorations. In a
land overrun in all directions no simple feature of the views they
hold can account for their origin. The religion of the moment was
imposed by the dominant element over all the peoples of Asiatic
Turkey. Hence a given group merely shows successive strata of
religious invasions.

The sturdily-built Yezidi is active and hardy. His energy sets
him apart from the lithe-limbed and easy-going Arabs. His vigor
and fighting blood saved him from the frightful persecutions for
which the particularly obnoxious feature of his dual deity was
responsible. Byzantine bishops and Arabian mollahs in turn reserved
the wildest thunder of their intolerance for the Yezidi, whom they
execrated beyond all others among heretics and unbelievers. This
hatred of the presumed worshiper of the devil has not yet been
outlived, and a devout Mohammedan will today spit upon the ground
and mutter a curse whenever the abhorred name crosses his lips.

The Yezidis enjoy fame as agriculturists who know how to exact
good yield from their mountain farms. They live a retired life
and rarely allow strangers to travel through the Sinjar range.
The modern armament of Turkish expeditions has cowed the present
generation into a submission which their fathers would have
scorned. But they still remain unwilling tax payers who rely
on the natural disinclination of Turkish tax collectors to
mountain-climbing.


THE NESTORIANS

The Nestorians, a Christian sect, are descendants of the followers
of Nestorius, who seceded from established orthodoxy in the sixth
century. They inhabit scattered villages in a region which changes
from mountain to plain as it extends west of the Persian frontier
to the Tigris river, roughly between latitudes 34° and 38°. On the
north they rarely venture beyond the Bohtan river. The mountainous
tract produces a manly set, who have more than held their own
against the martial Kurds. Poverty and dependence mark the lot of
the plainsmen in spite of their industry as agriculturists.

To say that the inhabitants of Turkey have religious nationality is
perhaps the happiest way of accounting for the presence of large
numbers of independent communities owing political allegiance to
the Sultan. The bond of faith in the case of the Nestorians is
one of remarkable strength, because this community represents the
persecuted remnant of the ancient church of central Asia. Owing
to its situation on the very outskirts of early Christianity the
church became engaged in propagating the Gospel on a scale exceeded
only by the see of Rome in the sixth and sixteenth centuries.[257]
Consciousness of this tradition has not forsaken the Nestorians of
the present day. The great influence wielded by their patriarch
or religious head, the Mar Shimun, as he is called, is a relic of
former authority.

The speech of the Nestorians is a Syriac dialect in which Persian,
Arabic and Kurdish words have found place. Religious services are
conducted, however, in the uncontaminated language. The Nestorians
call themselves Syrians and refuse to recognize any other
appellation. Owing to this fact much confusion has arisen in the
minds of travelers who have attempted to describe them.


THE CHALDEANS

The Chaldeans are racially akin to the Nestorians, with whom they
formed a single religious community prior to the seventeenth
century. The hope of obtaining relief from Mohammedan persecution
induced an important section of the old community to join the
church of Rome at that time. In recent years, however, many have
forsaken Roman Catholicism and formed a new sect which is known by
the name of New Chaldeans. Protestant communities of this people as
well as of Nestorians and Jacobites exist.


THE JACOBITES

The rugged limestone district around Midyad is the home of another
mountain people known as the Jacobites. Banded together by the
ties of religion they form a community of husbandmen living aloof
from their neighbors of divergent religious views. They are
described as of warlike nature and independent spirit. Language
also differentiates them from other Ottoman groups, a Syriac
dialect differing considerably from Nestorian being in use among
them.[258] In Turabdin they speak an Aramaic dialect known as
Turani. The Jacobites are noted for their aptitude for business.
The important colony of traders founded in the eighteenth century
in the vicinity of Bagdad owes its origin to the desert traffic and
the Indian trade by way of Basra.

This people traces its religious origin to the teachings of Jacobus
Baradeus,[259] who, in the middle of the sixth century, traveled
through Asia Minor and consolidated scattered groups of Monophysite
recusants into a single body. They constituted a large sect during
the Middle Ages, but defections, notably in favor of the Roman
Church, have thinned their numbers considerably since then. At
present they muster hardly more than 15,000 individuals.


THE SABEANS

We are still in the dark concerning the history of the Sabeans,
a people of Semitic origin who profess Christianity. That they
once formed a powerful nation is attested by numerous ruins and
inscriptions. This state began to decline in the first century
of the Christian era and had completely disappeared by 500 A.D.
They call themselves Mendai and are often known by the name of
Christians of St. John. The community is small, numbering hardly
3,000 souls, mostly goldsmiths and boatbuilders who ply their trade
in the Arab encampments of the Amara and Muntefik sanjaks in the
vilayet of Basra. They talk a Semitic dialect and dress like the
Arabs, from whom they can scarcely be distinguished. Their original
homeland is believed to have been Yemen.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 64--Kurd children of the Armenian borderland. The poverty
  of the land is reflected in their appearance no less than in the
  arid background of the photograph.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 65--A family of sedentary Arabs in Mesopotamia.]

[Illustration:

  FIG. 66--In the desert of Syria. A tribe of Anezeh Arabs moving
  from an exhausted pasture to a fresh one.]


THE ARABS

The Arab folk, sparsely distributed over the Syrian desert and
forming the majority of the inhabitants of the featureless downs
of Mesopotamia, represent the ebbing of the last tide of Semitic
invasion. In the sandy waste of their western extension, their
tribes, shifting perpetually from seat to seat, like the dunes
around which they roam, consist of Bedouin or “tent men.” The
contribution of these nomads to society is as insignificant as the
yield of the unproductive lands of their wandering. Towards the
east, however, where two mighty rivers bring fertility and life to
the soil, the genius of the race blossomed untrammeled and gave
Mohammedan civilization to the world.

The purest living representatives of the Semitic race are found
among these Bedouins. Civilization pursued its steady growth
around their tent homes without affecting their lives. Better
favored belts encircling the Syrian desert attracted the human
migrations which took place in western Asia. From the last outliers
of the hill system fringing the southern Taurus to the northern
confines of the Arabian peninsula, the patriarchal state of society
prevailing today differs little from the condition in which a
dreamer well past middle age found it fourteen centuries ago and
brought it within the pale of modern thought by inspiring it with
the enthusiasm of his own belief in a single God. Stripped of
his religion and of his rifle, the Bedouin stands today before
the historian as the living image of long remote ancestors whose
invasions caused profound upheavals in the societies established
east and west of his present tramping ground.

But the Arab settled in the long elongated plain watered by the
Tigris and Euphrates can never lay claim to equal purity of stock.
He lives in a land which by virtue of a great twin river system
gave rise to the oldest civilization of the world. Its inhabitants,
whether aboriginal or invaders from the table-land on the east,
derived more than mere sustenance from proximity to these mothering
watercourses. Surrounded by desert and mountain, this region
naturally became a seat of population. Its native element, already
much mixed, was assimilated to a large extent by the Arabs since
the period of their appearance in Mesopotamia.

The floating masses of Bedouins have successfully resisted Turkish
effort to induce them to abandon nomadism. Occasionally, as in
the belt of Tauric precipitation or along the borders of the zone
of Mediterranean rains no less than under the benign influence of
Mesopotamian rivers, they become sedentary. They are then known as
_fellaheen_. But the change is incompatible with their immemorial
restlessness and implies loss of caste in their own eyes.


TABLE I

NAMES AND PEOPLES OF SOME NON-TURKISH VILLAGES IN ASIA MINOR

  Peoples designated as follows:
          Alevi                 Al.
          Armenians             Ar.
          Avshars               Av.
          Chaldeans             Ch.
          Circassians          Cir.
          Greeks                Gr.
          Karapapaks           Kpk.
          Kizilbash             Kz.
          Kurds                 Kd.
          Nestorians             N.
          New Chaldeans      N. Ch.
          Tatars                Ta.
          Turkomans            Tkn.
          Yezidi                Yd.

  Name of Village        Peoples
  Aghje Kaleh              Kd.
  Agh-ova                  Kd.
  Aivali                   Gr.
  Ak-bunar                Cir.
  Akdam                    Ar.
  Akhlat                   Kd.
  Akstafa                 Kpk.
  Alaklissia               Gr.
  Alexandropol             Ar.
  Alkosh                N. Ch.
  Altea                    Gr.
  Angora                   Ar.
  Arabja Keupri     Gr. & Cir.
  Ardia                   Cir.
  Arji                      N.
  Atess                     N.
  Avviran                  Gr.
  Bazarjik                 Kd.
  Berar                    Ar.
  Bey                      Ch.
  Birgami                  Kd.
  Chateran                 Ar.
  Chevirme                 Kd.
  Chukh                    Ar.
  Deliler                  Kd.
  Derendeh                 Ar.
  Diz-deran                Kd.
  Ekrek                    Ar.
  Feshapur                 Ch.
  Funduk                  Cir.
  Furinji                  Kd.
  Garib                    Kd.
  Garni                    Ar.
  Gemerek                  Ar.
  Gunderno                 Ar.
  Gunig-kaleh              Ar.
  Gurgujeli               Tkn.
  Gurun                    Ar.
  Haik                     Ar.
  Hamsi                    Gr.
  Hanefi                   Al.
  Harras                   Kd.
  Helais                   Kd.
  Hornova                  Ar.
  Hoshmat                  Ar.
  Inevi                   Tkn.
  Instosh                  Ar.
  Isbarta                  Gr.
  Isoghlu                  Kd.
  Jenan                    Kd.
  Jessi                    Kd.
  Kaialik                  Kd.
  Kainar                  Cir.
  Karachu                  Kd.
  Kara-geben               Ar.
  Keklik-oghlu             Kd.
  Kelebesh                 Gr.
  Kemer                    Av.
  Keupri                  Tkn.
  Kezanlik                Cir.
  Khakkaravokh             Kd.
  Khasta-Khâneh            Av.
  Khusi                     N.
  Kinskh                   Kd.
  Kizil-doghan             Gr.
  Kilisse                  Ar.
  Kochannes                 N.
  Koch-hissar              Ar.
  Kojeri                   Ar.
  Koshmet                  Kz.
  Kotni                    Kd.
  Kula                     Gr.
  Kwaneh                    N.
  Maden                     N.
  Madrak                   Kd.
  Mansuriyeh               Ch.
  Melendis                 Gr.
  Mervanen                  N.
  Misli                    Gr.
  Mush plain               Ar.
  Nerdivan                 Kd.
  Nerib                    Kd.
  Nigdeh                   Gr.
  Niksar                   Gr.
  Norchuk                  Ar.
  Omar                     Kd.
  Orbülu                   Kd.
  Pekarieh                 Ar.
  Pingan                   Ar.
  Porrot                   Kd.
  Pulk                     Ar.
  Rabat                    Kd.
  Redvan                   Yd.
  Samsat                   Kd.
  Sekunis                   N.
  Semil                    Yd.
  Serai                     N.
  Shabin Kara-Hissar       Ar.
  Shahr                    Ar.
  Sha-uta                   N.
  Sheik Adi                Yd.
  Sheikh Amir              Kd.
  Sheikhan                 Kd.
  Shen                     Kd.
  Shernak                  Kd.
  Sultan Oghlu            Tkn.
  Tadvan                   Ar.
  Takvaran                 Kd.
  Tashan                   Ar.
  Tashbunar               Cir.
  Terzili                  Ar.
  Thorub                   Ch.
  Tokat                    Ar.
  Tomarze                  Ar.
  Top-agach                Ar.
  Tor                     Tkn.
  Ulash                    Ar.
  Uzum Yaila              Cir.
  Vurla                    Gr.
  Yakshi-khân              Ta.
  Yalak                    Av.
  Yarzuat                  Ta.
  Yeni Keui                Kd.
  Zara                     Ar.
  Zela                     Ar.


TABLE II

CLASSIFICATION OF THE PEOPLES OF ASIATIC TURKEY

  ============+=========+============+========+=============+===========
              |         |            |        |             | ESTIMATED
      NAME    |   RACE  |  RELIGION  | SPEECH |  HOMELAND   |   NUMBER
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Allevis (see|         |            |        |             |
    Tahtajis) |         |            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Ansariyehs  |Armenoid |Monotheistic| Arabic |Syrian mts.  |   175,000
              |         |            |        | and Cilician|
              |         |            |        | plains      |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Aptals      |Armenoid |Sunni       |Arabic  |Syrian mts.  | uncertain
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Arabs       |Semitic  |Mohammedan  |Arabic  |South of     |   300,000?
              |         |            |        | Tauric and  |
              |         |            |        |Armenian mts.|
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Arameans    |Semitic  |Hebrew      |Aramean |             |       300
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Armenians   |Armenoid |Christian   |Armenian|Armenian     | 1,000,000
              |         |            | (Aryan)| highland,   |      [260]
              |         |            |        | Taurus and  |
              |         |            |        | Anti-Taurus |
              |         |            |        | ranges      |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Asdias (see |         |            |        |             |
   Yezidis)   |         |            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Avshars     |Turki    |Shia        |Turkish |Anti-Taurus  | uncertain
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Balikis     |Armenoid |Mixed       |Mixed   |Near Sasun   | uncertain
              |         | Mohammedan | Arabic,|             |
              |         | and        | Kurdish|             |
              |         | Christian  | and    |             |
              |         |            |Armenian|             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Bejvans     |Semitic  |Mixed       |Arabic  |Near Mosul   | uncertain
              |         | Mohammedan |        |             |
              |         | and        |        |             |
              |         | Christian  |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Chaldeans   |Semitic  |Roman       |Syriac, |Near Diarbekr|    50,000
              |         | Catholic   | Kurdish| and Jezireh;|
              |         |            | and    | Sert and    |
              |         |            | Arabic | Khabur basin|
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Chepmis (see|         |            |        |             |
   Tahtajis)  |         |            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Circassians |Mixed    |Mohammedan  |Turkish |Anatolia,    |   500,000
              |Turki and|            |        | N. Syria, N.|
              | Indo-   |            |        | Mesopotamia |
              | European|            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Druzes      |Armenoid |Mohammedan  |Arabic  |Lebanon;     |   200,000
              |         |            |        |Anti-Lebanon,|
              |         |            |        | Hawran mts.,|
              |         |            |        | around      |
              |         |            |        | Damascus    |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Greeks[261] |Mediter- |Christian   |Greek   |Coast        | 2,000,000
              |ranean   |            |        | districts,  |
              |         |            |        | mining      |
              |         |            |        | districts,  |
              |         |            |        | large cities|
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Ismailyehs  |Armenoid |Mohammedan  |Semitic |Northern     |    22,000
              |         |            |        | Syria       |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Jacobites   |Semitic  |Christian   |Syriac  |Syria,       |    15,000
              |         | (Monophy-  |        | Mesopotamia |
              |         | sites)     |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Jews        |Mixed    |Hebrew      |Hebrew  |Jerusalem;   |   150,000
              | Semitic,|            |        | environs    |
              | Mediter-|            |        | of Damascus |
              | ranean  |            |        |             |
              | and     |            |        |             |
              | Armenoid|            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Karapapaks  |Turki    |Shia        |Turkish |Tutakh-Patnoz|     3,000
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Kizilbash   |Armenoid |Shia, or    |Turkish |Angora and   |   400,000
              | mixed   | mixture of |        | Sivas       |
              | with    | Shiism,    |        | vilayets;   |
              | Turki   | Paganism,  |        | Dersim      |
              |         |Manichaeism,|        |             |
              |         | and        |        |             |
              |         |Christianity|        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Kurds       |Indo-    |Mohammedan  |Aryan   |West of the  | 1,500,000
              | European|            | lan-   | Sakaria     |
              |         |            | guages | river;      |
              |         |            |        | Kurdistan   |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Lazis       |Georgian |Mohammedan  |Grusin- |Lazistan;    | uncertain
              | branch  |            | ian    | north of    |
              | of the  |            |        | Choruk Su,  |
              | Caucaso-|            |        | around      |
              | Thibetan|            |        | Riza        |
              | peoples |            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Maronites   |Armenoid |Christian   |Arabic  |Mt. Lebanon, |   350,000
              |         |            |        | Anti-Lebanon|
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Metauilehs  |Probably |Shia        |Arabic  |Northern     |    under
              | Armenoid|            |        | Lebanon     |    50,000
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Nestorians  |Armenoid |Christian   |Syriac  |Basin of the |    60,000
              |         |            |        | Great Zab;  |
              |         |            |        | valleys of  |
              |         |            |        | the Bohtan  |
              |         |            |        | and Khabar  |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  New         |Semitic  |Christian   |Syriac  |Alkosh       | uncertain
  Chaldeans   |         |            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Sabeans     |Semitic  |Christian   |Syriac  |Amara and    |     3,000
              |         |            |        | Muntefik    |
              |         |            |        | sanjaks of  |
              |         |            |        | the Basra   |
              |         |            |        | vilayet     |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Samaritans  |Semitic  |Hebrew      |Hebrew  |Near Nablus  |       300
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Syrians     |Semitic  |Christian   |Arabic  |Syria and    | uncertain
              |         | and        |        | Mesopotamia |
              |         | Mohammedan |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Tahtajis    |Armenoid |Mohammedan  |Turkish |Lycian mts.  |     5,000
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Tatars      |Turki    |Mohammedan  |Turkish |Anatolia and |    25,000
              |         |            |        | Cilician    |
              |         |            |        | plains      |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Terekimans  |         |            |        |             |
   (see       |         |            |        |             |
   Karapapaks)|         |            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Turkomans   |Turki    |Mohammedan  |Turkish |Angora, Adana| uncertain
              |         |            |        | and Aleppo  |
              |         |            |        | vilayets    |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Turks       |Turki    |Mohammedan  |Turkish |Anatolia     | 8,000,000
              | mixed   |            |        | mainly      |
              | with    |            |        |             |
              | Armenoid|            |        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Yezidis or  |Mixed    |Devil-      |Kermanji|Kurt Dagh on |    40,000
   Asdais     | Armenoid| worshipers,|        | the W.      |
              | and     | mixture of |        | to Zakho E. |
              | Indo-   | the old    |        | of the      |
              | European| Babylonian |        | Tigris; Badi|
              |         | religion;  |        | near Mosul; |
              |         | Zoroastr-  |        | Sinjar range|
              |         | ianism;    |        |             |
              |         | Manichaeism|        |             |
              |         | and        |        |             |
              |         |Christianity|        |             |
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
  Yuruks      |Armenoid |Mohammedan  |Turkish |Konia vilayet|   200,000
  ------------+---------+------------+--------+-------------+-----------
         Total                                               15,048,600
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------


TABLE III

THE CHRISTIANS OF THE TURKO-PERSIAN BORDERLAND

I. _Mosul and the Valley of the Tigris (by families)_[262]

  District of Mosul.
    City of Mosul                         2,000 R. C.[263]
    City of Mosul                         1,200 J.
    City of Mosul                           400 R. C. s.
    Telkief                               2,000 R. C.
    Bagdair                                 700 J.
    Bartila                                 300 R. C.
    Batnai                                  400 R. C.
    Tel Uskof                               450 R. C.
    Alkosh                                  700 R. C.
    Dohuk                                   150 R. C.
    Bait Kupa                               300 R. C.
    Mar Yakob & Sheus                       100 R. C.
                                          -----
      Total                               8,700           8,700

  District of Sapna.
    Mangeshie                               200 R. C.
    Dihie                                    30 P.
    Daviria                                 100 R. C.
    Tinn                                     70 R. C.
    Aradin                                  200 R. C.
    Haszia & Benata                          50 R. C.
    Bibaidi                                  30 N.
    Diri                                     40 N.
    Dirginie                                 35 N.
    Lower Barnai, Maisie,
      Chamankie, etc.                       120 R. C.
                                           ----
      Total                                 875             875

  District of Zakhu.
    Zakhu                                   100 R. C.
    Bait Daru                                90 R. C.
    Peshawur                                110 R. C.
    Bersiwi                                  70 R. C.
    Sharnish                                 50 R. C.
    Margu & Baiju                            95 R. C.
    Wasta                                    80 R. C.
                                            ---
      Total                                 595             595

  District of Bohtan.
    Tilkuba                                  60 R. C.
    Jazera (Jezireh)                        150 R. C.
    Mansuria                                 60 P.
    Hassan                                   70 N.
    Shakh                                    30 P.
    Mar Akha                                 30 P.
    Mar Yohannan                             10 P.
    A few other villages                     50 N.
                                            ---
      Total                                 460             460

  District of Zibar.
    Esan                                     30 N.
    Argin                                     7 N.
    Shushu & Sharman                         25 N.
    Shaklawa (in Akra)                      500 R. C.
    Akra                                    300 R. C.
                                            ---
      Total                                 862             862

  District of E. Berwar.
    Aina d’Nuni                              50 N.
    Duri                                     35 N.
    Ikri & Malakhta                          40 N.
    Bait Baluk                               20 N.
    Four villages,
      including Halwa,
      Khwara                                 50 N.
    Dirishki                                 20 N.
    Maiyi                                    25 N.
    Haiyiz                                   30 N.
    Bishmeyayi                               20 N.
    Iad                                      20 N.
    Tashish                                  30 N.
    Musakka                                  20 N.
    Three small
      villages                               25 N.
    Jadeda                                   15 N.
    Chalik                                   30 N.
    Kaneba Labi                              20 N.
                                            ---
      Total                                 450             450
                                                         ------
                                                         11,942


II. _The Highlands of Kurdistan_

  Tyari                                   5,000
  Tkhuma                                  2,500
  Baz                                       800
  Tal                                       700
  Diz                                       600
  Jilu                                    2,500
  Berwar (Qudshanis included)               900
  Lewan (west of Julamerk)                  300
  Serai (45 miles east of Van)              300
  Eleven villages around Serai              400
  Norduz (on Van-Julamerk road)             200
  Albak (near Bashkala)                     300
  Gawar                                     400
  Six villages in Nerwan & Rekan            200
  Shemsdinan & Bar Bhishu (estimated)       200
                                         ------
     Total families                      15,300          15,300
                                                         ------
        Grand total                                      27,242

     Total individuals at six to a family               163,452


FOOTNOTES:

[214] Fully one-third of Armenian consists of words of Persian
stock. Some Armenian philologists point to the existence of a small
remnant of highly ancient words which cannot be traced to Aryan
forms and which probably represent the survival of a language
indigenous to the Armenian highlands.

[215] H. R. Hall: The Ancient History of the Near East, London,
1913, pp. 31-79.

[216] R. Dussaud: Les civilisations préhelléniques dans le bassin
de la Mer Egée, Paris, 1914, pp. 414-455.

[217] D. G. Hogarth: The Nearer East, New York, 1902, p. 102.

[218] D. G. Hogarth: Ionia and the Near East, Oxford, 1909; J. L.
Myres: Greek Lands and the Greek People, Oxford, 1910.

[219] In many of these Anatolian communities Greek is written with
Turkish characters.

[220] G. de Jerphanion: La région d’Urgub (Cappadoce), _La Géogr._,
Vol. 30, No. 1, July 15, 1914, pp. 1-11.

[221] In the Levant they are called Mezzo-Mezzos.

[222] J. Garstang: The Land of the Hittites, London, 1910, p. 318.

[223] Many Moslem immigrants from eastern Europe are also found in
Asia Minor. Bosnians, Albanians, Pomaks and, in general, members of
every Mohammedan community in the Balkan peninsula consider Asia
Minor as a favorable land in which to settle.

[224] R. Leonhard: Paphlagonia, Berlin, 1915, pp. 359-373; J. W.
Crowfoot: Survivals among the Kappadokian Kizilbash (Bektash),
_Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, Vol. 30, 1900, pp. 305-320.

[225] The distribution of Kizilbash villages in the Yechil Irmak
valley is shown in G. de Jerphanion’s Carte du Bassin du Yéchil
Irmak, 1:200,000, Paris, 1914.

[226] J. G. Frazer: The Golden Bough, the Magic Art and the
Evolution of Kings, London, 1911, Vol. 2, p. 126, footnote 2.

[227] H. F. B. Lynch: Armenia, London, 1901, Vol. 2, p. 430.

[228] Earl Percy: Highlands of Asiatic Turkey, London, 1901, pp.
89-90.

[229] C. Wilson: Handbook for Travelers in Asia Minor,
Transcaucasia, Persia, etc., London, 1911, p. 68.

[230] The gipsies of Syria are known by the name of Nawar, or Zotts.

[231] Cf. inset on accompanying map entitled “Part of Asiatic
Turkey showing Distribution of Peoples.”

[232] The Mexican parallel is too striking to be omitted here.
The southern end of the plateau of Anahuac, on which the waters
of Lake Texcuco receded within historical times, is the center of
the stage of Mexican history. Surrounding this open land numerous
narrow valleys were peopled by independent tribes which eventually
banded together under the leadership of the community living near
the central body of water. This lake confederacy became Cortez’s
most powerful opponent when the conquistadores undertook their
memorable expedition. Cf. F. J. Payne: History of the New World
Called America, Oxford, 1899, pp. 450-463.

[233] D. G. Hogarth: The Ancient East, New York, 1914, p. 74.

[234] Notably _t_ is entirely eliminated from the third person
singular.

[235] Handbook for Travelers in Asia Minor, Transcaucasia, Persia,
etc., London, 1911, p. 75.

[236] _Petermanns Mitt._, Vol. 42, Jan. 1896, p. 8; and for details
V. Cuinet: La Turquie d’Asie, Paris, 1891-94, Vols. 1-4.

[237] The Armenian population of Turkey is divided by creed into
three distinct communities. The vast majority--probably about
ninety per cent--belong to the Gregorian sect of Christianity.
Adherents of the Roman Catholic faith are found chiefly in
western Asia Minor. Protestant congregations have sprung up
around the educational institutions maintained by British or
American missionary societies. Let it be noted here that many
Mohammedan communities in Armenia consist of Armenoid individuals
whose membership in the fold of Islam is the result of forcible
conversions since the rise of Ottoman power. The Dersimlis, who
inhabit the region between the two main branches of the Euphrates,
have the reputation of being crypto-Christians of Armenian
blood. Moslems of Armenian origin are also known in the village
of Karageben on the Tehalta river east of Divrik. In Russia the
Armenians number a scant million souls. Half of this community is
scattered in the valley of the Arax and in the Erivan province.

[238] F. von Luschan: The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia, _Ann.
Rept. Smithsonian Inst._ for 1914, pp. 561-562.

[239] “Rarely of unusual stature ... complexion dark” is Wilson’s
description. Handbook for Travelers in Asia Minor, Transcaucasia,
Persia, etc., London, 1911, p. 64.

[240] Mark Sykes: The Kurdish Tribes of the Ottoman Empire, _Journ.
Anthrop. Inst._, Vol. 38, 1908, pp. 451-486.

[241] B. Dickson: Journeys in Kurdistan, _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 35,
No. 4, April 1910, p. 361.

[242] De Torcy: Notes sur la Syrie, _La Géogr._, Vol. 27, No. 3,
March 15, 1913, pp. 161-197; No. 6, June 15, 1913, pp. 429-459.

[243] L. Gaston Leary: Syria, the Land of Lebanon, New York, 1913,
p. 10.

[244] R. Dussaud: Les Nossairis, _Bibl. de l’École des Hautes
Études, Sciences, Philosophie et Histoire_, Paris, 1900, Vol. 129.

[245] J. Garstang: The Land of the Hittites, London, 1910, pp. 15,
16.

[246] About forty towns and villages are held by the Druzes in the
southern Lebanon. In the Anti-Lebanon districts they people eighty
villages and share possession of about two hundred with their
Christian kinsmen, the Maronites.

[247] Hakem was a Fatimite caliph of Egypt, who ruled in the
early eleventh century. He incurred the hatred of his subjects
by causing the incarnation of God in himself to be preached in
Cairo by Darasi, his chaplain. Both became so unpopular that they
were forced to escape from the capital to the Lebanon, where they
succeeded in imposing their doctrines on the mountaineers. The name
Druze is believed to be derived from Darasi.

[248] In recent years the Maronites have submitted to the authority
of the Vatican. In return certain privileges, such as that of
retention of Syriac liturgy, have been accorded to them. They
constitute a veritable theocracy, all tribal and community affairs
being handled by the clergy.

[249] The French military expedition to the Lebanon, undertaken in
1860, was caused by the massacre of over 12,000 Maronites by the
Druzes in that year.

[250] This group comprises about 90,000 souls in Syria and 40,000
in Mesopotamia.

[251] E. Aubin: La Perse d’aujourd’hui, Paris, 1908, p. 418.

[252] The Elephantine papyri discovered on the island of
Elephantine in southern Egypt between 1903 and 1906 contain Aramaic
texts of great historical value.

[253] O. Procksch: Die Völker Altpalästinas, Leipzig, 1914, p. 30.

[254] At the end of the pre-Islamic period the region west of the
Euphrates to the eastern slopes of the Lebanon mountains was known
to the Arabs as “Beit Aramyeh,” or the land of the Arameans.

[255] H. Lammens: Le Massif du Gebal et les Yezidis de Syrie,
_Mélanges Faculté Orient. Univ. Beyrouth_, 1907, pp. 366-407.

[256] W. B. Heard: Notes on Yezidis, _Journ. Anthrop. Inst._, Vol.
41, pp. 200-219.

[257] A. P. Stanley: Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church,
New York, 1909, p. 58.

[258] H. Trotter: _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 35, No. 4, 1910, p. 378.

[259] F. J. Bliss: The Religions of Modern Syria and Palestine, New
York, 1912.

[260] The figures for Armenians and Greeks require revision in
view of the systematic efforts of the Turks to extirpate these two
peoples. The massacres of the entire Greek population of villages
of the Ægean coasts and atrocities of a most inhuman character
perpetrated on the Armenians of inland communities have largely
depleted the ranks of these two Christian subject groups.

[261] Hellenes, or subjects of the King of Greece, number about
20,000.

[262] Figures supplied by Dr. W. W. Rockwell, Editor of the
American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief. See Rockwell:
Pitiful Plight, second ed., pp. 66.

[263] Abbreviations; R. C.: Roman Catholic Uniats, “Chaldeans.” R.
C. s.: Roman Catholic Uniats, “Syrian Catholics.” J.: Jacobites.
N.: Nestorians, “Assyrian Christians.” P.: Protestants.




CHAPTER XIII

SUMMARY AND APPLICATIONS


The science of geography attains its highest usefulness when called
into the service of man. Having in mind the influence of regional
environment upon human societies and particularly upon language
and nationality as shown in the foregoing chapters, let us next
look at the bearing of our conclusions on the determination of
international frontiers. The problem consists in ascertaining the
logical or natural limit of the spread of language and nationality.
Growing at first in listless response to environment, natural
frontiers eventually attain a stage where intelligent conformity to
the same environment becomes necessary. Here the linguistic factor
based on a sound geographical foundation acquires practical value
though it is not necessarily the only determining element.

The spirit of nationality represents the highest development of
the idea of self-preservation. Its growth can be traced from the
individual to the family, thence to the tribe and city, until the
formation of the political state is obtained. In the last stages of
this process, nationality attains perfection through homogeneity
of its component individuals. The men who compose a single nation
must think together. Their ideals and aims must be one and they
must be conscious of a common destiny. Language, as the currency of
thought, naturally becomes the unifier. To a notable degree areas
of homogeneous language in Europe have been spared the havoc of
battle or siege. On the other hand, linguistic borderlands have
always been scenes of armed struggle and destruction.

Community of origin is not essential among members of the same
nation. The bond of language and identity of historical destiny
suffice for the creation of nationality. An English-speaking
immigrant on United States soil, imbued with the spirit of the
principles on which the country’s independence is founded, finds
himself in a state of response to the idea of American nationality.
And yet, the idea of nationality is no mere integration of
historical associations. It stands enthroned in the land. The poet
touches his compatriot’s heart by recalling the murmur of the
forest or by a picture of the winding shore. Through the charm
of living green enshrined in circling hills, at times through an
appreciation of the solemn peak rising heavenward, man found love
of homeland. A strong tie between humanity and the land was created
by these relations.

Nationality cannot depend on language alone, for it is founded
on geographical unity. The past thousand years of European
history contain sufficient proof of the fact. The three southern
peninsulas Spain, Italy and Greece are homelands of an equal number
of nations. A single language is current in each. To the north
a similar differentiation of nations adapts itself to regional
divisions. Plains, mountains and seas have limited European
nationalities to definite number and extension.

Thus every people acquires a peculiar genius which expresses itself
in characteristic fashion and cannot be made to assume a guise
alien to its own spirit. It absorbs the idealism of its captors
and molds it into its own form. The poet’s intuition rarely echoed
deeper truth than in the oft-quoted passage which immortalized the
spirit of Hellas:

      Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit, et artes
      Intulit agresti Latio.

Europe was stirred to the consciousness of nationality by the
French Revolution. Nations began finding themselves when the
doctrine of man’s equality, proclaimed on French soil, found
responsive welcome among the peoples of the continent. But the
new spirit caused dismay in every court circle. The inevitable
reaction that followed was reflected in the treaty of Vienna of
1815, when national aspirations were ignominiously ignored and
peoples beheld themselves bartered as chattels. The delegates in
attendance sat as representatives of dynastic interests. Their
interest in remodeling the political map of Europe was absorbed
wholly by the idea of securing compensation for the spoliation of
the territorial property of their sovereigns. Their labors meant
triumph for autocratic rule. Popular clamor for national grouping
was unheeded. Instead of quieting Europe, the treaty of Vienna was
a virtual admission on the part of less than three dozen men that
Europeans were incapable of bearing the glorious burden of their
own destinies. The tares of monarchical despotism were left to
stain the field of popular freedom.

But the seed sown by the great act of the French Revolution was
hardy. It was too late to eradicate liberal spirit from European
society. A mighty struggle of ideas ushered in the revolts of 1830
and 1848. Twenty odd years more, and for the first time in its
history western Europe was parceled into linguistic nations. The
birth of Germany during this period was significantly heralded by
an outburst of patriotic literature which for fire and enthusiasm
was unprecedented. Geibel’s demand for a united Germany in
Heroldsrufe was but the echo of the aspirations of millions of
his countrymen. France emerged out of these ordeals without loss
of her linguistic territory. The area of German speech received
marked attention. In truth the morning of modern German nationality
may be said to have broken in 1815. A year prior to this historic
date, the decision had been reached at the treaty of Paris (March
30, 1814) to unite the German states into a single confederation.
The dominating thought of European diplomacy, at the time, was to
prevent a recurrence of Napoleonic disturbances.

With their restricted territories, as well as by the jealousies
which animated their rulers, the German states lay, an easy
prey, at the mercy of any ambitious foreign leader. In their
union, Europe hoped to lay the foundations of continental peace.
Such a federation, it was thought, would safeguard the other
European countries from a concerted German attack, as it seemed
highly improbable that the entire confederacy would join in
a war undertaken by any one of its members for purposes of
self-aggrandizement. By this arrangement provision was made for the
strengthening of a number of weak states without the creation of a
new powerful unit in the group of European nations. Thirty million
Germans, comprising by far the majority of the German-speaking
inhabitants of the period, were thus politically welded for the
first time in modern history.

The idea of nationality had received scant attention in Germany
before the nineteenth century. Kant, Fichte and Hegel contributed
powerfully to its awakening. Hardly had the concept become familiar
to German thought before its relation with language became
established. The trend of feeling on the subject is best expressed
by Arndt about half a century before the fruition of Bismarck’s
life project at Versailles:

      Was ist das deutsche Vaterland?
      So nenne endlich mir das Land!
      So weit die deutsche Zunge klingt
      Und Gott im Himmel Lieder singt,
      Dass soll es sein, dass soll es sein,
      Das ganze Deutschland soll es sein.[264]

A literary history of a country is, in great measure, the mirror
of its political growth. The development of social aptitudes,
of intellectual faculties or of material wants within a given
area is, in the last resort, an expansion of the living forces
which make for nationality and which, ultimately, find their way
to literary records. Nationality and literature are thus bound
together by geography and history. Whatever be the period under
observation, the spirit of the day pervades them both. A striking
example of this relation is observable in medieval France, where
the troubadours personified the feudal conditions which prevailed
in the country. And furthermore literature, as a human product,
partakes of all the limitations which are subtly imposed by the
land on the fancy. It varies therefore, according to region, in
mental temperament, tastes and emotions or modes of thought.

So because it is part of life and a living influence, literature
has always consolidated the nation-forming power of language.
Poetry, especially, is often an intensified reflection of national
thought and life. In the words of Irving, “Poets always breathe the
feeling of a nation.” The cultivation of literature serves national
ends. In the very child, love of country is instilled through
the medium of doggerel--sometimes through lines of exquisite
simplicity. In thus strengthening the idea of nationality,
literature may be compared to the statue hewn from the marble of
language by patriotic and artistic thought.

Belgian writers, in this respect, occupy a place of their own in
European literature. Verhaeren and Maeterlinck voice the depth
of their sincerity in the language of their Walloon colleague
Lemonnier. Love of country in Spaak, a Fleming, is sung in French
verse:

      Oui, sois de ton pays. Connais l’idolâtrie
      De la terre natale! Et porte en toi l’orgueil
      Et le tourment de ses jours de gloire et de deuil.

Antoine Clesse, the poet of Mons, likewise expresses popular
feeling in French:

      Flamands, Wallons,
      Ne sont que des prénoms
      Belge est notre nom de famille.

No matter how the works of these poets are analyzed, in the inmost
souls of these writers it is the land that speaks. Belgium is
fathomed in their hearts. Their eyes lingered lovingly on the
scenery in the midst of which they lived. Flat roads winding
interminably over flat lands, chimes whose tones mellow with
age ring from the crumbling tops of old towers, rustic feasts
enlivened by the roaring mirth and joviality celebrated by Flemish
painters, these are the visions which are evoked by the French
words assembled by Belgian writers in their compositions. One
would seek in vain, however, for these Belgian scenes in French
literature. Like the Belgicisms which abound delightfully in every
Belgian writer’s works, they portray the soul of Belgian poetry as
sincerely as they afford genuine glimpses of Belgian lands. The
same subtle sensation of the living earth has been felt on the
troubled surface of mountainous Switzerland. For of Swiss lands and
life few descriptions will ever combine the charm and faithfulness
which characterize the works of Gottfried Keller, foremost among
the country’s writers who drew on the joint inspiration of flaming
patriotism and the incomparable beauty of Swiss landscape.

And how often has the written or spoken word fanned the flame
of nationality among downtrodden peoples! The story is the same
from land to land and age to age. The soul of a nation in bondage
is wrapped around its patriotic literature. Generation after
generation of Bohemians, Finns or Poles have drunk at the national
fount of poem and song. Within the peasant’s thatched home as in
the city abode, the well-worn volume, pregnant with past glory,
becomes the beacon of hope. It lights the darkness of oppression’s
heaviest hours. For men of feeling, destiny will ever be hailed in
the word that stirs. The harvest reaped by Cavour was of Dante’s
sowing.

In the bitter linguistic struggles waged in Europe two gratifying
facts are discernible. The dominance of the majority by an
intellectually gifted minority prevails in every country and age.
Furthermore, the survival of oppressed minorities in the midst of
oppressing majorities appears to be general. The one is the reward
of competence; the other is the triumph of right over might. Both
are victories of the human will. Both have been purchased by dint
of hard struggle. Humanity is the better for them.

Neither has conquest always been able to introduce a new language.
The widening sphere of Roman influence carried the original
dialect of the capital to the confines of the world. But it is
unlikely that Latin was spoken in the Nubian provinces or other
outlying districts to a greater degree than English is spoken in
India today. It was only the language of the dominant element and
the one in which official transactions were recorded. As a rule the
oldest language of a country is spoken by its peasants. The tillers
of the soil usually represent the oldest stratum in the population
of a region. The principle holds in territories which have borne
the brunt of successive invasions. It is the same in Macedonia,
Poland or Transylvania. On the other hand, the land-owning class is
generally recruited from among past invaders.

The value of language as a national asset was shown in France
during the trying days of war when the very existence of the
country was at stake. Respect for the mother-tongue is deeply
immured in every Frenchman’s heart. In no other country does
the feeling reach the same pitch. The French educational system
provides ample facilities for the early initiation of students to
the beauties of their vernacular. The clear and connected thought
for which French writing stands preëminent, its capacity for
expressing the most subtle shades of meaning, are largely results
of literary discipline.

A perusal of war-time literature cannot sufficiently indicate
the part played by French language in periods of stress. One
must preferably have had the privilege of acquaintance with
correspondence exchanged between relatives and intimates.
Patriotism pours unfaltering from the artless lines never intended
for strangers’ eyes. It is as if the crowded consciousness of
French nationality found constant release through its language.
Every observant foreigner in France has been struck by this fact.
In some instances where perception was more than usually attentive
we find, as in E. Wharton’s “Fighting France,” that:

  “It is not too much to say that the French are at this moment
  drawing a part of their national strength from their language.
  The piety with which they have cherished and cultivated it has
  made it a precious instrument in their hands. It can say so
  beautifully what they feel that they find strength and renovation
  in using it; and the word once uttered is passed on, and carries
  the same help to others. Countless instances of such happy
  expression could be cited by any one who has lived the last year
  (1915) in France. On the bodies of young soldiers have been found
  letters of farewell to their parents that made one think of some
  heroic Elizabethan verse; and the mothers robbed of these sons
  have sent them an answering cry of courage.”

One of the most remarkable instances of the influence of poetry
on national destiny is found in Serbian nationality, which has
been cast altogether in the mold of the country’s epic ballads or
“pjesmes.” Although primarily inspired by the valorous deeds of
legendary heroes, these indigenous compositions describe Serbian
life and nature with extraordinary verisimilitude and beauty. They
are national in a significant sense, not merely because the very
soul of the Serbian people is displayed in their lines, but also
because they have perpetuated Serbian history and language. The
purity of the Serbian tongue, its freedom from alien words, no
less than the maintenance of historical continuity in Serbia are
due, in a large measure, to the wandering of native minstrels--the
guzlars--who went to and fro reciting or singing the wonderful
exploits of their noted countrymen. Their unconscious, though
passionate insistence provided the Serbian with the only schooling
in national sentiment which he has undergone for generations
beginning with half-mythical times. However slow, the method was
effective, for it prevented atrophy of national hopes. Without
this influence the Serbians would probably have degenerated into a
people listless and inert to the call of nationality. The very name
of Serbia might never have been recorded in modern history.

The guzlars were therefore peddlers of nationality. The most
convincing evidence of their vital contribution to the formation
of the modern Serbian state is found during the five hundred years
in which the Turk’s benumbing rule was felt in the land. Marko
Kraljevitch, the popular hero-knight, feudal lord and outlaw,
according as occasion demanded, embodies Serbian resistance and
Serbian revolt against Moslem invaders. The stirring accents
in which tales of his deep attachment to Serbia were recounted
awakened exultant delight in the heart and brain of listeners and
inspired them to the hope of liberation from the hated yoke. Serbia
was prepared for the day of national independence by means of this
slow and century-long propaganda.

Replete with the glow and color of Serbian lands, the pjesme voices
Serbia’s national aspirations once more in the storm and stress of
new afflictions. Its accents ring so true that the geographer, in
search of Serbian boundaries, tries in vain to discover a surer
guide to delimitation. For Serbia extends as far as her folk-songs
are heard. From the Adriatic to the western walls of Balkan ranges,
from Croatia to Macedonia, the guzlar’s ballad is the symbol of
national solidarity. His tunes live within the heart and upon
the lips of every Serbian. The pjesme may therefore be fittingly
considered the measure and index of a nationality whose fiber it
has stirred. To make Serbian territory coincide with the regional
extension of the pjesme implies defining of the Serbian national
area. And Serbia is only one among many countries to which this
method of delimitation is applicable.

In Finland, nationality is embodied in the heartening lines of
the “Kalevala,” that Iliad of the north which takes its coloring
from nature with no less delightful sensitiveness than the Homeric
masterpiece. The lines of the poem define this Finnish epic as:

      Songs of ancient wit and wisdom,
      Legends they that once were taken

             *       *       *       *       *

      From the pastures of the Northland,
      From the meads of Kalevala.

             *       *       *       *       *

In this poem the beauty and color of Finland’s inland seas and the
bleakness of surrounding plains are painted in bold strokes and
with loving effusiveness. The Finn finds in its lines a reminder
of the scenes among which he has been reared and the link which
binds him to his past and to his land. As a mosaic of national
life pieced together by patriotism the Kalevala occupies a unique
position among literary productions of northern countries. Even a
note of Asiatic melancholy pervades its verses as if to recall the
share of Asia in the formation of Finnish national life.

The lyrics and songs collected in the Kalevala were brought
together in the beginning of the nineteenth century at a critical
period of Finnish history when national feeling had sunk to its
lowest ebb. Swedes and Russians vied with one another in their
efforts to denationalize Finland and bring the peninsula within the
sphere of their respective influence. No sooner was the Kalevala
published, however, than Finnish nationality asserted itself with
renewed vigor. Today after the lapse of almost a century since this
revival, Finland’s spirit of national independence is diffused more
widely than ever among its people. Such was the influence of a
literary echo of their land.

Among the peoples of Turkey, nationality and literature become
largely expressions of religious feeling. It could not be otherwise
in a country in which creed is the only medium of intellectual
progress. The oppressed native found refuge from the tyranny of his
Turkish masters in his church. His natural yearning for a higher
life found solace only within the sanctuaries of his faith. All
the education he received was obtained in schools attached to the
churches.

But to unravel the hopeless confusion which, at first glance,
seems to permeate human groupings in Turkey is, in the main, a
problem of geography. The region consists of a mountainous core
and a series of marginal lowlands. Its elevated area is a link in
the central belt of mountains which extends uninterruptedly from
Asia into Europe. This long chain of uplifts is the original seat
of an important race of highlanders collectively known as _Homo
alpinus_.[265] As far as is ascertainable to date, the mountaineers
of Turkey have all the anatomical characteristics pertaining to
this branch of the human family. Their religion and language may
differ but the physical type remains unchanged. Basing themselves
on this relation, anthropologists have assumed that Asiatic
Turkey is the brood-home of a sub-species of _Homo alpinus_
which is gradually acquiring recognition as a primordial Armenoid
element.[266] This type exists in its greatest purity today among
the Mohammedan dissenters of the Anatolian table-land as well as
among the Druzes and Maronites of Syria.

By geographical position, Asiatic Turkey is the junction of land
thoroughfares which trend from south to north as well as from east
to west. Its aboriginal population came inevitably into contact
with the races whose migrations are known to have begun about 4,000
B.C. A second group of peoples is thus obtained in which the old
strain is considerably modified. Armenians, Turks, upland Greeks,
Jacobites, Nestorians and most of the Kurds represent this mixed
element. A third group consists of lowlanders who never made the
ascent of Turkish mountains and consequently carry no traces of
Hittite ancestry. Maritime Greek populations and Arabs fall under
this classification.

In the main we see that the mountain bears in its central part a
homogeneous and coherent people. Distance from the core has slight
effect upon the physical characteristics of the mountaineers, as
long as they do not forsake the upland for the lowland. Their
ideas, however, undergo modifications which can be interpreted as
concessions to the views of more powerful peoples with whom contact
is established. Customs, however, generally remain unchanged even
if they have to be maintained in secrecy.

Nevertheless, relief alone cannot account for the variety of
peoples and religions in Asiatic Turkey. The easternmost fringe of
Christianity emerging sporadically out of an ocean of Mohammedanism
discloses, by the variety of its discordant elements, the extent to
which distance from Constantinople, the religious capital of the
eastern church, had weakened the power of ecclesiastical authority.
Armenians, Nestorians, Chaldeans, Jacobites and Maronites, one
and all heretics in the eyes of Orthodox prelates, were merely
independent thinkers who relied on the remoteness of their native
districts in order to protest, without peril to themselves, against
the innovations of Byzantine theologians, or to stand firm on the
basis of the rites and doctrines of early Christianity.

From the social standpoint the eastern half of Asiatic Turkey
deserves investigation as the seat of an immemorial conflict
between nomadism and sedentary life. Every stage of the transition
between the two conditions may be observed. The feuds which set
community against community in Turkey often originate in the
divergent interests of nomad and settled inhabitant, and are
enforced by economic factors. As an example the Kurds of the
Armenian highlands may be mentioned. The perpetuation of nomadism
in their case is the result of extensive horse-breeding[267]--their
chief source of revenue--which compels them to seek low ground in
winter.

Viewed as a whole, Asiatic Turkey has changed from an ideal nursery
of hardy men to a land of meeting between races and peoples as
well as between their ideals. It may be safely predicted that the
future of its inhabitants bids fair to be as intimately affected
as their past by the remarkable situation of the country and its
physical features. One can only hope, for their sake, that a
thorough invasion of highland and lowland by the spirit of the west
will not be delayed much longer. This much may be said now, that
the establishment of Christian rule in the land would probably be
attended by wholesale conversions to Christianity in many so-called
Mohammedan communities, where observance of Islamic rites has been
dictated by policy, rather than by faith.

In dealing with the varied influences which engage attention in a
study of linguistic areas the student is frequently compelled to
pause before the importance of economic relations. Inspection of a
map of Europe suggests strikingly that zones of linguistic contact
were destined by their very location to become meeting-places for
men speaking different languages. They correspond to the areas of
circulation defined by Ratzel.[268] The confusion of languages
on their site is in almost every instance the result of human
intercourse determined by economic causes. Necessity, far more than
the thought of lucre, compels men to resort to intercourse with
strangers. In Belgium, after the Norman conquest, the burghers of
Flanders were able to draw on English markets for the wool which
they converted into the cloth that gave their country fame in the
fairs of Picardy and Champagne.[269] We have here a typical example
of Ratzel’s “Stapelländern” or “transit regions.”

In very small localities the spread of language brought about
by economic changes has occasionally come under the scrutiny of
modern observers. At Grimault, in the ancient land of Burgundy,
the deterioration of the local patois due to intensive working of
quarries between 1860 and 1880 has been studied by E. Blin.[270]
Laborers from remote districts were attracted by the prospect
of work. Some intermarried with the natives. The influx of the
foreign element was followed by the replacement of the locality’s
vernacular by French.

In west-central Europe the line of traffic along the Rhine at
the end of the twelfth century ran from Cologne to Bruges along
the divide between French and Flemish. Lorraine, a region of
depression between the Archean piles of the Ardennes and Vosges,
invited access from east and west and was known to historians as a
Gallo-Romanic market place of considerable importance.[271]

In our time the river trade between Holland and Germany along the
Rhine has caused expansion of Dutch into German territory as far
as Wesel and Crefeld. The intruding language, however, yields to
German wherever the latter is present.[272] Prevalence of French
in parts of Switzerland is generally ascribed to travel through
certain Alpine passes.[273] The area of human circulation between
Lake Constance and Lake Geneva has endowed Switzerland with 35
different dialects of German, 16 of French, 8 of Italian and 5
of Romansh.[274] The penetration of German into the Trentino has
already been explained. In Austria the entire valley of the Danube
has provided continental trade with one of its most important
avenues. Attention is called elsewhere to the Balkan peninsula as
an intercontinental highway. In a word, language always followed in
the wake of trade and Babel-like confusion prevailed along channels
wherein men and their marketable commodities flowed.

This retrospect also leads to the conclusion that the influence
of physical features in the formation of European nationalities
has been exerted with maximum intensity in the early periods of
their history. This was at the time when man’s adaptation to
environment was largely blind and unconditioned by his own will.
Freedom from this physical thralldom is attained only through man’s
practical knowledge of human necessities and a sound vision of the
welfare of his descendants. Manifestations of nature can then be
made subservient to the human will. In this regard historians may
eventually be induced to divide their favorite study into two main
periods characterized respectively by man’s submission to, or his
intelligent control of, environment. A proper understanding of
this conception may contribute to the establishment of frontiers
with a view to eliminating conflicts due to relics of national or
historical incompatibility.

The development of modern boundaries should be regarded as a
process originating in barriers first provided by nature and
subsequently elaborated by the human will for its purposes.
Gradually however natural features of the land lose value as
national boundaries. This is the result of man’s progress, of the
development of railways or wireless stations. It is the removal of
natural obstacles; the conquest of distance by speed. All these
advances tend to promote intercourse. They are opening the vista
of a day when an international boundary will have no greater
importance in world affairs than the limiting line of a city plot.

National frontiers, at best, become established by virtue of
historical accidents. At given times and in order to promote
fellowship among nations it becomes necessary to define the areas
over which certain principles of political jurisdiction are
recognized as valid by a given body of men. A national frontier
in the strictest sense of the term cannot, therefore, be limited
by the surface feature which has shaped its development. It has
generally outgrown this phase of its extension together with the
constantly increasing range of activity of the peoples it once
inclosed. Factors of an ethnological, economic or linguistic nature
must, therefore, be considered. Then only will the new delimitation
be entitled to be qualified as natural.

The preëminence of the linguistic factor set forth in these pages
may be illustrated concisely by the accepted recognition of the
“langue d’oïl” as the national language of France by all Frenchmen
of the present day, although this would have been impossible five
centuries ago. Adoption of the linguistic criterion in boundary
delimitation becomes, therefore, a mere matter of expediency. Its
worth is not due to any assumed abstract value of language. It
is merely a practical manner of settling divergences regarding
national ownership of border territories. It is of value because
the guiding consideration in boundary delimitation or revision is
to eliminate future sources of conflict.

The European war is no exception to the fact that almost every
conflict of magnitude has been due, in part, to ill-adjusted
frontier lines. Slight regard for national aspirations seems
to have prevailed in the delimitations determined upon by the
signatory powers of every important treaty. The seed of ulterior
fighting was thus sown, for one of the main features of modern
history is the growth of national feeling as a dominating force in
human affairs.

With Europe rid of Napoleon, the treaty of Vienna was framed by
his allied foes in 1815 for the purpose of recasting the political
map. No heed was paid, however, to the legitimate desire of
smaller European nations to rule themselves. An instance of some
of the gross blunders committed then was the merging of Belgium
and Holland into one nationality in spite of the protests of their
representatives. Feelings of the bitterest nature between Belgians
and Dutch engendered by this act ultimately forced a war between
the two countries in 1830. It was only after their separation
that the enmity of the two peoples gave way to cordial relations.
Subsequent history has shown that these two nations have often been
of greater help to each other while retaining separate political
entity than under forced union. In Italy also the progress made
towards union by Italian-speaking peoples was checked by this
treaty and the country split once more into a number of small
independent states. The assignation of Lombardy and Venetia to
Austria led eventually to the war of 1859.

In contrast with these cases, Germany’s rise to power with
unprecedented rapidity in the history of the world is a striking
instance of the splendid development attainable within boundaries
peopled by inhabitants of the same speech. With language and an
efficient army in control Prussia only needed a leader to direct
the gravitation of other German-speaking states within its own
orbit. Bismarck stepped in, the right man at the right time. In
1864 he hurled the Prussian fighting machine against Denmark and
wrenched the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein from that country. Two
years later he turned on Austria and imposed Prussian leadership
on the German-speaking world. These warlike moves gave Prussia
the ascendency in the North German Confederation. Only the states
of southern Germany were now needed to form the German Empire his
patriotic mind had conceived. To enlist their sympathies he found
it necessary to strike at France. His task was accomplished when a
united Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine.

Bismarck’s work was flawless as long as he added Germans to the
empire of his creation. He erred grievously, however, in including
a small number of Frenchmen with Alsace-Lorraine. Had linguistic
boundaries been respected at the treaty of Frankfort, and the
French districts of the conquered provinces left to France, it is
safe to say that Franco-German relations would not have been marked
by the lack of cordiality which has characterized them since 1871.
From whatever standpoint the subject be approached, the inclusion
of a handful of Frenchmen within German territory was neither
politic nor economic. Today Germans may well ask themselves whether
the move was desirable.

The task of uniting all Germans under a single scepter was not
completed by Bismarck. Ten million Germans are still subjects of
the Austrian Emperor. But Austria as a political unit stands on
exceedingly shaky foundations. This is due to the inclusion within
its boundaries of 10 million Hungarians, 20 million Slavs and
several million peoples of Romance speech. As a result, Austria is
likely to be split into a number of independent states. Should this
dissolution come about, the natural desire of Germans is to witness
the crumbling of Austria’s pieces into Germany’s lap. The union
of all German-speaking inhabitants of Europe into a single nation
would then become an accomplished fact.

Considered from the broad standpoint of human migrations England,
France and Italy may be regarded as understudies in the drama
staged on the old continent. The star performers are Russia and
Germany, and the issue is between these two nations. The grouping
of European nations with Russia is a mere result of Germany’s
preponderant strength. The end of the conflict will necessarily
witness the recasting of alliances along with changes of frontier
lines.

For at the bottom of it all the fight is between Slav and Teuton.
It is a grim and unrelenting struggle for existence that is shaping
itself into one of the world’s fiercest racial contests. The Slavic
peoples are steadily pressing in from the east though not with the
barbarity which characterized their earlier onslaughts. It is the
turn of Russians, Poles, Bohemians, Slovenes, Serbians and Croats,
slowly to crowd on the descendants of the blue-eyed flaxen-haired
barbarians, representing Germanic peoples.

This Slavonic westerly push has always been blocked by the leading
power in the west. France opposed it in the Napoleonic period.
Great Britain checked it in the latter half of the nineteenth
century. Today it is Germany’s turn to stand the brunt of its
pressure. As matters stand both Germany and Russia are vigorous,
young and fast-growing. The two peoples have taken root on adjacent
land like two sturdy oaks. They are now in the stage at which
the soil’s nourishment at the border suffices only for one. The
weaker must wither. The Teuton is expanding eastward, the Slav is
spreading westward. Their main clashing-zone happens to be the
Balkan peninsula. The ceaseless agitation in this area and its
menace to the world’s peace is a consequence of the antagonism
between the Pan-Slavic Colossus and the Pan-German Titan.

Germany’s expansion is a natural phenomenon. The country is
overpopulated. It must expand. The sea is a barrier to its westerly
expansion. The north is uninviting. The south is being drained of
its resources by active and intelligent inhabitants. The “Drang
nach Osten” of German Imperialism is therefore inevitable. The line
of least resistance points to the east, where fertile territory
awaits development.

Little wonder, then, that the attention of Germany’s far-seeing
statesmen has been directed toward oriental countries, whose wealth
of natural resources and genial climate combine to render them
ideally attractive. The verdant vales and forest-clad mountains of
Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria abound with raw material needed for
Germany’s increasing industries. Beyond the narrow watercourse,
intervening between Europe and Asia, at the Dardanelles and
Bosporus lies Asia Minor, a land marvelously rich in minerals
and susceptible of great agricultural development. Farther east
the exceedingly fertile Mesopotamian valley, once the granary of
the civilized world, stretches between the western Euphrates and
Tigris, and bids fair to provide humanity anew with vast supplies
of cereals.

This is the vision which has floated alluringly before the minds of
German and Austrian statesmen, working hand in hand, Austria paving
the way in the Balkans, Germany forcing herself successfully in
the control of Asia Minor, which today is a German colony in all
but name. By their joint efforts, the Teuton brothers have laid
the foundation of an empire whose northern shore is washed by
the Baltic and whose southern boundary may extend to the Persian
Gulf. The great obstacle to this scheme of German expansion is
constituted by the neighborhood of Russia and the predominance
of the Slavic element in the population of the Balkan peninsula.
Montenegrins, Serbians, Macedonians and even Bulgarians dread
annexation by Germany.

At the end of the Balkan wars, Russia had scored heavily against
Germany. An enlarged Serbia had been constituted directly in the
path of Teutonic advance. In addition to this Slavic victory,
every Balkan country had been strengthened considerably by the
new delimitation of their frontiers. For the first time in their
history, Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians found that their national
border could be made to coincide with their linguistic boundary.
This national sifting is by no means complete in the Balkan
peninsula. But there is no question that notable progress in the
recognition of patriotic aspirations was made as soon as the region
was rid of its Turkish masters.

With the history of the past hundred years in mind, statesmen
engaged in the task of framing peace treaties may well heed the
lessons taught by political geography. They might conclude then
that greater possibilities of enduring peace exist whenever
the delimitation of new frontiers is undertaken with a view to
segregating linguistic areas within separate national borders.
Commerce and industry will overcome ultimately these barriers and
pave the way to friendly international intercourse. These are the
lines along which intelligent statecraft will earn its reputation
in the future.

The practical value of linguistic frontiers as national boundaries
is due to their geographical growth. They are natural because
they are the result of human intercourse based largely on
economic needs. Having developed naturally, they correspond to
national aspirations. Such being the case, the task of frontier
delimitation can be made to assume a scientific form. Only in
the case of uninhabited or sparsely populated regions will an
artificial boundary--say, of the straight line type--prove
adequate. But in tenanted portions of the earth’s surface where
human wills and desires come into play the problem cannot be
dismissed so lightly. The ordinary laws of science must then be
applied. This, after all, merely implies drawing on the stock of
common sense accumulated by the human race in the course of its
development. The clear duty of statesmen engaged in a revision of
boundaries is to put the varied interests at stake into harmony
with the facts of nature as they are revealed by geography. This is
possible because the science deals with the surface of the earth
considered as the field of man’s activity. Its data can be drawn
upon just as successfully as the engineer draws upon the energy of
a waterfall or a ton of coal. Soundness and permanency of the labor
of delimitation can thus be insured.

The preceding remarks should not be considered as implying that
a mountain, or a river, or even the sea are to be arbitrarily
regarded as frontiers. Lines of water-parting deserve particular
mention as having provided satisfactory national borders in
history. But in boundaries each case should be treated upon its own
merits. There was a time when, in Cowper’s words:

            Mountains interposed
      Make enemies of nations who had else
      Like kindred drops been mingled into one.

And yet the passes of the Alps refute the poet’s statement. Their
uniting function eventually overcame their estranging power. The
easterly spread of French language over the Vosges concurs in the
same trend of testimony. The imposing mass of the Urals is no more
of a parting than are the Appalachians. To be pertinent, it will
be necessary, in each instance, to consider the complex operations
of natural laws and the process of fusing and building up of
nationality brought about by their agency.

The value of mountains in the scheme of useful boundary demarcation
has been attested in the European war. Towns and villages sheltered
behind rocky uplifts have suffered relatively little from the
devastation which has marked the struggle in lowlands and plains.
The fact is true for the Vosges mountains, the Trentino uplands
and the Carpathian region. Although fighting of an exceedingly
bitter character was maintained in each of these areas, the loss in
property was never extreme. This is one of the many instances where
land configuration lends itself advantageously to delimitation
work. The need of trustworthy geographical information in
partitioning and dividing up territory is obvious. Upon this basis
only can boundary revision be satisfactorily pursued.

The long borderland of the French language which marks the northern
and eastern boundary of French lands from the English Channel
to the Mediterranean, lies unruffled by political agitation
in its southeastern stretch, where Italian and French become
interchangeable languages. Modifications in this section of the
political frontier hardly need be considered. Their occurrence,
if any, will probably come as peaceful adjustments dictated by
economic reasons. To the north, however, the line has a history
tainted by deeds of violence. In this stretch it forms the divide
between two civilizations, the French and the German. These,
although having flourished side by side, are distinctly opposed
in spirit and method. Here, beginning north of the Swiss border,
frontier changes appear inevitable.

In the Vosges uplift, certain facts of geographical import have
direct bearing on the international boundary problem. The very
occurrence of a mountain in this zone of secular conflict has a
significance of its own. Aggression has generally made its way
up the steep slope and, since the treaty of Frankfort of 1871,
strategic advantages lie on the German side. Moreover the crest
line shows French linguistic predominance.

[Illustration:

  _The American Geographical Society of New York_
      _Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe, 1917, Pl. IX_

PART OF EUROPE SHOWING LANGUAGES having political significance.]

In Lorraine, the steady expansion of French over German territory
reveals the assimilative capacity of French civilization. France,
unable to send forth colonists because of her lack of numbers,
nevertheless contains within herself by virtue of superior
civilization the ability to absorb the foreigner. Of this, evidence
is to be found in the Alsatian’s sympathy for France no less
than in the unanimous verdict of impartial foreigners. Belgium’s
unhesitating rally to the French cause in the present war was
also the spontaneous response to the greater cultural appeal
emanating from France. The fact is attested by history since the
earliest times, for much of the civilization of Germanic peoples
has invariably taken its source in the inspiring ideals of the
wonderfully endowed inhabitants of French territory.

Upon this historical basis, the intermediate zone between
French and German languages might be converted into a number
of buffer-states which, from the Alps to the North Sea, would
represent the borderland of the central mountain zone and the
northern plain. Switzerland, Alsace-Lorraine, Luxemburg and
Belgium have been weak spots of European diplomacy on account of
geographical circumstances. A just appreciation of this fact alone
can provide against a continuance of past weakness.

Whatever the result of the present war, boundary rectifications
from the easternmost wedge of Switzerland to the head of the
Adriatic may be expected. They were the subject of negotiations
between Austria and Italy prior to the latter country’s entry into
the war in 1915. Austria at that time proposed to cede to Italy a
portion of the Trentino or “Süd-Tirol” as it is illogically called
by the Germans. The territory which Austria was willing to abandon
to prevent Italy from joining the Allies coincided roughly with
the extension of Italian language north of the Italian frontier.
Italian demands presented then were based, however, upon strategic
necessities as well as linguistic considerations. Italy therefore
outlined a frontier much nearer to the Adriatic watershed.

The Italian claims may be summarized as follows:[275] From
Switzerland the present boundary line is to be maintained to Mount
Cevedale, whence it is to strike east to Illmenspitze and thence
northeast to Klausen passing through Gargazon. From Klausen the
line leads to the south until latitude 46° 30′ is reached, after
which it resumes its easterly course, passes through Tofana and
reaches the old boundary at about 4 miles northeast of Cortina
d’Ampezzo. The population of the last-named district, formerly
Ladin, is now Italian. This boundary revision will give political
validity to the Italian Alps, a region which is geographically
Italian.

[Illustration:

  FIG. 67--Sketch map showing proposed changes in the
  Austro-Italian frontier according to Austrian and Italian views.]

Through this line the transfer of the command of the passes to
Italy would become an accomplished fact. It would mean that the
entrance to the Vintschgau, the valley of the Upper Adige and of
the gorge of the Eisack at Klausen with the issue of the Brenner
and Pustherthal railways would be controlled by Italy. Moreover the
frontier has the merit of being identical with the old bishopric
boundary maintained from 1106 A.D. to the Reformation. The flaw, if
any, in such an eventual settlement might be found in the fact that
the Botzen district, although economically Italian, is Teutonic
in speech and feeling. The rest of the population in the Trentino
favors annexation to Italy.

The Austrian offer to Italy diverges from the Italian project at
Illmenspitze[276] and strikes south, carefully avoiding abandonment
of territory of German speech to Italy. In doing this, however, it
leaves some of the Italian-speaking northeastern districts of the
Noce valley in Austrian territory. All the mountain outlets which
open into the Adige valley are retained by Austria. This from the
Italian standpoint is inadmissible, as it would leave the southern
country exposed to aggression from the north. On the basis of the
Austrian census for 1910 the changes in population consequent upon
such a boundary revision are as follows:

                                    Italians and
                                       Ladins       Germans
  In territory offered by Austria     366,837        13,892
  In territory retained by Austria     18,863       511,222


In case the Italian claim is granted the following changes will
result:

                                    Italians and
                                       Ladins       Germans
  In new Italian territory            371,477        74,000
  In territory retained by Austria     14,229       440,805

A margin of coastland along the eastern Adriatic is mainly Serbian
in nationality though Italian in culture. It was once the nest of
pirates who terrorized the Adriatic and Mediterranean. We catch
historical glimpses of their retreats to the admirable shelters
teeming along the coastland which skirts the Dalmatian mountains.
The fringe of long islands deployed like a protecting screen
enabled their vessels to evade capture. This feature of the region
still exercises its influence, for a strong naval power in control
of such a base might easily dominate the Mediterranean lane of
traffic between east and west. The political fate of the eastern
shores of the Adriatic cannot therefore be sundered from their
geographical aspect.

The Italians have been exhibited elsewhere in these pages as a
vanishing minority throughout this Dalmatian coast. We are in
the presence of Serbians, disguised under various appellations,
among which the most familiar are Croatians, Slavonians, Bosnians,
Herzegovinians, Montenegrins, Dalmatians and Illyrians. All these
elements were susceptible of being strongly knit into a single
nationality. The inclusion of a sympathizing, though numerically
small, Slovene group could only introduce wholesome competition
among them.

Nationalism in this region was awakened by French achievements and
influences at the time of its conquest by Napoleon’s armies. The
French provinces of Illyria, which included Slovene territory on
the north and extended as far south as Montenegro, were converted
in 1816 into a kingdom of the same name which survived, up to 1846,
as part of the Austrian Empire. The taste of political independence
acquired by southern Slavs in that interval of time never lost
its savor. Schemes for the formation of an independent Jugoslavia
were naturally thrown into sharper relief through the medium of
linguistic unity.

Such a south Slavic political entity must necessarily be identified
with Serbia. Its extent is admirably defined by geographical,
ethnographical and linguistic lines all of which coincide, thereby
pointing irrefutably to national unity. The Drave, Morava, Drina
and Lim rivers, with the Adriatic Sea, encircle this genuine
Serbian area. It comprises the entire system of parallel ranges
which form the mountainous rearland of the Adriatic. Because of
its arduous character the region was never thoroughly mastered by
foreigners. Invaders established themselves in force only along the
sections of international highways which cross the land. The rest
remained accessible to the Serbian natives only.

The defining of an independent Hungary presents little confusion if
approached from the main highway of geography. Agreement between
the land and its inhabitants appears to exist here, for the Magyar
is, in the first place, a lowlander accustomed to live within the
precincts of a fertile plain. He has always shunned the mountain
and is rarely to be met above the 600-foot contour. As soon as the
hills to the north of the vast field of his birth are attained
he disappears, leaving a few officials to represent him. Slovak,
Rumanian and Ruthenian hillmen then come upon the scene. On the
western side, west of the Raab, the heights drained by the river
are peopled by Germans and, in spite of a complex boundary zone,
a convenient line of demarcation could be drawn upon the basis
of elevation. Southward the old-time utility of the Drave as the
dividing line between Croat and Hungarian remains unimpaired to
this day. In the east, however, around the confluence of this river
with the Danube and towards the Theiss valley the swamp lands have
repelled the ease-loving Hungarian as effectively as the mountains
to the east and north. The Serb, less particular in his choice of
residence, advanced northward as far as the swampy land extends. In
this section any physical map contains the data for a territorial
division.

With regard to Transylvania, conditions may be summarized as
follows: the region is scantily populated, valleys constituting
centers of human habitation almost exclusively. The inhabitants are
overwhelmingly Rumanians.[277] The dominating Hungarian element
inhabits isolated communities in their midst. This separation of
the rival peoples is of the utmost interest in boundary revision,
for which it provides a reliable geographical basis. Wallis has
ingeniously shown[278] that a line separating the majority of
Hungarians from Rumanians can be obtained by taking language as
a guide and that this is possible because there exists no mixing
of peoples in the eastern borderland of Hungarian language. In
reality, throughout Hungary the only element that has insinuated
itself in the midst of Hungarian, Rumanian or Slav populations is
the German. This element is generally absorbed except where present
in large numbers. The Magyar, however, has never mingled with his
neighbors. One is almost led to seek the reason for his aloofness
in his Asiatic origin.

Poland also has its natural place in the European political
system. The majority of Poles live in Russian Poland. Out of a
total of over 20,000,000 Poles about 12,000,000 are found in the
“governments” or administrative districts created by Russia in the
sections of Poland within Russia’s boundaries. These districts
are ten in number and adjoin each other. Geographically they form
a unit--the westernmost appendage of the vast united Russian
territory which aggregates between one-sixth or one-seventh of
the total land surface of the world. Detachment of this Polish
section from Russia and its creation into part of an autonomous
Poland is practicable without serious loss to Russian unity. Slavic
solidarity would in fact be consolidated if Poland were constituted
a sovereign state.

To Germany, however, an autonomous Poland which would encompass the
million Poles living in the Kaiser’s empire implies abandonment
of a territory which reaches far into the heart of the country.
The Polish strip ends less than a hundred miles east of Berlin.
The province of Posen, a considerable portion of Silesia, a narrow
strip of West Prussia reaching the Baltic west of Danzig and the
Masurian Lakes district are peopled by Poles. Furthermore, and this
is of capital importance in German eyes, East Prussia which is
German by language and tradition, as well as Prussian to the core,
would become isolated from the main mass of the German-speaking
people. It is improbable that such a cession of territory will take
place as long as Germany has the power to prevent it. It need only
be remembered that the first partition of Poland was engineered by
Frederick the Great merely to join East Prussia to the rest of his
kingdom. Against this last fact, however, the imperative necessity
for an independent Poland to obtain an outlet on the Baltic will
always prevail in anti-German circles.

Nature therefore points to the existence of a real German menace
to Polish autonomy. It is needless to minimize the significance
of the points at issue. Prussia, the dominant state in the German
nation, will never consent to the impairment of her territorial
unity by the surrender of her Polish sections. On the other hand
the reconstruction of Poland must be complete if the creation
of a Balkanic state of affairs west of the Gulf of Danzig is to
be avoided. A partial reunion of Polish-speaking groups under
an autonomous government would be the prelude to irredentist
questions. This however is precisely what an enlightened world is
seeking to prevent.

In reality the German nation would be the gainer by the creation
of a reunited Polish state. No better barrier to Russia’s
westerly advance in Europe could be devised. Conversely Teutonic
encroachments on Slavic territory--bound as they inevitably are to
be attended by bloodshed--would be effectively arrested. A buffer
state between Russia and Germany is the safest guarantee of peace
between the two nations. All the inextricable tangles in which
Europe has been involved by Polish problems can be unraveled by
the restoration of Polish national entity. The problem requires
solution for the sake of the peace of the world.

The problems arising along the remaining linguistic boundaries have
been exhibited in earlier chapters and require but little mention
here. In Schleswig an extension of Denmark’s political frontier
as far south as the Danish language prevails would be welcomed as
the harbinger of lasting harmony between Danes and Germans. The
historical frontier between the Danish duchy and Holstein could be
utilized to advantage in this change. In this, as in other cases,
the principles of geography, modified by national aspirations and
economic needs, must in the last resort be recognized as practical
and applicable. Bohemia, which has been shown to be splendidly laid
off on a physical map, deserves political independence because it
is endowed with geographic individuality. This method of solving
the problems which for centuries have burdened Europe with strife
would, like the splitting of Austria into national fragments, mark
an improvement in the lot of a notable proportion of the population
of Europe. New impetus would be granted to the development of
national sentiment. Humanity owes much to the free play of this
feeling. The claims of world brotherhood have received greater
attention through its existence. The energies of submerged
nationalities have hitherto been absorbed by the struggle for
survival. Relief from this stress will be accompanied by respect
for alien rights instead of hatred of the oppressor.

Throughout the nineteenth century, as well as in the beginning of
the twentieth, reconstruction of nationalities was effected on a
linguistic basis. The part played by language during that period is
of tantamount importance to the religious feeling which formerly
caused many a destructive war. Practically all the wars of the last
hundred years are the outcome of three great constructive movements
which led to the unification of Germany and of Italy as well as to
the disentanglement of Balkan nationalities. These were outward and
visible signs of the progress of democratic ideals. The Congress of
Vienna failed to provide Europe with political stability because
popular claims were ignored during the deliberations. At present,
inhabitants of linguistic areas under alien rule are clamoring for
the right to govern themselves. The carrying out of plebiscites
under international supervision can often be relied upon to satisfy
their aspirations and serve as a guide to frontier rearrangements.

All told, the growing coincidence of linguistic and political
boundaries must be regarded as a normal development. It is a form
of order evolved out of the chaos characterizing the origin of
human institutions. The delimitation of international frontiers is
as necessary as the determination of administrative boundaries or
city lines. Human organization requires it and there is no reason
why it should not be undertaken with fair regard to the wishes and
feelings of all affected. For nations, like individuals, are at
their best only when they are free, that is to say when the mastery
of their destiny is in their own hands.


FOOTNOTES:

[264]
      What is the German’s Fatherland?
      O name at length this mighty land!
      As wide as sounds the German tongue,
      And Germans hymns to heaven are sung,
      That is the land;
      That, German, is thy Fatherland.

[Translation from J. F. Chamberlain’s Literary Selections as an Aid
in Teaching Geography, _Journ. of Geogr._, Sept. 1916, p. 12.]

[265] J. L. Myres: The Alpine Races in Europe, _Geogr. Journ._,
Vol. 28, 1906, No. 6, pp. 537-553.

[266] F. von Luschan: The Early Inhabitants of Western Asia, _Ann.
Rept. Smithsonian Inst._ for 1914, p. 577.

[267] D. G. Hogarth: The Nearer East, New York, 1902, pp. 198-199.

[268] F. Ratzel: Politische Geographie, 2nd ed., Munich, 1903. Cf.
Chap. 16, “Der Verkehr als Raumbewältiger,” pp. 447-534.

[269] R. Blanchard: La Flandre, Paris, 1906.

[270] _Bull. Com. Trav. Hist. et Scien., Sec. Géogr._, Vol. 29,
1914, p. xli.

[271] J. Vidal de la Blache: Étude sur la Vallée Lorraine de la
Meuse, Paris, 1908, pp. 165-180.

[272] Cf. inset on pp. 63-64, Andree’s Handatlas, 6th ed., 1915.

[273] J. Brunhes: _La Géographie humaine_, Paris, 1912, pp. 598-599.

[274] L. W. Lyde: The Continent of Europe, London, 1913, p. 383.

[275] D. W. Freshfield: The Southern Frontiers of Austria, _Geogr.
Journ._, Vol. 46, 1915, pp. 414-436.

[276] R. von Pfaundler: Österreichisch-italienische Grenzfragen,
_Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 61, 1915, pp. 217-223.

[277] B. C. Wallis: Distribution of Nationalities in Hungary,
_Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 52, 1916, No. 3, pp. 177-189.

[278] Loc. cit.




APPENDIX A

GERMAN SETTLEMENTS IN RUSSIA


Colonies of Germans in Russia are found mainly in the Baltic
provinces and around the banks of the Volga. According to the
census of 1897 the German residents of the governments of Livonia,
Kurland, Esthonia and St. Petersburg numbered 229,084. The majority
of this northern element is distributed along the shores of the
Gulf of Riga.

The banks of the Volga were first colonized by Germans in 1763
after a proclamation issued by Empress Catherine II inviting
foreigners to settle on either side of the river in the environs
of Saratoff and Samara and as far as Tzaritzin. The distress
that followed the Seven Years’ War in Germany determined a
number of families of the afflicted provinces to seek a better
lot on Russian soil. By the year 1768 there had been founded
102 German settlements containing a total population of 27,000
inhabitants.[279] The newcomers had to face considerable hardships.
Many of them were neither farmers nor peasants. Their endurance was
taxed by the rigor of the climate. Insecurity of life and property
prevailed as badly as in their devastated motherland. In 1774
rebel bands led by Jemelian Pontgatcheff wrought havoc and ruin in
the new districts. Two years later hordes of Kirghiz nomads laid
waste the land again and carried off a number of the emigrants as
slaves. This state of affairs lasted until the last decades of the
nineteenth century. The Tatar raiders were attracted mainly by the
cattle of the colonists. The value of horses, camels and cattle
stolen between 1875 and 1882 is estimated at 330,000 rubles.[280]

It is estimated that fully five million rubles were spent by
the Russian government to plant these foreign colonies. But no
onerous terms were imposed on the settlers. A head tax of three
rubles constituted their only pecuniary obligation to the state.
Furthermore, a liberal administration was provided for their
settlements. Each village was ruled by an assembly recruited from
among its inhabitants.

Unfortunately for the development of these communities the Russian
system of collective ownership known as the “mir” was instituted.
Under this form of tenure all land becomes the property of the
village. Each male inhabitant is temporarily entitled to a share
of the whole area and an exchange of plots is made every ten
years. Each village then receives a new fraction and fresh lots
are apportioned to those who have come of age during the decade.
This method of ownership does not lead to development and generally
retards rather than promotes agricultural progress.

Furthermore the land is none too fertile. Uncertainty therefore
is today the common lot of many of the descendants of the old
German settlers. Many prefer to engage in trade rather than in
agriculture. The natural increase of the population has brought
a certain amount of congestion which has resulted in emigration.
Effort is made by German missionary societies to induce these
Russian Germans to return to the land of their fathers. The Russian
government on the other hand provides them with ample facilities
and inducements to settle in Siberia. The region around Tomsk
contains a number of villages built up by this emigration. Many
however prefer to emigrate to the United States where they find a
happier lot. Settlements composed entirely of Volga Germans exist
in Wisconsin.

The old German settlers had held steadfastly to their religion.
Their descendants have also clung to the faith of their fathers,
thus creating a totally separate community in the midst of Orthodox
Russia. Their earliest schools had been founded as annexes of their
churches and education had been a great factor in the maintenance
of language and religion. In 1891 the use of Russian was rendered
obligatory in all educational institutions of the Empire.
Nevertheless this measure cannot be said to have contributed to
weaken the German character of the communities. From Germany itself
manifestations of interest towards these faraway centers of German
custom have always been keen. Neither has support been lacking.

According to recent statistics the Germans inhabiting the banks
of the Volga number close to half a million, distributed equally
on both banks of the great inland river. The ethnic type of these
Germans has been maintained with remarkable purity and their
language contains obsolete forms dating from the eighteenth
century. The names of the largest communities and the number of
their inhabitants are as follows:

  Saratoff                                  12,500
  Norka                                     13,416
  Frank                                     11,700
  Grimm or Lesnoi Karamish                  10,761
  Baltzer Katharinenstadt or Baronsk        10,134


FOOTNOTES:

[279] P. Clerget: Les Colonies Allemandes de la Volga, _La Géogr._,
Feb. 1909.

[280] H. Pokorny: Die Deutschen an der Volga, _Deutsche Erde_,
1908, No. 4, pp. 138-144.




APPENDIX B

THE BALKAN STATES BEFORE AND AFTER THE WARS OF 1912-13[281]


  _AREAS_ (_in square miles_)

                                               Percentage of
                         Former        New      Increase or
      State               area         area      Decrease
  Montenegro              3,506       5,600       + 60%
  Albania                  --        10,900         --
  Serbia                 18,650      33,600       + 80%
  Rumania                50,720      54,300       +  7%
  Bulgaria               37,201      43,300       + 16%
  Greece                 24,966      46,600       + 87%
  Turkey in Europe       65,370       9,700       - 85%


  _POPULATION_

                           Prior to       After the
      State                   War            War
  Montenegro                 285,000        500,000
  Albania                      --           900,000
  Serbia                   2,960,000      4,300,000
  Rumania                  7,250,000      7,400,000
  Bulgaria                 4,340,000      4,800,000
  Greece                   2,670,000      4,600,000
  Turkey in Europe         6,130,000      1,600,000


FOOTNOTE:

[281] Joerg, W. L. G.: The New Boundaries of the Balkan States and
their Significance, _Bull. of Amer. Geogr. Soc._, Vol. 45, 1913, p.
819.




APPENDIX C

CLASSIFICATION OF LANGUAGES SPOKEN IN EUROPE


     Group        Branches           Languages

  A. CELTIC                        1. Gaelic
                                        a. Irish
                                        b. Highland Scotch
                                        c. Manx
                                   2. Cymric
                                        a. Welsh
                                        b. Low Breton

  B. ROMANIC                       1. French
                                   2. Italian
                                   3. Spanish
                                   4. Provençal
                                   5. Portuguese
                                   6. Romansh or Churwaelsh
                                   7. Rumanian

  C. GERMANIC    Scandinavian      1. Swedish
                                   2. Danish
                                   3. Icelandic

                 Germanic          1. High German
                                   2. Low German
                                   3. Dutch, including Flemish
                                   4. Frisian
                                   5. English

  D. SLAVIC      Western           1. Polish
                                   2. Bohemian
                                   3. Wend

                 Eastern           1. Russian, including Ruthenian
                                   2. Bulgarian
                                   3. Serbian, including Croatian

  E. LETTIC                        1. Lettish
                                   2. Lithuanian

  F. HELLENIC                         Greek

  G. ILLYRIC                          Albanian

  H. INDIC                            Gipsy or Romany

In addition to the above the following non-Indo-European languages
are spoken in Europe:

   Family     Group     Branch       Language

  TURANIAN    FINNIC    Tchudic    1. Finnic
                                   2. Esthonian
                                   3. Tchud
                                   4. Lapp
                                   5. Voth
                                   6. Livonian

                        Permian    1. Votiak
                                   2. Sirian
                                   3. Permiak

                        Volgaic    1. Tchuvash
                                   2. Mordoin
                                   3. Cheremiss

                        Ugric      1. Hungarian
                                   2. Samoyed

              TATARIC                 Turkish

  CAUCASIAN                        1. Lesghian
                                   2. Circassian

  BASQUE                              Basque or Euskara




APPENDIX D

A SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY


  Aïtoff, D. Peuples et langues de la Russie. _Ann. de Géogr._,
  Vol. 15, 1909, pp. 92-5.

  André, L. _See_ Bourgeois, E.

  Andree, R. Nationalitätsverhältnisse und Sprachgrenze in Böhmen.
  _Ver. Erdk._, Leipzig, 1869, pp. 51-88.

  Andree, R. Die Grenzen der niederdeutschen Sprache. _Globus_,
  Vol. 59, 1891, pp. 29-31, 41-43.

  Andree, R. Die Völkergrenzen in Frankreich. _Globus_, Vol. 36,
  1879, pp. 6-10, 25-29.

  Andree, R. Das Sprachgebiet der Lausitzer Wenden. 1550-1872.
  _Pet. Mitt._, 1873, map 17.

  Andrié, A. Geschichte des Fürstentums Montenegro. Vienna, 1853.

  Annuaire International de Statistique, I: État de la Population
  (Europe). _Office Permanent de l’Institut International de
  Statistique._ The Hague, 1916.

  Ascoli, G. I. Saggi ladini. _Archivio glottologico italiano._
  Rome, 1873.

  Auerbach, B. Les Races et les Nationalités en Autriche-Hongrie.
  Paris, 1898.

  Auerbach, B. La Germanisation de la Pologne Prussienne. La loi
  d’expropriation. _Rev. Politique et Parlementaire_, Vol. 57,
  juillet 1908, pp. 109-125.

  Babelon, E. La grande Question d’Occident. Le Rhin dans
  l’histoire, Vols. 1 and 2, Paris, 1915.

  Bain, R. N. Scandinavia, A Political History of Denmark, Norway
  and Sweden, 1513-1900. Cambridge, 1905.

  Balkan Wars, Causes and Conduct of the, Report of the
  International Commission to inquire into the. _Carnegie Endowment
  for International Peace_, Publ. No. 4, Washington, 1914.

  Baragiola, A. La Casa Villereccia delle colonie tedesche del
  gruppo Carnico. Sappada, Sauris e Timau con raffronti delle
  zone contermini italiana ed austriaca Carnia, Cadore, Zoldano,
  Agordino, Carintia e Tirolo. Peregrazioni folkloriche. Padua,
  1915.

  Barker, J. Ellis. The Foundations of Germany. London, 1916.

  Battisti, C. Il Trentino. Novara, 1915.

  Beauvois, E. La nationalité du Slesvig. Paris, 1864.

  Bernhard, L. Das polnische Gemeinwesen im preussischen Staat. Die
  Polenfrage, Leipzig, 1910.

  Bidermann, W. Die Nationalitäten in Tirol und die wechselnden
  Schicksale ihrer Verbreitung. _Forsch. z. deuts. Landes- und
  Volkskande._ Vol. 1.

  Bielenstein, A. J. G. Die Grenzen des lettischen Volksstammes und
  der lettischen Sprache. Petrograd, 1892.

  Blanchard, R. La Flandre. Paris, 1906.

  Blocher, E., u. E. Garraux. Die deutschen Ortsnamenformen der
  Westschweiz. _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 5, 1906, p. 170.

  Block, M. L’Ile de France. (Les pays autours de Paris.) Paris,
  1913.

  Boeckh, R. Die Sprachgrenze in Belgien. _Zeits. für allgemeine
  Erdkunde_, Berlin, Vol. 3, 1882, pp. 80-97.

  Bonmariage, A. La Russie d’Europe. Brussels, 1903.

  Boué, A. Ethnographische Karte des Osmanischen Reichs,
  1:3,800,000. Gotha, 1847 and 1855.

  Boulger, Demetrius C. A History of Belgium. 2 vols. London,
  1902-1909.

  Bourgeois, E., et André, L. Les sources de l’histoire de France
  XVII^{me} siècle (1610-1715), Vol. 1. Géographie et histoire
  générale. Paris, 1913.

  Bourgoing, P. de. Les guerres d’idiome et de nationalité. Paris,
  1849.

  Bourlier, L. Les Tchèques et la Bohême contemporaine. Paris, 1897.

  Bowley, A. L. The Nature and Purpose of the Measurement of Social
  Phenomena. London, 1915.

  Braemer, K. Nationalität und Sprache im Königreiche Belgien.
  _Forsch. z. deuts. Landes- und Volkskunde._ Vol. 2, 1887.

  Brancoff, D. M. La Macédoine et sa population Chrétienne. Paris,
  1905.

  Brilliant, O. Roumania. New York, 1915.

  Bringuier, O., et De Tourloulon, Ch. Étude sur la limite
  géographique de la langue d’oc et de la langue d’oïl. Paris, 1876.

  Brunhes, J. La Géographie humaine. Paris, 1912.

  Bürchner, L. Die neue griechisch-albanische Grenze in Nordepirus.
  _Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 61, 1915, pp. 68-69.

  Burileanu. Romînĭ din trumghiul Vallona-Ardenita-Berat. _Bull.
  Soc. Geogr. Româńă_, Vol. 27, 1906, pp. 39-63.

  Cambridge Modern History, Vol. XI, The Growth of Nationalities.
  Cambridge, 1909.

  Chamberlain, H. S. The Foundations of the XIXth Century. London,
  1915.

  Chantre, E. Les Kurdes, esquisse historique et ethnographique.
  _Bull. Soc. Anthropol._, Lyon, 1897.

  Charriaut, H. La Belgique Moderne. Paris, 1910. (Chap. III, La
  situation respective des langues.)

  Cherubim, C. Flüsse als Grenzen von Staaten und Nationen in
  Mitteleuropa. Halle, 1897.

  Chervin, A. L’Autriche et la Hongrie de demain. Paris, 1915.

  Choroszewski, W. Mapa jezykowa i wyznaniowa Galicji. Lemberg,
  1911.

  Clare, C. L. The Brenner Pass. London, 1912.

  Clerget, P. La Suisse au XXI^{me} siècle. Paris, 1908.

  Clerget, P. Le Peuplement de la Suisse. _Bull. Soc. Roy. Belge de
  Géogr._, Vol. 30, 1906, pp. 73-97.

  Colleoni, C. Cima Dodici. Vicenza, 1910.

  Coussange, Jacques. La Scandinavie, le nationalisme scandinave.
  Paris, 1914.

  Cromer, Earl. Political and Literary Essays. London, 1916.

  Cumont, F. Comment la Belgique fut romanisée. Brussels, 1914.

  Cunningham, W. Western Civilization in its Economic Aspects.
  Vols. 1 and 2. Cambridge, 1913.

  Curzon, Lord. Frontiers--The Romanes Lecture. Oxford, 1907.

  Cust, R. N. Linguistic and Oriental Essays. London, 1891.

  Cvijić, J. L’annexion de la Bosnie et la Question Serbe. Paris,
  1909.

  Cvijić, J. Remarques sur l’ethnographie de la Macédoine. _Ann. de
  Géogr._, Vol. 15, 1906.

  Dascovici, N. La Question du Bosphore et des Dardanelles. Geneva,
  1915.

  De Backer, L. La Langue flamande en France. Ghent, 1893.

  Dedijer, Jevto. La Transhumance dans les pays dinariques. _Ann.
  de Géogr._, Vol. 26, 1916, pp. 347-365.

  De Gourmont, R. La Belgique Littéraire. Paris, 1916.

  De Launay, L. La Bulgarie d’hier et de demain. Paris, 1912.

  De Lucchi, G. Trentino e Tirolo. _Bull. No. 16, Ministero d.
  Affari Esteri_, Rome, 1915.

  Demartean. Le Flamand, le Wallon, etc., Liége, 1889.

  De Martonne, E. La Valachie. Paris, 1902.

  De Martonne, E. Recherches sur la Distribution Géographique de la
  population en Valachie. _Bull. Soc. Geogr. Rom._, Vol. 23, 1902.
  La Roumanie et son rôle dans l’Europe Orientale. _La Géogr._,
  Vol. 30, 1914-1915.

  Denecke, T. Belgien und Nordfrankreich. Hamburg, 1915.

  De Romanet, le Vicomte. Les Provinces de la France. Paris, 1913.

  De Tourloulon, Ch., et Bringuier, O. Étude sur la limite
  géographique de la langue d’oc et de la langue d’oïl. Paris, 1876.

  Diamandy, V. Statistica comunelor românesti din Turcia. _Bull.
  Soc. Geogr. Rom._, Vol. 25, 1904, pp. 136-147.

  Drachmann, P. The Industrial Development and Commercial Policies
  of the Three Scandinavian Countries. Oxford, 1915.

  Ensor, R. C. K. Belgium. New York, 1915.

  Erdeljanović, J. Broj Srba i Khrvata. Belgrade, 1911.

  Evans, A. The Adriatic Slavs and the Overland Route to
  Constantinople. _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 47, 1916, pp. 241-265.

  Eversley, Lord. The Partition of Poland. New York, 1915.

  Fayle, C. E. The Great Settlement. London, 1915.

  Fedortchouk, Y. Memorandum on the Ukrainian Question in its
  National Aspect. London, 1914.

  Flodströf, I. Till frågån om rasskillnader inom Sverifes
  befolkning. _Ymer_, 1915, pp. 213-266.

  Forbes, Nevill. The Balkans, a History of Bulgaria, Serbia,
  Greece, Rumania, Turkey. By Nevill Forbes, Arnold J. Toynbee, D.
  Mitrany, D. G. Hogarth. Oxford, 1915.

  Franchi, A. Cittá Sorelle. Milan, 1916.

  Freeman, E. A. The Historical Geography of Europe. London, 1903.
  Historical Essays. London, 1871.

  Freshfield, D. W. The Southern Frontiers of Austria. _Geogr.
  Journ._, Dec. 1915.

  Friederichsen, Prof. Dr. Max. Die Grenzmarken des Europäischen
  Russlands. Hamburg, 1915.

  Galanti, A. I Tedeschi Sul versante meridionale delle Alpi. Rome,
  1885.

  Garnier, Ch. Note sur la répartition des langues dans les Alpes
  occidentales. _Rev. de Géogr._, Vol. 40, 1897, pp. 6-12.

  Gasselin, L. La Question du Schleswig-Holstein. Paris, 1909.

  Gayda, V. Modern Austria, Her Racial and Social Problems. New
  York, 1915.

  Geiser, Alfred. Deutsches Reich u. Volk. Munich, 1910.

  Gerland, G. Atlas der Völkerkunde. Gotha.

  Gibert, F. Les pays d’Albanie et leur histoire. Paris, 1914.

  Gillieron et Edmont. Atlas Linguistique de la France. Paris.

  Gjerset, K. History of the Norwegian People. New York, 1915.

  Gonzaga, C. V. A. La questione delle Lingue in Austria. _Boll.
  del Ministro degli Affari Esteri._ Rome, 1900.

  Grant, M. The Passing of the Great Race. New York, 1916.

  Gröber, G. Grundriss der Romanischen Philologie. Strassburg,
  1904-1906.

  Guérard, Albert Léon. French Civilization in the Nineteenth
  Century. New York, 1914.

  Guizot, M. Histoire de la Civilisation en Europe. Paris, 1866.

  Guttry, A. Die Polen und der Weltkrieg. Munich, 1915.

  Guyot, Y. The Causes and Consequences of the War. London, 1916.

  Guyot, Y. La Province Rhénane et la Westphalie. Paris, 1915.

  Hanotaux, G. Contemporary France. Vols. 1-4. New York.

  Hansen, R. Die Sprachgrenzen in Schleswig. _Globus_, Vol. 61,
  1892, pp. 376-380.

  Hayes, C. A Political and Social History of Modern Europe. Vols.
  1 and 2. New York, 1916.

  Heinz, Wilhelm. Das Ansiedlungsgebiet des Vereines Südmark.
  _Deutsche Erde_, 1914-1915, pp. 110-131.

  Henry, R. La frontière linguistique en Alsace-Lorraine. _Les
  Marches de l’Est_, 1911-1912, pp. 60-71.

  Hertslet, E. The Map of Europe by Treaty. London, 1875.

  Hill, N. Poland and the Polish Question. London, 1915.

  Hills, Major E. H. The Geography of International Frontiers.
  _Geogr. Journ._, Vol. 28, 1906, p. 145.

  Himly. Formation territoriale des États de l’Europe centrale.
  Vols. 1 and 2. Paris, 1894.

  Hodgkin, T. Italy and her Invaders. Vols. 1-8. Oxford, 1880-1899.

  Hogarth, D. G. The Balkans, a History of Bulgaria, Serbia,
  Greece, Rumania, Turkey. By Nevill Forbes, Arnold J. Toynbee, D.
  Mitrany, D. G. Hogarth. Oxford, 1915.

  Holdrich, T. H. Political Frontiers and Boundary Making. London,
  1916.

  Howe, E. S. A Thousand Years of Russian History. Philadelphia,
  1915.

  Hunfalvy, P. Die Ungern oder Magyaren. Vienna, 1881.

  Huntington, E. Palestine and its Transformation. New York, 1911.

  Iorga, N. Histoire des Roumains de Transylvanie et de Hongrie.
  Bucarest, 1915. Histoire des états balcaniques à l’époque
  moderne. Bucarest, 1914.

  Italian Green Book, The. London, 1915.

  Jalla, J. Les Vallées vaudoises sous le règne de Charles Emanuel.
  1º jusqu’à l’Édit de Nantes et au Traité de Vervins, 1580-1598.
  Torre Pellice, 1916.

  Jansen, C., u. Samwer, K. Schleswig-Holsteins Befreiung.
  Wiesbaden, 1897.

  Jastrow, Jr., Morris. The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria.
  Philadelphia, 1915.

  Jessen, F. de. La Question du Sleswig. 1906.

  Joerg, W. L. G. The New Boundaries of the Balkan States and their
  Significance. _Bull. Am. Geogr. Soc._, Vol. 45, 1913, pp. 819-830.

  Jonquière, A. de la. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1914.

  Jorgenson. La Question dano-allemande. Copenhagen, 1900.

  Kalken, F. V. Histoire du Royaume des Pays-Bas et de la
  Révolution Belge de 1830. Brussels, 1914.

  Keane, A. H. Man, Past and Present. Cambridge, 1899.

  Kluchevsky, V. O. A History of Russia. Translated by C. J.
  Hogarth. New York, 1911.

  Koch, C. G. de. Histoire abrégée des Traités de Paix entre les
  Puissances de l’Europe depuis la Paix de Westphalia. Brussels,
  1837.

  Krehbiel, E. B. Nationalism, War and Society. New York, 1916.

  Kurth, G. La Frontière linguistique en Belgique et dans le
  Nord de la France. Mém. couronnés. _Acad. R. Sci. Lettres et
  Beaux-Arts de Belgique_, Vol. 48, Brussels, 1895-1898.

  Kurth, G. La nationalité belge. Brussels, 1913.

  Lambrecht, N. Preussische Wallonie. Essen a. Ruhr, 1909.

  Lamy, Étienne. La France du Levant. Paris, 1900.

  Langenbeck, R. Die Burgundische Pforte. _Pet. Mitt._, Vol. 61,
  1915, pp. 49-55.

  Larmeroux, J. L’Autriche-Hongrie au Congrès de Berlin, 1878.
  Paris, 1915.

  Latham, R. G. Nationalities of Europe. London, 1863.

  Lavisse, E., et Rambaud, A. Histoire générale du IV^{me} siècle
  jusqu’à nos jours. Paris, 1896.

  Lazar, V. Die Südrumänen der Turkei und der angrenzenden Länder.
  Bucarest, 1910.

  Leaf, W. Troy, a Study in Homeric Geography. London, 1912.

  Leclercq, Jules. La Finlande aux mille Lacs. Paris, 1914.

  Lefeuvre-Méaulle, H. La Grèce économique et financière. Paris,
  1916.

  Lefèvre, A. Germains et Slaves. Paris, 1903.

  Lessiak, Dr. Primus. Zwei deutsche Sprachinseln in Friaul: Bladen
  und die Jahre. _Deutsche Erde_, 1914-1915, pp. 110-131.

  Lethbridge, Alan. The New Russia. New York, 1916.

  Lippmann, W. Stakes of Diplomacy. New York, 1915.

  Löffler, E. Dänemarks Natur und Volk. Copenhagen, 1905.

  Longnon, A. Origines et formation de la Nationalité française.
  Paris.

  Louis-Jarau, G. L’Albanie Inconnue. Paris, 1913.

  Lowell, A. L. Governments and Parties in Continental Europe.
  Cambridge, 1915.

  Lyde, L. W. The Continent of Europe. London, 1913. Some Frontiers
  of Tomorrow, an Aspiration for Europe. London, 1915.

  MacDonnell, J. de C. Belgium, Her Kings, Kingdom and People.
  London, 1914.

  Maranelli, Carlo. Dizionario Geografico dell’ alto del Trentino,
  della Venezia Giulia e della Dalmazia. Bari, 1915.

  Marriott, J. A. R., and Roberston, C. G. The Evolution of
  Prussia: the Making of an Empire. Oxford, 1915.

  Massart, J. Belgians under the German Eagle. London, 1916.

  Mavor, James. An Economic History of Russia. New York, 1916.

  May, G. Le Traité de Francfort. Paris, 1910.

  Mazere, N. Harta etnografica a Transilvaniei. 1:340,000. Iasi,
  1909. Supliment la harta Transilvaniei. Iasi, 1909.

  Meillet, A. Le Problème de la Parenté des Langues. Bologna, 1914.

  Meillet, A. De la Légitimité de la Linguistique Historique.
  Bologna, 1913.

  Meillet, A. Introduction à l’Étude Comparative des Langues
  Indo-Européennes. Paris, 1915.

  Meillet, A. Les Langues et les Nationalités. _Scientia._ Sept.
  1915.

  Mellor, E. W. The Wendish Baltic Ports of the Hanseatic League.
  _Journ. Manchester Geogr. Soc._, Vol. 19, 1903, pp. 125-150.

  Menant, J. Les Yézidis. Paris, 1892.

  Meyer, C. Geschichte des Landes Posen. Posen, 1881.

  Mitrany, D. The Balkans, a History of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece,
  Rumania, Turkey. By Nevill Forbes, Arnold J. Toynbee, D. Mitrany,
  D. G. Hogarth. Oxford, 1915.

  Morf, H. Deutsche und Romanen in der Schweiz. Zürich, 1901.

  Morgan, J. de. Les Premières Civilisations. Paris, 1909.

  Moysset, H. La Politique de la Prusse et les Polonais. _Rev. des
  Deux Mondes_, Vol. 48, 1908, pp. 108-138; and pp. 519-550.

  Müller, M. Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas.
  London, 1888.

  Nabert, H. Verbreitung der Deutschen in Europa. 1:925,000. Glogau.

  Newbigin, M. I. Geographical Aspects of Balkan Problems in their
  Relation to the Great European War. London, 1915.

  Newbigin, M. I. Italy and the Adriatic. _The Scot. Geogr. Mag._,
  Oct. 1916, pp. 466-477.

  Niederle, L. La Race Slave. Paris, 1911. Slovansky Svet. Prague,
  1910.

  Nitsch, C. Dialectology of Polish Languages. Polish Encyclopædia,
  Vol. 3. Cracow, 1915.

  Norges Land og Folk, topografisk statistik beskrevet.
  Christiania, 1898-1915.

  Oestreich, Karl. Die Bevölkerung von Makedonien. _Sonderabdruck
  aus der Geographischen Zeitschrift._

  Osborne, H. F. Men of the Old Stone Age. New York, 1916.

  Otlet, Paul. Les Problèmes internationaux et la Guerre. Paris,
  1916.

  Pais, E. Ancient Italy. Chicago, 1908.

  Partsch, J. Schlesien. Breslau, 1896.

  Pernice, A. Origine ed evoluzione storica delle Nazioni
  balcaniche. Milan, 1915.

  Perrier, E. France et Allemagne. Paris, 1915.

  Petrovich, W. M. Serbia: Her People, History and Aspirations.
  London, 1915.

  Pfaundler, R. von. Oesterreichisch-Italienische Grenzfragen.
  _Pet. Mitt._, June 1915.

  Pfister, Ch. La limite de la langue française et de la langue
  allemande en Alsace-Lorraine. Considérations historiques. _Bull.
  Soc. Géogr. de l’Est_, Vol. 12, 1890.

  Phillips, W. A. Poland. New York, 1916.

  Pirenne, H. Belgian Democracy: Its Early History. Manchester,
  1915.

  Pirenne, H. Bibliographie de l’histoire de Belgique. Brussels,
  1902.

  Pirenne, H. Histoire de Belgique. Vols. 1-4. Brussels, 1900-1911.

  Pittard, E. Les Peuples de la Péninsule des Balkans. _Rev. Gen.
  des Sciences_, 1915, pp. 665-675.

  Pittard, E. Dans la Dobrodja. Geneva, 1902.

  Plazanet, Gal. Essai d’une Carte des Patois du Midi. _Rev. Soc.
  Géogr. Comm._, Vol. 39, Bordeaux, 1913.

  Prontuario dei nomi locali dell’ Alto Adige. _Mem. Real. Soc.
  Geogr. Italiana_, Vol. 15, Part I, Rome, 1916.

  Rambaud, A. Histoire de la Russie depuis les origines jusqu’à nos
  jours. Paris, 1914.

  Ranke, L. Weltgeschichte. Leipsig, 1881-1888.

  Ratzel, F. Politische Geographie. Munich, 1903.

  Rauchberg, H. Sprachenkarte von Böhmen. Vienna, 1905.

  Reade, A. Finland and the Finns. New York, 1915.

  Revelli, P. L’Adriatico e il dominio del Mediterraneo Orientale.
  _Riv. Geogr. Ital._, Feb.-March 1916, pp. 91-113.

  Reyman, E. J. Die Weichsel als Wasserstrasse. Warsaw, 1912.

  Reynard, L. Histoire Générale de l’influence française en
  Allemagne. Paris, 1915.

  Richardson, R. The Ethnology of Austria-Hungary. _Scot. Geogr.
  Mag._, Vol. 22, 1906, pp. 1-9.

  Rieden, J. Das Schwäbische Bauernhaus. _Deut. Alpenzeitung_, Nov.
  1915.

  Rignano, E. Les Facteurs de la Guerre et le Problème de la Paix.
  _Scientia._ Vol. 18, 1915, pp. 1-47.

  Ripley, W. Z. The Races of Europe. New York, 1899.

  Robertson, C. G. _See_ Marriott.

  Roquette-Buisson (de). Du principe des nationalités. Paris, 1895.

  Rosen, Dr. H. Die ethnographischen Verhältnisse in den baltischen
  Provinzen und in Litauen. _Pet. Mitt._, 1915, pp. 329-333.

  Rosendal, G. Snderjylland. 11 Kort. Odense, 1912.

  Rose, J. H. The Future of Europe. _Scientia_, Vol. 19, 1916, pp.
  1-11.

  Rosi, M. Storia politica d’Europa dopo la pace di Vienna. Milan,
  1914-1916.

  Sach, L. Das Herzogtum Schleswig-Holstein in seiner
  ethnographischen und nationalen Entwicklung. Halle, 1896.

  Samassa, P. Deutsche u. Windische in Sudösterreich. _Deutsche
  Erde_, Vol. 2, 1903, pp. 39-41.

  Sands, B. The Ukraine. London, 1914.

  Saxen, R. Répartition des langues. _Fennia_, Vol. 30, 1910-1911.
  Atlas de Finlande, Carte No. 46. Helsingfors, 1911.

  Schlesinger. Das Deutsch-böhmische Sprachgebiet nach der letzten
  Volkszählung. Vienna, 1894.

  Schlüter, O. Die Siedelungen in nordöstlicher Thüringen. Berlin,
  1903.

  Schneller. Deutsche und Romanen in Südtirol u. Venetien. _Pet.
  Mitt._, 1877, pp. 365-385.

  Schrader, F., F. Prudent et E. Anthoine. Atlas de Géographie
  Moderne. Paris, 1908.

  Semple, E. C. Influences of Geographic Environment. New York,
  1911.

  Sergi, G. Europa--L’origine dei popoli europei e loro relazioni
  coi popoli d’Africa, d’Asia e d’Oceania. Rome, 1908.

  Seymour, C. The Diplomatic Background of the War 1870-1914. New
  Haven, 1916.

  Shedd, Wm. A. The Syrians of Persia and Turkey. _Bull. Amer.
  Geogr. Soc._, Vol. 35, 1903.

  Sirianu, R. La Question de Transylvanie et l’Unité Politique
  Roumaine. Paris, 1916.

  Smirnov, J. Les Populations Finnoises des Bassins de la Volga et
  de la Kama. Paris, 1898.

  Songeon, R. P. Guérin. Histoire de la Bulgarie. Paris, 1913.

  Stade, Paul. Das Deutschtum gegenüber den Polen in Ost- und
  Westpreussen nach den Sprachzählungen von 1861, 1890 und 1900.
  Berlin, 1908.

  Statistique de la Belgique. Recensement général de 1910, Vol. 2
  (1912), Vol. 3 (1913), Brussels.

  Stephen, H. M. Nationality and History. _The Amer. Hist. Rev._,
  Jan. 1916.

  Stourdza, A. La Terre et la Race Roumaines. Paris, 1904. La
  Roumanie et les Roumains. Paris, 1910.

  Supan, A. Die Bevölkerung der Erde: Europa. _Ergänzungsh._ No.
  163 zu _Pet. Mitt._, Gotha, 1909.

  Switzerland. Atlas graphique et statistique de la Suisse.
  Département Fédéral de l’Intérieur. Berne, 1914.

  Sybel, H. von. Die Begründung des deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm
  I. Oldenbourg, 1895.

  Sykes, M. The Caliph’s Last Heritage: a Short History of the
  Turkish Empire. London, 1915.

  Sykes, P. M. A History of Persia. London, 1915.

  Szinnyei, J. Finnisch-ugrische Sprachwissenschaft. 1910.

  Tabbé, P. La Vivante Roumanie. Paris, 1913.

  Talko-Hryncewicz, J. Polacy Królestwa Polskiego w świetle
  dotychczasowych badau. _B. int. Ac. Sc. Cracovie, Classe des Sc.
  math. et nat., B. Sc. nat._, 1912, pp. 574-584.

  Teutsch, F. Die Art der Ansiedelung der Siebenbürger Sachsen.
  _Forsch. z. deuts. Landes- u. Volkskunde_, Vol. 9, 1896, pp. 1-22.

  This, G. Die deutsch-französische Sprachgrenze in Lothringen.
  _Beiträge z. Landes- und Volkskunde von Elsass-Lothringen_, Vol.
  1, Strassburg, 1887;--Die deutsch-französische Sprachgrenze in
  Elsass, _Ibid._, 1888.

  Touchard, G. Les langues parlées en Belgique. _Le Mouv. Géogr._,
  1913, pp. 226-229.

  Toynbee, Arnold J. The Balkans, a History of Bulgaria, Serbia,
  Greece, Rumania, Turkey. By Nevill Forbes, Arnold J. Toynbee, D.
  Mitrany, D. G. Hogarth. Oxford, 1915.

  Troïnitsky, N. Premier recensement général de population de
  l’Empire de la Russie 1897. Petrograd, 1905.

  Tsanoff, R. A. Bulgaria’s Rôle in the Balkans. _Journ. of Race
  Development_, Jan. 1915.

  Vallaux, Camille. Le Sol et l’État, Géographie Sociale. Paris,
  1911.

  Van der Essen, L. A Short History of Belgium. Chicago, 1915.

  Veress, A. Acta et Epistolae Relationum Transylvaniae
  Hungariaeque cum Moldavia et Valachia. Vienna, 1915.

  Vidal de la Blache, P. États et Nations de l’Europe. Paris, 1889.

  Vidal de la Blache, P. Évolution de la population en
  Alsace-Lorraine et dans les départements limitrophes. _Ann. de
  Géogr._, Vol. 25, 1916, pp. 97-115.

  Vidal de la Blache, P. La France, Tableau géographique. Paris,
  1908.

  Vinogradoff, Paul. Self-Government in Russia. New York, 1916.

  Wace, A. J. B., and Thompson, M. S. The Nomads of the Balkans.
  London, 1914.

  Wallis, B. C. Distribution of Nationalities in Hungary. _Geogr.
  Journ._, Vol. 47, 1916, pp. 177-189.

  Ward, A. W. Germany: 1815-1890, Vol. 1. 1815-1852. Cambridge,
  1916.

  Warker, Nikolaus. Die deutschen Orts- und Gewässernamen der
  belgischen Provinz Luxemburg. _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 8, 1909, pp.
  99-104.

  Waultrin, M. R. Le rapprochement Dano-Allemand et la question du
  Schleswig. _Ann. Sc. Pol._, 1903.

  Weigand. Linguistischer Atlas. Leipzig, 1909.

  Weill, G. L’Alsace Française de 1789 à 1870. Paris, 1916.

  Whitney, W. D. Language and the Study of Language. New York, 1867.

  Whitney, W. D. Oriental and Linguistic Studies. New York, 1873.

  Wichdorff, H. V. Masuren. Berlin, 1915.

  Wiklund, K. B. Språken i Finland, 1880-1900. _Ymer_, 1905, pp.
  132-149.

  Wissocq, E. de. L’âme Flamande. _Bull. Soc. Normande de
  Géographie_, 1912, pp. 97-135.

  Witte, Hans. Das deutsche Sprachgebiet Lothringens und seine
  Wandelungen von der Feststellung der Sprachgrenze bis zum Ausgang
  des 16. Jahrhunderts. _Forsch. z. deuts. Landes- und Volkskunde_,
  Vol. 8, 1894.--Zur Geschichte des Deutschtums im Elsass und im
  Vogesengebiet, _Ibid._, Vol. 19, 1897.

  Witte, H. Wendische Bevölkerungsreste in Mecklenburg. _Forsch. z.
  deuts. Landes- und Volkskunde_, Vol. 16, 1905, p. 124.

  Woods, H. C. Communications in the Balkans. _Geogr. Journ._, Vol.
  47, 1916, pp. 265-293.

  Wutte, M. Das Deutschtum im Österreichischen Küstenland.
  _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 8, 1909, pp. 202, 229.

  Xénopol, A. D. Les Roumains au Moyen-Âge. Paris, 1885. Histoire
  des Roumains de la Dacie Trajane. Paris, 1896.

  Zaborowski, S. Les Peuples aryens d’Asie et d’Europe. Paris, 1908.

  Zemmrich, J. Deutschen und Slawen in den österreichischen
  Südetenländern. _Deutsche Erde_, Vol. 2, 1903, pp. 1-4.

  Zemmrich, J. Sprachgrenze und Deutschtum in Böhmen. Brunswick,
  1902.

  Zimmerli, J. Die deutsch-französische Sprachgrenze in der
  Schweiz; I. Teil, Die Schweiz. _Forsch. z. deuts. Landes- und
  Volkskunde_, Vol. 8, 1894.

  Zimmerli, J. Die deutsch-französische Sprachgrenze in der
  Schweiz; I. Teil, Die Sprachgrenze im Jura. Basel, 1891. II.
  Teil, Die Sprachgrenze im Mittellande, in den Freiburger,
  Waadtländer und Berner Alpen, _Ibid._, 1895. III. Teil, Die
  Sprachgrenze im Wallis, _Ibid._, 1899.

  Zsigmond, B. A Magyar Szentkorona országainak néprajzi iskolai
  fali Térképe. 1:600,000. Budapest, 1909.




APPENDIX E

KEY TO PLACE NAMES


  Aa, river, lat. 51°, Pl. I.
  Abanj, town, lat. 48° 50′, Fig. 48.
  Abbateggio, town, lat. 42° 14′, Fig. 33.
  Abruzzi, province, lat. 42°, Fig. 33.
  Abullonia, lake, south of Moudania, lat. 40° 12′, Pl. VII.
  Acquaviva, town, lat. 40° 53′, Fig. 33.
  Ada Bazar, town, lat. 40° 45′, Pl. VII.
  Adalia, town and bay, lat. 36° 53′, Pl. V.
  Adana, town, lat. 37°, Pl. V.
  Aden, gulf of, lat. 12° 46′. _See_ inset map:
      “Extension of the Hejaz line toward Mecca.” Pl. V.
  Adige, valley, lat. 45° 40′, Figs. 30, 67.
  Adrianople, town, lat. 41° 41′, Fig. 47.
  Adriatic, sea, Pl. IX. See also Figs. 47, 48.
  Ægean, sea, Pl. V.
  Agaro, district, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Aidin, town, lat. 37° 48′, Pl. V.
  Aire, town, lat. 50° 38′, Pl. I.
  Ala, town, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 30.
  Alagna, village, lat. 45° 52′, Fig. 22.
  Aland, isds., lat. 60° 15′, Pl. IX.
  Albania, state, lat. 41°, Fig. 53.
  Albula, river, lat. 46° 40′, Fig. 67.
  Aleppo, town, lat. 36° 10′, Pl. V, VI, VII.
  Alexandretta, town, lat. 36° 35′, Pl. V, VI, VII.
  Alghero, town, lat. 40° 40′, Fig. 43.
  Allenstein, town, lat. 53° 45′, Fig. 38.
  Alpes-Maritimes, dept., lat. 43° 45′, Fig. 22.
  Alsace, province, lat. 48° 50′, Pl. II, IX.
  Amasia, town, lat. 40° 39′, Pl. VII.
  Anderlecht (Brussels), lat. 50° 51′, Fig. 14.
  Andermatten, village (Italian: La Chiesa), lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 22.
  Andreasfalva, town, lat. 47° 50′, Fig. 44.
  Angeln, mts., 54° 35′, Fig. 35.
  Angora, town, lat. 39° 56′, Pl. V, VII.
  Anniviers, valley, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 18.
  Antigorio, val., lat. 46° 10′, Fig. 22.
  Antioch, town, lat. 36° 10′ Pl. VII.
  Antivari, town, lat. 42° 8′, Fig. 53.
  Aosta, town, lat. 45° 44′, Pl. IX, Fig. 22.
  Aquitaine, region, lat. 44° 50′, Fig. 3.
  Arad, town, lat. 46° 13′, Fig. 48.
  Arax, river, lat. 39° 27′, Pl. VII.
  Arghana, town, lat. 38° 25′, Pl. V.
  Argyrocastro, district, lat. 40° 7′, Fig. 53.
  Arlon, town, lat. 49° 42′, Pl. I.
  Armenia, province, Pl. VII, VIII.
  Armentières, town, lat. 50° 43′, Pl. I.
  Armorica, region, lat. 48° 10′, Fig. 3.
  Arnfels, town, lat. 46° 42′, Fig. 31.
  Arnsberg, town, lat. 51° 24′, Fig. 7.
  Arta, river, lat. 39° 20′, Fig. 53.
  Asiago, town, lat. 45° 52′, Fig. 30.
  Aspropotamos, river, lat. 39° 22′, Fig. 53.
  Astico, river, lat. 45° 40′, Fig. 25.
  Augsburg, town, lat. 48° 52′, Pl. IX, Fig. 30.
  Augustow, town, lat. 53° 30′, Fig. 38.

  Baden, grand duchy, lat. 48° 30′, Fig. 7.
  Bagdad, town, lat. 33° 21′, Pl. V.
  Balearic, isds., lat. 39°, Fig. 43.
  Banat, province, lat. 45° 53′, Fig. 38.
  Bären Kopf, mt., lat. 47° 47′, Pl. II.
  Bars, town, lat. 48° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Basra, town, lat. 30° 30′, Pl. V.
  Bautzen, town, lat. 51° 11′, Fig. 41.
  Bavaria, kingdom, lat. 49°, Fig. 7.
  Beaulard, town, lat. 45° 3′, Fig. 21.
  Becherek, town, lat. 45° 27′, Fig. 48.
  Beirut, town, lat. 33° 54′, Pl. V.
  Belcamen, town, lat. 40° 40′, Fig. 53.
  Belfort, town, lat. 47° 38′, Pl. II, Fig. 18.
  Belgrade, town, lat. 44° 47′, Pl. IX.
  Belluno, town, lat. 46° 8′, Fig. 67.
  Benkovac, town, lat. 44° 2′, Fig. 48.
  Berane, town, lat. 42° 47′, Fig. 53.
  Berat, town, lat. 40° 43′, Fig. 53.
  Bereg, town, lat. 47°, Fig. 38.
  Beskid, mts., lat. 49° 30′, Pl. IV.
  Bessarabia, province, lat. 47° 20′, Pl. III.
  Bévéra, valley, lat. 43° 50′, Fig. 22.
  Bielostok, town, lat. 53° 10′, Pl. IV.
  Bielsk, town, lat. 52° 50′, Pl. IV.
  Bienne, town, lat. 47° 9′, Fig. 18.
  Birnbaum, town, lat. 52° 37′, Pl. IV.
  Bistritza, valley, lat. 40° 30′, Fig. 53.
  Black Drin, river, lat. 42°, Fig. 53.
  Black Forest, mountain region, lat. 48° 20′, Fig. 7.
  Blatza, town, lat. 40° 31′, Fig. 53.
  Böhmerwald, mt., lat. 49° 0′, Fig. 48.
  Bohtan, river, lat. 38°, Pl. VII.
  Boitsfort, town, lat. 50° 48′, Fig. 14.
  Bolchen, town, lat. 49° 10′, Pl. II.
  Boli, town, lat. 40° 45′, Pl. V.
  Bolzano, (Bozen), town, lat. 46° 30′, Figs. 30, 67.
  Bomst, town, lat. 52° 12′, Pl. IV.
  Bosnia, province, lat. 44° 20′, Fig. 48.
  Bothnia, gulf, lat. 62°, Fig. 38.
  Botzen, (Bozen), town, lat. 46° 30′, Figs. 30, 67.
  Boulogne, town, lat. 50° 43′, Pl. I.
  Bousson, town, lat. 44° 55′, Fig. 21.
  Boyana, river, lat. 41° 52′, Fig. 53.
  Brandenburg, province, lat. 52° 26′, Fig. 7.
  Branjevo, town, lat. 44° 40′, Fig. 48.
  Bredizza, town, lat. 41° 50′, Fig. 53.
  Brenner, pass, lat. 47° 3′, Fig. 30.
  Brenta, river, lat. 45° 26′, Fig. 25.
  Breslau, town, lat. 51° 6′, Pl. IV.
  Bressanone, town, _see_ Brixen.
  Briançon, town, lat. 44° 50′, Fig. 21.
  Brieg, town, lat. 50° 50′, Pl. IV.
  Brittany, province, lat. 48° 20′, Fig. 3.
  Brixen, town, lat. 46° 41′, Fig. 30.
  Bromberg, town, lat. 53° 7′, Pl. IV.
  Broye, river, lat. 46° 45′, Fig. 18.
  Bruche, river, lat. 48° 30′, Pl. II.
  Bruneco, town, lat. 46° 51′, Fig. 30.
  Brusa, town, lat. 40° 11′, Pl. V.
  Brüx, town, lat. 50° 33′, Fig. 48.
  Buccari, bay, lat. 45° 18′, Fig. 48.
  Budapest, lat. 47° 29′, Pl. IX.
  Bukovina, province, lat. 48° 0′, Fig. 44.
  Bukschoja, town, lat. 47° 37′, Fig. 44.
  Burgundian lands, (_see_ Burgundy), lat. 47°, Fig. 3.
  Busi, is., lat. 43° 8′, Fig. 48.

  Cairo, city, lat. 30° 2′, Pl. V.
  Calliano, town, lat. 45° 56′, Fig. 30.
  Canza, village, lat. 46° 25′, Fig. 22.
  Carinthia, lat. 47°, Pl. III.
  Carniola, province, lat. 45° 58′, Fig. 48, Pl. III.
  Carpathian Mts., lat. 48° 30′, Pl. IV.
  Cascanditella, town, lat. 42° 16′, Fig. 33.
  Casotto, town, lat. 45° 53′, Fig. 67.
  Cattaro, town, lat. 42° 23′, Fig. 48.
  Caucasus, region, lat. 44°, Fig. 38.
  Cazza, is., lat. 42° 55′, Fig. 48.
  Cesane, town, lat. 44° 57′, Fig. 21.
  Cevedale, mt., lat. 46° 29′, Fig. 67.
  Chalcydic peninsula, lat. 40° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Champlas du Col, town, lat. 44° 56′, Fig. 21.
  Chanak, town, lat. 40° 9′, Pl. VI.
  Charmoille, town, lat. 47° 20′, Fig. 18.
  Chernikov, city, lat. 51° 29′, Fig. 38.
  Chorlu, river, lat. 41° 12′, Fig. 47.
  Cilician Gate, lat. 37° 30′, Pl. VII, _see_ inset:
      “Western Asia showing direction of Main Mountain Ranges.”
  Clabecq, lat. 50° 40′, Fig. 14.
  Clavières, town, lat. 44° 55′, Figs. 21, 22.
  Clementi, pass, lat. 42° 30′, Fig. 53.
  Collecroce, town, lat. 41° 45′, Fig. 33.
  Colmar, town, lat. 48° 6′, Pl. II.
  Cologne, town, lat. 50° 56′, Pl. IX.
  Constantinople, city, lat. 41°, Pl. VII.
  Corfu, is., lat. 39° 37′, Fig. 53, Pl. V, VI.
  Cormons, town, lat. 45° 57′, Fig. 31.
  Cortina d’Ampezzo, pass, lat. 46° 31′, Fig. 67.
  Courtaron, town, lat. 47° 28′, Fig. 18.
  Cracow, town, lat. 50° 4′, Pl. IV.
  Crasna, lat. 48° 2′, Fig. 44.
  Crefeld, town, lat. 51° 21′, Pl. IX.
  Cremnitza, river, lat. 40°, Fig. 53.
  Crete, is., lat. 35° 15′, Pl. V.
  Croatia, province, lat. 45° 40′, Fig. 48.
  Cupello, town, lat. 42° 5′, Fig. 33.
  Curzola, is., lat. 43°, Fig. 48.
  Czernowitz, town, lat. 48° 17′, Fig. 44.

  Dalmatia, province, lat. 44°, Fig. 48.
  Damascus, city, lat. 33° 30′, Pl. V, VII.
  Dangli, mts., lat. 40° 30′, Fig. 53.
  Danzig, town, lat. 54° 35′, Pl. IV.
  Dedeagatch, town, lat. 40° 55′, Fig. 47.
  Delémont, town, lat. 47° 25′, Fig. 18.
  Delvino, town, lat. 40°, Fig. 53.
  Demir-Hissar, district, lat. 41° 12′, Fig. 53.
  Dent d’Hérens, mt., lat. 45° 59′, Fig. 22.
  Deutsche-Oth, town, lat. 49° 28′, Pl. II.
  Devinska Novaves, town, lat. 48° 18′, Fig. 48.
  Devoli, river, lat. 40° 55′, Fig. 53.
  Diex, town, lat. 46° 48′, Fig. 31.
  Dinaric Alps, mts., lat. 44°, Fig. 48.
  Dineir, town, lat. 38° 5′, Pl. V.
  Dirschen, (Dirschau or Terzew), lat. 54° 9′, Pl. IV.
  Dnieper, river, lat. 49°, Fig. 38.
  Dobrac, town, lat. 46° 45′, Fig. 31.
  Dobrudja, province, lat. 44° 20′, Fig. 47.
  Dodecanesia, isds., lat. 36°, Pl. V.
  Doire Baltée, river, lat. 45° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Doire Ripaire, river, lat. 45° 10′, Figs. 21, 22.
  Doliano, town, lat. 40° 2′, Fig. 53.
  Dolomite Alps, mts., lat. 46° 25′, Fig. 67.
  Domodossola, town, lat. 46° 8′, Fig. 22.
  Don, river, lat. 47° 30′, Fig. 38.
  Dorpat, town, lat. 58° 17′, Fig. 38.
  Dortmund, town, lat. 51° 31′, Fig. 7.
  Douane, town, lat. 47° 10′, Fig. 18.
  Drama, basin, lat. 41° 6′, Fig. 47.
  Drave, river, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 48.
  Drin, river, lat. 41° 50′, Fig. 53.
  Drinissa, river, lat. 42° 12′, Fig. 53.
  Drino, gulf, lat. 41° 50′, Fig. 53.
  Dugopolje, town, lat. 45° 10′, Fig. 48.
  Duino, town, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 31.
  Duisburg, town, lat. 51° 26′, Fig. 7.
  Dukla, town, lat. 49° 26′, Pl. IV.
  Dulcigno, town, lat. 41° 54′, Fig. 53.
  Dunkirk, town, lat. 51° 7′, Pl. I.
  Durazzo, cape and town, lat. 41° 18′, Fig. 53.
  Düsseldorf, town, lat. 51° 13′, Fig. 7.
  Dux, town, lat. 50° 47′, Fig. 48.

  East Prussia, province, lat. 34°, Pl. IV.
  Eisack, valley, lat. 46° 30′, Fig. 67.
  Eisenau, town, lat. 47° 38′, Fig. 44.
  Elbassan, town, lat. 41° 6′, Fig. 53.
  Elbe, river, lat. 53°, Pl. IX.
  Emscher, valley, lat. 51° 30′, Fig. 7.
  Enego, town, lat. 45° 57′, Fig. 25.
  Engadine, district, lat. 46° 40′, Fig. 67.
  Epirus, province, lat. 40°, Fig. 53.
  Erzerum, town, lat. 39° 57′, Pl. VIII.
  Erzgebirge, mt., lat. 50° 30′, Fig. 48.
  Erzingian, town, lat. 39° 38′, Pl. V.
  Eskishehir, town, lat. 39° 44′, Pl. V.
  Esthonia, province, lat. 59° 15′, Fig. 38.
  Esztergom or Gran-Esztergom, comitat, lat. 47° 47′, Fig. 48.
  Etsch, river, lat. 46° 16′, Fig. 30.
  Etterbeck, (Brussels), Fig. 14.
  Euphrates, river, lat. 37° 50′, Pl. VIII.
  Fellin, town, lat. 58°, Fig. 38.
  Fenils, town, lat. 44° 59′, Fig. 21.
  Fersina, town, lat. 46° 8′, Fig. 30.
  Filiates, town, lat. 39° 42′, Fig. 53.
  Fiume, town, lat. 45° 19′, Fig. 48.
  Fleims, valley, lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 30.
  Flensborg, town, lat. 54° 46′, Fig. 35.
  Florina, town, lat. 40° 50′, Fig. 53.
  Fogaras, town, lat. 45° 47′, Pl. III.
  Foppiano, town, lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 22.
  Formazza, valley, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Franconia, district, lat. 50°, Fig. 7.
  Frasheri, town, lat. 40° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Freudenthal, town, lat. 47° 45′, Fig. 44.
  Fribourg, town, lat. 46° 48′, Fig. 18.
  Friuli, district, (_see_ area of Friulian language),
      lat. 46° 18′, Fig. 43.
  Fruttwald, or Canza, village, lat. 46° 25′, Fig. 22.
  Frydland, town, lat. 49° 45′, Fig. 48.
  Fünfkirchen, town, lat. 46° 6′, Pl. III.

  Galicia, province, lat. 48° 50′, Fig. 44.
  Gallio, town, lat. 45° 52′, Fig. 25.
  Gallipoli, peninsula, lat. 40° 25′, Fig. 47.
  Gargazon, town, lat. 46° 36′, Fig. 67.
  Gazza, town, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 30.
  Geala, town, lat. 41° 13′, Fig. 53.
  Gediz, river, lat. 38° 36′, Pl. VII.
  Ghemlick, (Cius), town, lat. 40° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Ghison, river, lat. 44° 54′, Figs. 21, 22.
  Gléresse, town, lat. 47° 8′, Fig. 18.
  Gömö, district, lat. 49°, Fig. 48.
  Gopes, town, lat. 41° 13′, Fig. 53.
  Gornia Bistrica, town, lat. 46° 30′, Fig. 31.
  Gottschee, town, lat. 45° 38′, Fig. 31.
  Gradena, basin, _see_ Grödenthal.
  Gradisca, town, lat. 45° 15′, Fig. 31.
  Gramala, bay, lat. 40° 15′, Fig. 53.
  Grammos, mts., lat. 40° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Gramosta, town, lat. 40° 23′, Fig. 53.
  Grand Paradis Peak, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 22.
  Gran-Esztergom, town, lat. 47° 47′, Fig. 48.
  Graudenz, town, lat. 53° 25′, Pl. IV.
  Gressoney, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 22.
  Greutschach, town, lat. 46° 51′, Fig. 31.
  Grevena, village, lat. 40° 9′, Fig. 53.
  Gries, pass, lat. 46° 30′, Fig. 22.
  Griffen, town, lat. 46° 50′, Fig. 31.
  Grisons, canton, lat. 46° 42′, Fig. 67.
  Grödenthal, valley, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 30.
  Grodno, town, lat. 53° 41′, Fig. 38.
  Grybow, town, lat. 49° 40′, Pl. IV.
  Guevgueli, town, lat. 41° 13′, Fig. 53.
  Gurk, town, lat. 46° 55′, Fig. 31.
  Gusinye, district, lat. 42° 35′, Fig. 53.

  Hadikfalva, town, lat. 47° 55′, Fig. 44.
  Halluin, town, lat. 50° 47′, Pl. I.
  Hama, town, lat. 35° 13′, Pl. V.
  Hamburg, city, lat. 53° 33′, Pl. IX.
  Harput, town, lat. 38° 40′, Pl. V.
  Havel, river, lat. 52° 43′, Fig. 7.
  Hazebrouck, town, lat. 50° 44′, Pl. I.
  Helsingfors, town, lat. 60° 10′, Pl. IX.
  Hermannstadt, town, lat. 45° 46′, Pl. III.
  Herzegovina, province, lat. 43° 20′, Fig. 48.
  Hesse, grand duchy, lat. 51°, Fig. 7.
  Hochkönigsberg, mt., lat. 48° 15′, Pl. II.
  Hodeida, town, lat. 14° 40′, Pl. V. _See_ inset:
      “Extension of the Hejaz line toward Mecca.”
  Hoeylaert, town, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Homs, town, lat. 34° 46′, Pl. V.
  Hont, comitat, lat. 48° 30′, Fig. 48.
  Huta, town, lat. 48° 22′, Fig. 48.

  Ile de France, province, lat. 48° 50′, Fig. 3.
  Ill, river, lat. 48° 25′, Pl. II.
  Illmenspitze, mt., lat. 46° 28′, Fig. 67.
  Illyria, province, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Ilmen, lake, lat. 58° 15′, Fig. 38.
  Imotski, town, lat. 43° 25′, Fig. 48.
  Ipek, town, lat. 42° 34′, Fig. 53.
  Iran, plateau, lat. 32°, Pl. VII. _See_ inset:
      “Western Asia showing direction of Main Mountain Ranges.”
  Isargo, river, _see_ Eisack.
  Iser, mt., lat. 50° 50′, Fig. 48.
  Ishtip, town, lat. 41° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Isnik (Nicaea), town, lat. 40° 40′, Pl. VII.
  Isonzo, river, lat. 46°, Fig. 31.
  Issime, town, lat. 45° 40′, Fig. 22.
  Istensegitz, town, lat. 47° 52′, Fig. 44.
  Istria, province, lat. 45° 20′, Fig. 32.
  Ixelles, (Brussels), Fig. 14.

  Jablunka, pass, lat. 49° 34′, Pl. IV.
  Jaffa, town, lat. 32° 4′, Pl. V.
  Jakobeny, town, lat. 47° 30′, Fig. 44.
  Jeihun, river, lat. 37° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Jerablus, town, lat. 36° 30′, Pl. V.
  Jerusalem, city, lat. 31° 47′, Pl. V.
  Jette, town, lat. 50° 51′, Fig. 14.
  Jevizlik, town, lat. 40° 48′, Pl. VII.
  Jidda, town, lat. 21°, Pl. V. _See_ inset:
      “Extension of the Hejaz line toward Mecca.”
  Johanisburg, town, lat. 53° 37′, Fig. 38.
  Julian Alps, mts., lat. 46° 10′, Fig. 31.
  Jumaya, town, lat. 42°, Fig. 53.
  Jura, mts., lat. 46° 50′, Fig. 3.

  Kailar, town, lat. 40° 29′, Fig. 53.
  Kalamas, river, lat. 39° 35′, Fig. 53.
  Kalarites, town, lat. 39° 40′, Fig. 53.
  Kamienec, town, lat. 48° 40′, Fig. 44.
  Kanin, mt., lat. 46° 24′, Fig. 31.
  Karaferia, town, lat. 40° 36′, Fig. 53.
  Kassaba, town, lat. 38° 8′, Pl. V.
  Kastamuni, town, lat. 41° 23′, Pl. V.
  Kastoria, lake, lat. 40° 34′, Fig. 53.
  Katerynoslav, town, lat. 48° 28′, Fig. 38.
  Kavalla, town, lat. 41°, Fig. 47.
  Kelkid, river, lat. 40° 20′, Pl. VII.
  Kerepes, town, lat. 47° 35′, Fig. 48.
  Kharkov, town, lat. 50°, Fig. 38.
  Kherson, town, lat. 46° 39′, Fig. 38.
  Kholm, town, lat. 51° 39′, Fig. 38.
  Khursk, town, lat. 51° 56′, Fig. 38.
  Kiev, town, lat. 50° 27′, Fig. 38.
  Kimara, town, lat. 40° 10′, Fig. 53.
  Kiri, river, lat. 41° 55′, Fig. 53.
  Kirlibaba, town, lat. 47° 40′, Fig. 44.
  Kizil, river, lat. 41°, Pl. VII.
  Klagenfurth, town, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 48.
  Klausen, town, lat. 46° 39′, Fig. 67.
  Kliasma, river, lat. 56° 19′, Fig. 38.
  Klimutz, town, lat. 47° 58′, Fig. 44.
  Klissura, town, _see_ Vlakho-Klissura.
  Knin, town, lat. 44° 3′, Fig. 48.
  Kockana, town, lat. 40° 20′, Fig. 53.
  Koekelberg, (Brussels), Fig. 14.
  Konia, town, lat. 37° 51′, Pl. VII.
  Koritza, town, lat. 40° 15′, Fig. 53.
  Kostenberg, town, lat. 46° 45′, Fig. 31.
  Kottbus, town, lat. 51° 34′, Fig. 41.
  Kovno, town, lat. 55°, Fig. 38.
  Koweit, town, lat. 29° 30′, Pl. VI.
  Krajste, valley, lat. 42° 41′, Fig. 53.
  Krasnostaw, town, lat. 50° 59′, Pl. IV.
  Kremnitz, town, lat. 48° 42′, Fig. 48.
  Krushevo, town, lat. 41° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Kuban, province, lat. 45°, Fig. 38.
  Kukush, town, lat. 40° 59′, Fig. 53.
  Kurdistan, province, lat. 37° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Kurland, province, lat. 57°, Fig. 38.
  Kustendil, town, lat. 42° 18′, Fig. 53.
  Kwidzyn or Marienwerder, town, lat. 53° 40′, Pl. IV.

  La Chiesa, town, lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 22.
  Ladoga, lake, lat. 60° 45′, Fig. 38.
  Laeken, lat. 50° 51′, Fig. 14.
  Laghi, cape, lat. 41° 12′, Fig. 53.
  Lagosta, is., lat. 42° 46′, Fig. 48.
  Laibach, town, lat. 46° 3′, Fig. 48.
  Lales, town and bay, lat. 41° 30′, Fig. 53.
  Lanciano, town, lat. 42° 14′, Fig. 33.
  Lantosque, town, lat. 43° 59′, Fig. 22.
  Lapsista, town, lat. 39° 45′, Fig. 53.
  La Turbie, village, lat. 43° 50′, Fig. 22.
  Lavarone, town, lat. 45° 55′, Fig. 67.
  Lecce, town, lat. 40° 22′, Fig. 43.
  Lecker Au, river, lat. 54° 45′, Fig. 34.
  Lemberg, (Lvov), lat. 49° 40′, Pl. III.
  Lesina, is., lat. 43°, Fig. 48.
  Leskovatz, town, lat. 43°, Fig. 53.
  Leva, town, lat. 48° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Libau, town, lat. 56° 30′, Fig. 38.
  Liége, town, lat. 50° 40′, Pl. I.
  Lille, town, lat. 50° 38′, Pl. I.
  Lim, river, lat. 43° 23′, Fig. 53.
  Linkebeek, town, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Linz, town, lat. 48° 17′, Fig. 48.
  Lissa, is., lat. 43° 4′, Fig. 48.
  Livonia, province, lat. 57° 20′, Fig. 38.
  Lobau, town, lat. 53° 30′, Pl. IV.
  Lobositz, town, lat. 50° 31′, Fig. 48.
  Lods, town, lat. 51° 46′, Pl. IV.
  Loeche, town, lat. 46° 12′, Fig. 22.
  Loetzen, town, lat. 54° 2′, Fig. 38.
  Loing, river, lat. 48°, Fig. 3.
  Longwy, town, lat. 49° 32′, Pl. I.
  Lorraine, province, lat. 48° 50′, Pl. II.
  Luditz, town, lat. 50° 3′, Fig. 48.
  Luisenthal, town, lat. 47° 35′, Fig. 44.
  Lunéville, town, lat. 48° 35′, Fig. 7.
  Lusatia, province, lat. 51°, Fig. 41.
  Luxemburg, grand duchy, lat. 50°, Pl. I.
  Lvov, (Lemberg), city, lat. 49° 40′, Pl. III.
  Lyck, town, lat. 53° 50′, Pl. IV.
  Lys, river, lat. 51°, Pl. I.

  Macedonia, lat. 41°, Fig. 53.
  Macugnaga, town, lat. 45° 59′, Fig. 22.
  Magarevo, town, lat. 41° 12′, Fig. 53.
  Maggiore, lake, lat. 46°, Fig. 22.
  Makarska, town, lat. 43° 18′, Fig. 48.
  Malakasi, town, lat. 39° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Malborghet, town, lat. 46° 30′, Pl. III.
  Malmedy, town, lat. 50° 24′, Pl. I.
  Maramoros or Maramaros-Sziget, town, lat. 47° 55′, Fig. 44.
  Marburg, town, lat. 46° 34′, Fig. 31.
  March, river, lat. 48° 30′, Pl. III.
  Maria-Theresiopel, town, lat. 46° 8′, Pl. III.
  Marienwerder, (Kwidzgn), town, lat. 53° 44′, Pl. IV.
  Mariondol, town, lat. 45° 40′, Fig. 48.
  Maritza, river, lat. 41°, Fig. 47.
  Markirch, (or Sainte-Marie-aux-Mines), town, lat. 48° 14′, Pl. II.
  Marmora, sea, lat. 40° 40′, Fig. 47.
  Marne, river, lat. 49° 2′, Fig. 3.
  Maros, river, lat. 46°, Pl. III.
  Maros Vasarhely, town, lat. 46° 28′, Pl. III.
  Martello, river, lat. 45° 51′, Fig. 25.
  Massif Central, region, lat. 45°, Fig. 3.
  Masurian, lakes, lat. 54°, Fig. 38.
  Mati, river, lat. 41° 40′, Fig. 53.
  Meander, river, lat. 37°, Pl. VII.
  Mecca, city, lat. 21° 20′, Pl. V. _See_ inset:
      “Extension of the Hejaz line toward Mecca.”
  Mediasch, town, lat. 46° 7′, Pl. III.
  Meleda, is., lat. 42° 45′, Fig. 48.
  Melkovic, town, lat. 43° 3′, Fig. 48.
  Melnik, town, lat. 52° 21′, Pl. IV.
  Menin, town, lat. 50° 47′, Pl. I.
  Meran, town, lat. 46° 41′, Fig. 67.
  Mesopotamia, province, lat. 36° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Metsovo, town, lat. 39° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Metz, town, lat. 49° 7′, Pl. II.
  Meuse, river, lat. 49° 10′, Pl. IX.
  Midyad, town, lat. 37° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Mies, town, lat. 49° 44′, Fig. 48.
  Mitau, town, lat. 56° 39′, Fig. 38.
  Mitoka-Dragomirna, town, lat. 47° 48′, Fig. 44.
  Mitrovitza, town, lat. 42° 43′, Fig. 47.
  Moldau, river, lat. 49° 40′, Fig. 48.
  Molenbeek-St. Jean, (Brussels), Fig. 14.
  Molise, province, lat. 41° 35′, Fig. 33.
  Mollières, town, lat. 44° 58′, Fig. 21.
  Molovista, town, lat. 41° 4′, Fig. 53.
  Molsheim, town, lat. 48° 33′, Pl. II.
  Monastir, town, lat. 41° 1′, Fig. 47.
  Mont Blanc, lat. 45° 51′, Fig. 18.
  Montefalcone, town, lat. 45° 42′, Fig. 31.
  Monte Moro, pass, lat. 46°, Fig. 22.
  Montenegro, kingdom, lat. 43°, Fig. 48.
  Monteoderisio, town, lat. 42° 6′, Fig. 33.
  Monte Theodule, pass, lat. 45° 57′, Fig. 22.
  Montreux, town, lat. 46° 26′, Fig. 18.
  Montsevilier, town, lat. 47° 23′, Fig. 18.
  Moosburg, town, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 48.
  Morat or Murten, lake and village, lat. 46° 55′, Fig. 18.
  Morava, river, lat. 44°, Fig. 47.
  Moravia, province, lat. 49° 30′, Pl. III.
  Moravska-Ostrava, town, lat. 49° 50′, Fig. 48.
  Moresnet, territory, lat. 50° 43′, Fig. 7.
  Morge, valley, lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 18.
  Morhange, town, lat. 48° 56′, Pl. II.
  Mori, town, lat. 45° 52′, Fig. 30.
  Morlacca, canal, lat. 45°, Fig. 48.
  Morva, (March), river, lat. 48° 30′, Pl. III.
  Moselle, river, lat. 49°, Pl. II.
  Moskopolis, town, lat. 40° 40′, Fig. 53.
  Mosul, town, lat. 36° 19′, Pl. VII.
  Moutiers, town, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 22.
  Munster, town, lat. 46° 16′, Fig. 22.
  Mur, river, lat. 46°, Fig. 31.
  Murad Su or Murad, river, lat. 38° 43′, Pl. VII.
  Mush, town, lat. 38° 47′, Pl. VII.

  Namur, town, lat. 50° 28′, Pl. I.
  Nancy, town, lat. 48° 41′, Pl. II.
  Narenta, river, lat. 43°, Fig. 47.
  Narew, river, lat. 53° 8′, Pl. IV.
  Neidenburg, town, lat. 53°, Fig. 38.
  Nemecke Prava, town, lat. 48° 57′, Fig. 48.
  Nesibin, town, lat. 37°, Pl. V.
  Netze, river, lat. 53°, Pl. IV.
  Neuchâtel, lake, lat. 46° 55′, Fig. 18.
  Neusatz, town, lat. 45° 16′, Pl. III.
  Neusiedler, lake, lat. 47° 50′, Fig. 48.
  Neusolonetz, town, lat. 47° 40′, Fig. 44.
  Neutra, town, lat. 48° 19′, Fig. 48.
  Neuveville, town, lat. 47° 6′, Fig. 18.
  Neva, river, lat. 59° 48′, Fig. 38.
  Nevesca, town, lat. 40° 37′, Fig. 53.
  Nevrokop, town, lat. 41° 32′, Fig. 53.
  New Tischen or Titschein, town, lat. 49° 35′, Pl. III.
  Niemen, river, lat. 55°, Fig. 38.
  Nish, town, lat. 43° 27′, Fig. 47.
  Nishava, river, lat. 43°, Fig. 47.
  Nissa, river, _see_ the river, lat. 50° 30′,
      on which the town of Neisse stands, Pl. IV.
  Noce, river, lat. 46° 25′, Fig. 30.
  Novezansky, town, lat. 48° 2′, Fig. 48.
  Novi Bazar, town, lat. 43° 4′, Fig. 53.
  Novi Varosh, town, lat. 43° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Nürschan, town, lat. 49° 40′, Fig. 48.

  Oder, river, lat. 51° 20′, Pl. IV.
  Ograyevitza, valley, lat. 43° 40′, Fig. 53.
  Ohain, town, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Oise, river, lat. 49° 54′, Fig. 3.
  Oka, river, lat. 55° 57′, Fig. 38.
  Okrida, lake, lat. 41°, Fig. 53.
  Okrida, town, lat. 41° 11′, Fig. 53.
  Oldenhorn, peak, lat. 46° 19′, Fig. 18.
  Oletzko, town, lat. 54°, Fig. 38.
  Olhem or Ohain, town, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Oliva, town, lat. 54° 32′, Pl. IV.
  Olmütz, town, lat. 49° 36′, Fig. 48.
  Oltu, river, lat. 44°, Pl. III.
  Olympus, mt., lat. 40° 4′, Fig. 53.
  Oppeln, town, lat. 50° 40′, Pl. IV.
  Orco, river, lat. 45° 17′, Fig. 22.
  Ornavasso, town, lat. 45° 59′, Fig. 22.
  Ortelsburg, town, lat. 53° 34′, Fig. 38.
  Ortler, mt., lat. 46° 30′, Fig. 67.
  Osogov, mt., lat. 42° 10′, Fig. 53.
  Ostanitza, town, lat. 40° 2′, Fig. 53.
  Osterode, town, lat. 53° 41′, Fig. 38.
  Otranto, strait, lat. 39° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Oulx, town, lat. 45° 3′, Fig. 21.

  Paluzza, village, lat. 46° 34′, Fig. 31.
  Panchova, town, lat. 44° 56′, Fig. 48.
  Panderma, town, lat. 40° 18′, Pl. V.
  Paris, city, lat. 48° 50′, Fig. 3.
  Paris Basin, region, lat. 48° 50′, Fig. 3.
  Pata, town, lat. 41° 23′, Fig. 53.
  Patnoz, town, lat. 39° 22′, Pl. VII.
  Pechui, town, _see_ Fünfkirchen.
  Pellice, river, lat. 44° 50′, Fig. 21.
  Pergine, lat. 46° 6′, Fig. 30.
  Perouse, town, lat. 44° 56′, Fig. 22.
  Persian Gulf, lat. 29°, Pl. VII.
  Peshtera, town, lat. 43° 12′, Fig. 53.
  Philippopolis, town, lat. 42° 3′, Fig. 47.
  Piave, river, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 32.
  Picardy, province, lat. 49° 50′, Fig. 3.
  Pignerol, town, lat. 44° 48′, Figs. 21, 22.
  Pilis, district, lat. 47° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Pilsen, town, lat. 49° 45′, Fig. 48.
  Pindus, mts., lat. 39° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Pirot, town, lat. 43° 10′, Fig. 53.
  Pisuderi, town, lat. 40° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Pressburg, town, lat. 48° 10′, Pl. III.
  Priepet, river and marshes, lat. 52° 10′, Pl. IX.
  Prizrend, town, lat. 42° 8′, Fig. 53.
  Progno, river, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 30.
  Prokleita, mts., lat. 42° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Provence, province, lat. 43° 50′, Fig. 3.
  Pruth, river, lat. 47°, Pl. III.
  Puglia, province, lat. 41°, Fig. 43.
  Pusterthal, valley, lat. 46° 44′, Fig. 67.

  Raab, river, lat. 47° 25′, Fig. 48.
  Raab, town, lat. 47° 41′, Pl. III.
  Radgona, town, lat. 46° 40′, Fig. 31.
  Radkersburg, town, lat. 46° 42′, Fig. 31.
  Radymno, town, lat. 49° 58′, Pl. IV.
  Ragusa, town, lat. 42° 37′, Fig. 48.
  Ras el ain, town, lat. 36° 50′, Pl. V.
  Rayak, town, lat. 33° 30′, Pl. V.
  Razlog, town, lat. 41° 51′, Fig. 53.
  Red Sea, lat. 20°, Pl. V. _See_ inset:
      “Extension of the Hejaz line toward Mecca.”
  Reichenberg, town, lat. 50° 47′, Fig. 48.
  Renz, town, lat. 54° 43′, Fig. 35.
  Resia, town, lat. 46° 30′, Fig. 31.
  Reval, town, lat. 59° 27′, Pl. IX.
  Rhenish Prussia, province, lat. 50° 30′, Fig. 7.
  Rhine, river, lat. 48°, Pl. II.
  Rhine-Herne, canal, lat. 51° 28′, Fig. 7.
  Rhodes, is., (the largest of the Dodecanesia group),
      lat. 36° 23′, Pl. V.
  Rhode-Saint-Genèse, town, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Rhodope, mts., lat. 42°, Fig. 47.
  Rhone, river, lat. 45°, Fig. 3.
  Rhone Valley, lat. 45°, Fig. 3.
  Ribeauvillé or Rappoltsweiler, town, lat. 48° 12′, Pl. II.
  Rienza, river, lat. 46° 50′, Fig. 30.
  Riga, gulf, lat. 57° 30′, Pl. IX.
  Rilo, town, lat. 42° 9′, Fig. 53.
  Rima S. Giuseppe, village, lat. 45° 54′, Fig. 22.
  Roana, town, lat. 45° 51′, Fig. 25.
  Roanne, town, lat. 46° 2′, Fig. 6.
  Rochemolles, town, lat. 45° 8′, Fig. 21.
  Rodoni, cape, lat. 41° 34′, Fig. 53.
  Rodosto, town, lat. 41°, Fig. 47.
  Rokytince, town, lat. 49° 22′, Fig. 48.
  Rosa, mt., lat. 45° 56′, Fig. 22.
  Roshai, town, lat. 42° 49′, Fig. 53.
  Rotzo, town, lat. 45° 50′, Fig. 25.
  Rovereto, town, lat. 45° 53′, Fig. 30.
  Roya, river, lat. 43° 54′, Fig. 22.
  Rudolfthal, town, lat. 45° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Rymanow, town, lat. 49° 35′, Pl. IV.

  Saar, river, lat. 49° 35′, Pl. II.
  Saaz, town, lat. 50° 21′, Fig. 48.
  St. Andrea, is., lat. 43° 2′, Fig. 48.
  St. Bernard, mt., lat. 45° 51′, Fig. 18.
  Saint-Gilles, town, (Brussels), Fig. 14.
  St. Gotthard, town, lat. 46° 58′, Fig. 31.
  Saint-Hermagoras, town, lat. 46° 43′, Fig. 31.
  Saint-Josseten-Noode, town, (Brussels), Fig. 14.
  St. Omer, town, lat. 50° 45′, Pl. I.
  St. Pancrace, town, lat. 46° 48′, Fig. 31.
  Sakaria, river, lat. 40°, Pl. VII.
  Sakaria, valley, lat. 40°, Pl. VII.
  Salbertrand, town, lat. 45° 6′, Fig. 21.
  Salecchio, town, lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 22.
  Salerno, town, lat. 40° 40′, Fig. 43.
  Salonica, town, lat. 40° 38′, Pl. IX and Fig. 47.
  Samarra, town, lat. 34° 10′, Pl. V.
  Sampeyre, town, lat. 44° 35′, Fig. 22.
  Samsun, town, lat. 41° 18′, Pl. VIII.
  San, river, lat. 50° 34′, Pl. IV.
  Sana’a, town, lat. 15°, Pl. V. _See_ inset:
       “Extension of the Hejaz line toward Mecca.”
  San Felice Slavo, town, lat. 41° 54′, Fig. 33.
  San Giacomo di Lusiana, town, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 25.
  San Giovanni Teatino, town, lat. 42° 24′, Fig. 33.
  San Juan, point, (Gulf of Drino), lat. 41° 45′, Fig. 53.
  San Juan de Medua, town, lat. 41° 55′, Fig. 53.
  San Martino di Perrero, town, lat. 44° 56′, Fig. 21.
  San Michele, (German: Pommat), village, lat. 46° 20′, Fig. 21.
  Sanok, town, lat. 49° 34′, Pl. IV.
  San Pietro Brazza, town, lat. 43° 19′, Fig. 48.
  Santi-Quaranta, (Preveza), town, lat. 39° 49′, Fig. 53.
  San Vito (Chietino), town, lat. 42° 15′, Fig. 33.
  Saône, river, lat. 46° 2′, Fig. 3.
  Sappada, village, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 31.
  Sarajevo, town, lat. 43° 52′, Fig. 48.
  Sarine, river, lat. 46° 35′, Fig. 18.
  Sarnaki, town, lat. 52° 22′, Pl. IV.
  Saros, gulf, lat. 40° 35′, Fig. 47.
  Sarrebourg, town, lat. 48° 45′, Pl. II.
  Saseno, is., lat. 40° 29′, Fig. 53.
  Sasun, district, lat. 38° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Sauer, river, lat. 51° 40′, Fig. 7.
  Sauris, village, lat. 46° 31′, Fig. 31.
  Sauza d’Oulx, town, lat. 45° 2′, Fig. 21.
  Save, river, lat. 44° 52′, Pl. III.
  Saxony, kingdom, lat. 51° 50′, Fig. 48.
  Schaerbeek, (Brussels), Fig. 14.
  Schässburg, town, lat. 46° 10′, Pl. III.
  Schlucht, pass, lat. 48° 4′, Pl. II.
  Scutari, lake and town, lat. 42° 1′, Fig. 53.
  Seine, river, lat. 49° 28′, Fig. 3.
  Sebenico, town, lat. 43° 44′, Fig. 48.
  Seihun, river, lat. 37° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Selia, town, lat. 40° 8′, Fig. 53.
  Semeni, river, lat. 40° 40′, Fig. 53.
  Sensburg, town, lat. 53° 52′, Fig. 38.
  Serres, town, lat. 41° 7′, Fig. 53.
  Sesia, river, lat. 45° 45′, Fig. 22.
  Sette Communi, plateau, 45° 50′, Fig. 25.
  Settimo Vitone, town, lat. 45° 33′, Fig. 22.
  Shar, mts., lat. 42°, Fig. 53.
  Sicken-Sussen, town, lat. 50° 49′, Pl. I.
  Sienitza, town, lat. 43° 15′, Fig. 53.
  Sierre or Siders, town, lat. 46° 21′, Fig. 18.
  Silesia, province, lat. 50° 51′, Pl. IV.
  Sinj, town, lat. 43° 40′, Fig. 48.
  Sinjar, town, lat. 36° 23′, Pl. VII.
  Sipiska, town, lat. 40° 41′, Fig. 53.
  Siracu, town, lat. 39° 39′, Fig. 53.
  Sisani, town, lat. 40° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Sivas, town, lat. 39° 37′, Pl. VIII.
  Skumbi, river, lat. 41° 6′, Fig. 53.
  Slavonia, province, lat. 45° 45′, Fig. 48.
  Smyrna, city, lat. 38° 26′, Pl. VII.
  Sofia, town, lat. 42° 32′, Fig. 47.
  Soignes, forest, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Solomiac, town, lat. 44° 59′, Fig. 21.
  Sorne, river, lat. 47° 23′, Fig. 18.
  Spalato, town, lat. 43° 30′, Fig. 48.
  Spree, river, lat. 52° 23′, Fig. 41.
  Stagno, town, lat. 42° 39′, Fig. 48.
  Stari Vlah, district, lat. 43° 25′, Fig. 53.
  Strassburg, town, lat. 48° 36′, Pl. II.
  Strassburg, (Prussia), town, lat. 53° 14′, Pl. IV.
  Stravopolskoi, town, lat. 45° 2′, Fig. 38.
  Struga, town, lat. 41° 10′, Fig. 53.
  Struma, river, lat. 41° 22′, Fig. 53.
  Strumitza, river, lat. 41° 20′, Fig. 53.
  Stulpikani, town, lat. 47° 27′, Fig. 44.
  Stura, river, lat. 45° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Subotica, or Maria-Theresiopel, town.
  Suha Gora, mt., lat. 41° 58′, Fig. 53.
  Surash, town, lat. 52° 55′, Pl. IV.
  Suse, town, lat. 45° 10′, Figs. 21, 22.
  Suwalki, town, lat. 54° 7′, Pl. IV.
  Swabia, district, lat. 48° 20′, Fig. 30.
  Syria, province, lat. 34°, Pl. VII.
  Szbadka, or Maria-Theresiopel, town.

  Tabriz, town, lat. 38° 2′, Pl. VII.
  Tännchen, mt., lat. 48° 12′, Pl. II.
  Tara, mts., lat. 43° 55′, Fig. 53.
  Tarcento, town, lat. 46° 13′, Fig. 31.
  Tarvis, town, lat. 46° 45′, Fig. 48.
  Tatra, mts., lat. 49° 50′, Pl. IV.
  Tauris, province, lat. 46°, Fig. 38.
  Taus, town, lat. 49° 27′, Fig. 48.
  Tekrit, town, lat. 34° 35′, Pl. V.
  Temesvar, town, lat. 45° 47′, Pl. III.
  Tepeleni, town, lat. 40° 18′, Fig. 53.
  Terskaja, province, lat. 40° 30′, Fig. 38.
  Tervueren, town, lat. 50° 49′, Fig. 14.
  Teschen, town, lat. 49° 45′, Pl. IV.
  Tessin, (Tessino), canton, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Tetovo, town, lat. 42° 5′, Fig. 53.
  Tezew, (Dirschau), lat. 54° 5′, Pl. IV.
  Theiss, river, lat. 46° 30′, Pl. III.
  Thessaly, province, lat. 39° 30′, Fig. 53.
  Thièle, river, lat. 47° 2′, Fig. 18.
  Thorn, town, lat. 53° 3′, Pl. IV.
  Thures, town, lat. 44° 54′, Fig. 21.
  Thuringia, state, lat. 50° 40′, Fig. 7.
  Tigris, river, lat. 33°, Pl. VII.
  Timok, river, lat. 44°, Fig. 53.
  Tirnovo, town, lat. 43° 7′, Fig. 47.
  Toce, falls, lat. 46° 22′, Fig. 22.
  Toce, river, lat. 46° 5′, Fig. 22.
  Tofana, mt., lat. 46° 32′, Fig. 67.
  Tokat, town, lat. 40° 17′, Pl. VII.
  Tölgyes, pass, lat. 47°, Pl. III.
  Tomaschow, town, lat. 50° 27′, Pl. IV.
  Torcola, is., lat. 43° 5′, Fig. 48.
  Torre Pellice, village, lat. 44° 40′, Figs. 21, 22.
  Tourcoing, town, lat. 50° 43′, Pl. I.
  Trafoi, town, lat. 46° 34′, Fig. 30.
  Trebizond, town, lat. 41° 1′, Pl. VII.
  Transylvania, province, lat. 46° 40′, Pl. III.
  Trebnitz, town, lat. 50° 25′, Fig. 48.
  Treene, river, lat. 54° 20′, Fig. 35.
  Tren, town, lat. 42° 48′, Fig. 53.
  Trent, town, lat. 46° 4′, Fig. 30.
  Triest, gulf, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 31.
  Triest, town, lat. 45° 39′, Pl. III.
  Tripoli, town, lat. 34° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Tubize, town, southwest of Brussels, Fig. 14.
  Turocz, town, lat. 49° 5′, Fig. 48.
  Turtmann, valley, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Tweebeek, town, _see_ Tubize, Fig. 14.
  Tyrol, province, lat. 47°, Fig. 30.

  Uccle, town, south of Brussels, Fig. 14.
  Udine, town, lat. 46° 10′, Pl. III.
  Ukraine, province, lat. 49° 40′, Fig. 38.
  Ung, river, lat. 48° 42′, Fig. 38.
  Unterwald, or Foppiano, village, lat. 45° 18′, Fig. 22.
  Urmiah, lake, lat. 37° 40′, Pl. VII.
  Uskok, mts., lat. 45° 45′, Fig. 48.
  Uskub, town, lat. 42° 5′, Fig. 53.

  Valais, canton, lat. 46° 15′, Fig. 22.
  Valona, town, lat. 40° 29′, Fig. 53.
  Valsesia, or Sesia, river, lat. 45° 45′, Fig. 22.
  Van, lake, lat. 38° 40′, Pl. VIII.
  Var, river, lat. 43° 45′, Fig. 22.
  Vardar, river, lat. 41°, Fig. 53.
  Vardar, valley, lat. 41°, Figs. 48, 53.
  Vas, comitat, lat. 47° 14′, Fig. 31.
  Vasto, town, lat. 42° 7′, Fig. 33.
  Vaud, canton, lat. 46° 35′, Fig. 22.
  Velebiti, mts., lat. 44° 30′, Fig. 48.
  Venije-Vardar, town, lat. 40° 45′, Fig. 53.
  Verdun, town, lat. 49° 10′, Fig. 3.
  Verona, city, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 30.
  Vicenza, town, lat. 45° 32′, Fig. 30.
  Vichlaby, district, lat. 49° 20′, Fig. 48.
  Viège, town, 46° 22′, Fig. 22.
  Villach, town, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 48.
  Vilna, town, lat. 54° 41′, Fig. 38.
  Vinadio, town, lat. 44° 23′, Fig. 22.
  Vintschgau, river, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 67.
  Viso, mt., lat. 44° 40′, Fig. 22.
  Vistula, river, lat. 50°, Pl. IV.
  Vlakho-Klissura, town, lat. 40° 27′, Fig. 53.
  Vlakho-Livadi, town, lat. 40° 8′, Fig. 53.
  Vlasina, river, lat. 42° 50′, Fig. 53.
  Vodena, town, lat. 40° 47′, Fig. 53.
  Volga, river, lat. 57°, Fig. 38.
  Volhynia, province, lat. 50° 40′, Fig. 38.
  Voronz, town, lat. 51° 46′, Fig. 38.
  Vosges, mts., lat. 48°, Fig. 3.
  Voyussa, river, lat. 40° 36′, Fig. 53.
  Vrable, town, lat. 48° 40′, Fig. 48.
  Vrania, town, lat. 42° 37′, Fig. 53.

  Wallachia, district, lat. 44° 30′, Fig. 38.
  Waterloo, town, lat. 50° 44′, Pl. I and Fig. 14.
  Weiss, valley, lat. 48° 18′, Pl. II.
  Weissenburg, town, lat. 49° 2′, Pl. II.
  Weissenstein, mt., lat. 47° 15′, Fig. 18.
  Wesel, town, lat. 51° 39′, Pl. IX.
  Westphalia, province, lat. 51° 36′, Fig. 7.
  West Prussia, province, lat. 53° 40′, Pl. IV.
  White Drin, river, lat. 42° 15′, Fig. 53.
  Wildstrubel, mt., lat. 46° 24′, Fig. 18.
  Windhorst, town, lat. 45° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Wissek, town, lat. 53° 12′, Pl. IV.
  Woerther, lake, lat. 46° 37′, Fig. 31.
  Woluwe St.-Lambert, (Brussels), Fig. 14.

  Xirolivadi, town, lat. 40° 30′, Fig. 53.

  Yanina, town, lat. 39° 47′, Fig. 53.
  Yonne, river, lat. 48°, Fig. 3.
  Yuzgat, town, lat. 39° 50′, Pl. VIII.

  Zab, river, lat. 37° 30′, Pl. VII.
  Zagros, mts., lat. 35°, Pl. VII. _See_ inset:
      “Western Asia showing direction of Main Mountain Ranges.”
  Zala, district, lat. 46° 48′, Fig. 31.
  Zara, town, lat. 44° 7′, Fig. 48.
  Zemplin, town, lat. 48° 15′, Fig. 38.
  Zermagna, river, lat. 44° 10′, Fig. 48.
  Zermatt, town, lat. 46° 2′, Fig. 22.
  Zips, district, lat. 49° 15′, Fig. 48.
  Zmigrod, town, lat. 49° 39′, Pl. IV.
  Zombor, town, lat. 45° 46′, Fig. 48.
  Zumborak, town, lat. 45° 30′, Fig. 48.
  Zwittau, town, lat. 49° 46′, Fig. 48.




INDEX


  Aasen, Ivar, 99

  Abruzzi, 88

  Adalia, Gulf of, 251, 256-257

  Adige, 84

  Adige valley, 70, 74

  Adriatic, control, 83-84;
    eastern coast, 337-338;
    piracy, 86, 87;
    problem, 199-201;
    Serbia and, 180

  Adriatic coast and German language, 68

  Adriatic provinces, 76

  Ægean, 174, 175, 247-248, 274

  Aidin railway, 250, 251, 255

  Albanach, 192

  Albania, 84, 163, 164, 180, 181, 187, 189, 193-201;
    Greek boundary, 197;
    importance, 199;
    national feeling and boundaries, 194, 195;
    religion, 201

  Albanian, 87, 90, 163, 165, 192

  Albanians, 175, 192-201

  Alemanni, 44

  Aleppo, 224, 225, 259, 261, 264

  Alexandretta, 244, 261

  Alexandria, 233, 234

  Alghero, 64

  Allevis, 285

  Alpes-Maritimes, 64

  Alpine race, xiv, 4, 5, 6, 19, 38, 40, 41, 323-324

  Alps, 42, 333

  Alsace, 38-49;
    Lower and Higher, 41

  Alsace-Lorraine, 329-330, 334-335;
    linguistic boundary between French and German, 35-49

  Alsatians, 40, 41, 46, 47

  Amanus, 259, 260

  America, discovery of, 233, 235

  Anatolia, 225, 247, 248, 266, 271, 275, 276, 284;
   Turks in, 281

  “Ange,” 36

  Anglo-Saxon, 13

  Ansariyehs, 298-299

  Ansiedelunggesetz, 127

  Antioch, 297, 298

  Aosta, 60

  Aptals, 289

  Arabia, 238;
    British influence, 240-241;
    France and, 266

  Arabic, 225, 230;
    in Turkish, 280

  Arabs, 307-308

  Aram, 302

  Aramaic, 302, 306

  Arameans, 302-303

  Argana, 261, 266

  Argyrocastro, 197, 199

  Arlon, 22

  Armenia, 224, 244, 254, 266;
    etymology, 291

  Armenian, Persian words in, 272

  Armenians, 272, 289-294

  Armenoids, 271, 273, 285, 324

  Armorica, 56

  Arnaut, 194

  Aromunes, 163

  Aryan, Albanian, 192;
    Armenians, 291, 292;
    early home, 7;
    Lithuanians, 104, 105;
    vagueness of term, 8

  Ashkenazim, 301

  Asia Minor, 175, 225, 228-229, 269, 270;
    geography, 252;
    Greeks in, 273-278;
    highway character, 249;
    Mohammedan dissenters, 285-289;
    Mohammedan immigrants, 282-284;
    peoples and villages, non-Turkish, table, 308-309;
    resources, 253-255;
    Turks in, 278-282.
      _See also_ Turkey

  Asiatic trade with Europe, 233-236

  Asiatics in Europe, 174-176

  Assassins, 298

  Athens, 248

  Augustus, 64

  Austria, 95, 330;
    as protector of Europe, 82;
    census returns, character, 76;
    Dalmatia, 87;
    foreign policy, 80;
    Italian frontier claims (with sketch-map), 335-337;
    Jewish capitalists, 125;
    Lombardo-Venetia, 74;
    Poles in, 130;
    sketch-map showing Slavs and their languages, 183;
    Slovene in, map, 81

  Austria-Hungary, 155, 156;
    Adriatic provinces, 76;
    Italians in, 66;
    nationality, 83;
    Polish provinces, table, 138;
    population and weakness, 80-82;
    Serbians in, 181-182

  Avars, 81, 176

  Avshars, 288


  Bagdad, 238, 242, 260, 262

  Bagdad railroad, 178, 251, 257-263

  “Bahnhof,” 53

  Balearic islands, 64

  Balikis, 288

  Balkan peninsula, 86-87;
    clash of Slav and Teuton, 181;
    highway character, 174-175, 177-181;
    linguistic and political divisions, 201-202;
    physical character, 174;
    Romanic languages, 164-166;
    Rumanians in, 160;
    Serbian inhabitants and, 174-191;
    Slavicization, 165;
    southeastern angle, 215-216, 218

  Balkan States, areas and populations before and after the wars,
        tables, 345

  Balkans, communications, map, 179;
    sketch-map of western, 203

  Baltic, Poland and the, 119, 120

  Baltic languages, 100-110

  Baltic provinces, 103-108

  Banat territory, 86, 158

  Baradeus, Jacobus, 306

  Basel, 54

  Basra, 306

  Bavaria, 68, 73, 74

  Bedouins, 307-308

  Beirut-Aleppo railroad, 250, 265

  Bektash, 287-288

  Belekis, 288

  Belgae, 21

  Belgium, 329;
    boundary of French and Germanic languages in, 19-34;
    French- and Flemish-speaking inhabitants, table, 34;
    language, xiv;
    linguistic and political boundaries, 22;
    literature, 318-319;
    national language, 23;
    nationality, 33;
    present crisis, 29, 33;
    Romance languages in, 25;
    shape of land, 29-30;
    struggle for unity, 20

  Berat, 164

  Berne, 53, 54

  Beskid, 115, 143

  Bessarabia, 159;
    Rumanians in, 172

  Bienne, 49, 50, 51, 55

  Bismarck, 329

  Black Caps, 284

  Black Sea, 218;
    Poland and, 120

  Blanc, Mont, 52

  Blondness in Asia Minor, 286

  Bohemia, 56, 341;
    culture, 143;
    German element at present, 148-149;
    German ring about, 141-142, 144;
    national consciousness, 148;
    nationality, 153;
    Slav and Teuton struggle, 143-144;
    spoliation, 148

  Bohemian and Bohemians, 141-150;
    literature, 146, 147, 151

  Böhmerwald, 141, 142

  Boleslas, 119

  Bolzano, 73, 74

  Boshnaks, 189

  Bosnia, 181, 182, 189, 190;
    German settlers, 190-191

  Bosnian Mohammedans, 190

  Bosporus, 174, 178, 181, 217-220, 244

  Boulogne, 23

  Boundaries, linguistic and political, 342;
    national frontiers, 328;
    natural, 327;
    natural and scientific, 332-334;
    revisions, 202.
      _See also_ Frontiers

  Boyana, 196

  Brandenburg, 116, 118

  Brenner Pass, 70, 72

  Breslau, 116

  Bressanone, 73

  Breton, 56

  Bromberg, 121, 122

  Bruche, 43

  Brussels, French language in, growth, 27;
    languages, 24;
    sketch-map of environs showing language distribution, 26

  Budapest, 156

  Bukovina, 168-173;
    colonies and population, 170, 171;
    Germans in, 169;
    sketch-map of Rumanian area, 169

  Bulgaria, history, 214;
    national unity, 214-215

  Bulgarian, Macedonian and, 206;
    old, 211;
    Serbian transition dialect, 212

  Bulgarians, 176, 180, 202;
    ethnic composition, 209-210;
    Greek boundary, 207;
    Macedonia, 204;
    Turks and, 210

  Bunjevci, 188

  Burgundy, 20, 36, 52, 53, 61

  Byzantium, 232, 235


  Caliphate, 241, 267

  Cape-to-Cairo railroad, 252

  Caravans, 234, 257-258, 263

  Carniola, 79, 80

  Carpathians, 114-115, 131, 136

  Catalonians, 64

  Cathay, 233, 234

  Caucasus, 135, 283, 284

  Celtic, xiv, 47, 52, 59;
    early home, 6;
    in France, relation to Italic, 56;
    Po, 63

  Celts, 6, 40, 41;
    Asia Minor, 287;
    early home, 56;
    influence on Teutons, 14

  Chaldeans, 305

  Charlemagne, 38, 39

  Charles the Bald, 38, 39

  Charles IV, 145, 146

  Chepmi, 285

  China, 234

  Chinese, 7

  Christians of St. John, 306

  Christians of Turko-Persian borderland, table, 311-313

  Chuds.
    _See_ Esthonians

  Cilician Gates, 225, 258

  Cimbro, 68

  Cimmerians, 286

  Circassians, 282-284

  Colonization, Germans in Poland, 127-129;
    Germans in Russia, 343-344

  Constantinople, 167, 181, 205, 219-220, 232, 244, 282, 324;
    Turkish capture, 235

  Cracow, 125, 130

  Crete, 217

  Croatia, 182, 184, 190

  Croats, 81, 85, 88, 182

  Crusades, 245, 301

  Czech, xv, 3;
    German and, in northern Bohemia, 144-145;
    linguistic area, 142, 143

  Czecho-Slovak body, 143

  Czechs and Poles, 115

  Czernowitz, 170


  Dacia, 161

  Dacians, 175

  Dalmatia, 182, 186;
    Italians in, 77;
    Italy’s claims, 84-86;
    map of the coast, 85;
    nationality, 87;
    Roman influence, 84-86;
    value to Italy, 84

  Dalmatian coast, 78, 337-338

  Dalmatian islands, population statistics, 76

  Damascus, 264, 267, 302

  Danish, 93-97;
    Norway, 98

  Dante, 75

  Danube, 46, 82, 137, 154, 155, 156, 165, 175, 181, 199

  Danzig, 117, 118, 121

  Danzig, Gulf of, 117, 126

  Dardanelles, 174, 217-220, 244

  Denmark, linguistic problem, 93-97.
    _See also_ Schleswig-Holstein

  Devil-worshipers, 303, 304

  Discovery, age of, 233

  Dnieper, 111, 136, 137

  Dodecanesia, 246-247, 256

  “Drang nach Osten,” 119, 181, 243, 331

  Druzes, 299-300

  Duma, 124

  Dunkirk, 20, 23, 24

  Durazzo, 200, 212

  Dushan, Stephen, 186, 211

  Dwellings, Alemannic, 44;
    German types, 14;
    Italian and German, in northern Italy, 68;
    Lithuanians, 105;
    Lorraine, 44;
    Romansh, 54

  Dyrrachium, 200


  Eastern Question, 180, 228, 231-233, 248

  Elbe, 93, 118, 133, 136, 137, 141, 142, 150

  Elephantine papyri, 302

  Ems, 93

  Epidamnus, 200

  Epirus, Greek claims to, 196-198

  Erzerum, 224

  Erzgebirge, 141, 142

  Esthonians, 104, 106-108

  Euphrates, 224, 238, 239, 294, 302, 308

  Europe, civilizing power of geography, 18;
    eastern, sketch-map showing classification of Russians, etc., 112;
    languages, classification, 346-347


  Fellaheen, 308

  Fennification, 102

  Finland, 17, 101-103;
    language and population tables, 109, 110;
    languages, 103;
    literature and nationality, 322-323;
    Sweden and, 102, 103

  Finnish, 15, 17, 101-103

  Finno-Ugrian, 17

  Finns, 101-103

  Fiume, 88

  Flammigants, 28

  Flemings, 19-30;
    rivalry with Walloons, 28-30

  Flemish language, 19-29

  Formazzo valley, 67

  France, Celtic in, 56;
    dialects, 9;
    early distinction in languages, 9;
    Flemish language in, 23;
    Italian linguistic boundary, 63;
    language and literature, 320;
    linguistic boundary in Alsace-Lorraine, 35-49;
    map showing contact of langue d’oïl and langue d’oc, 12;
    nationality, 40;
    racial elements, 5;
    sketch-map showing mountain areas and basins, 10;
    Turkey and, 237, 245-246, 263-266

  François, 12

  Franco-Provençal dialects, 60

  Franco-Russian sphere in Turkey, 250, 266

  Franks, 56

  Fransquillons, 28

  Frasherists, 164

  French, Alsace-Lorraine, 35-49;
    Belgium, 23;
    boundary in Belgium and Luxemburg, 19-34;
    character, 11;
    character and composition, 11, 12;
    dialects in Italy, 60-64;
    early influence in Germany, 14;
    Flemish-speaking districts of France, 24;
    in Italy (map), 61;
    Luxemburg, 30-34;
    map showing boundary between French and Italian, 65;
    origin of modern, 9;
    sketch-map of Brussels and environs showing, 26;
    Switzerland (with map), 49-58

  French Revolution, 47, 48, 59, 148, 315, 316

  Fribourg, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55

  Frisian, 94

  Friuli, 78

  Friulian, 72, 76, 165;
    definition, 73

  Frontiers, France and Germany, 334-335;
    linguistic factor, 314;
    scientific, 332-333;
    wars and, 328


  Gaelic, 56

  Galatae, 286

  Galicia, 113, 114;
    Jews, 125-126;
    Poles, 130;
    Poles and Ruthenians, 131

  Gallipoli, 175

  Gaul, 64

  Gaulish, 56

  Gediz valley, 249, 264

  German, Alsace-Lorraine, 35-49;
    area, 13;
    around Bohemia, 141-142, 144;
    Baltic provinces, 105, 106;
    Czech and, in northern Bohemia, 144-145;
    dialects, 13;
    dwelling houses and language, 14;
    imposition of the language in Alsace, 48;
    in Italy, 66-75;
    Luxemburg, 31-33;
    sketch-map of areas of the three dialects, 15;
    Switzerland (with map), 49-58;
    transitional dialects, 14

  Germanic languages, 9;
    boundary in Belgium and Luxemburg, 19-34

  Germanization, Alsace-Lorraine, 48;
    Bohemia, 144-145;
    Bosnia, 190-191;
    Bukovina, 169-170;
    Danish provinces, 95;
    Hungary, 156-157;
    Italy, 69;
    Lusatia, 134;
    Luxemburg, 31;
    Moravia, 150;
    Slovak-land, 151-152, 153;
    Trentino, 75;
    Upper Silesia, 126-127

  Germany, clash with Slavs in Balkans, 181;
    Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein problem, 93-97;
    Germans and Poles in Upper Silesia, table, 139-140;
    language and power, 329;
    language and unity, 317;
    linguistic boundary in Alsace-Lorraine, 35-49;
    nationality, 40, 316;
    Poles in eastern, 123;
    Polish contact, 115-135;
    Polish estate buying, 127-129;
    Polish immigration, 121-122;
    Polish provinces, table, 137-138;
    Russia and, 330-332;
    Turkey and, 236, 237, 241-243, 257-258, 263

  Gheks, 193

  Gibraltar, 236

  Gipsies, 172, 289

  Goths, 176

  Great Britain and Turkey, 237, 238, 255-256, 263

  Great Russians, 113, 136, 170

  Greece, 175;
    Albanian boundary, 197;
    Albanian coast and, 200-201;
    Bulgarian character in north, 211;
    Bulgarian speech and, 207;
    claims on Turkey, 247-248;
    Epirus and, 196-198;
    Rumanian in, 163

  Greek, classical forms in Asia Minor, 277;
    in Italy, 89-90;
    Macedonian boundary, 205-206;
    northern area, map, 203

  Greeks, Asia Minor, 273-278;
    blue-eyed, 176;
    Dodecanesia, 247;
    Mohammedan, 277;
    Persians and, 227

  Grimault, 326

  Grusinian, 284

  Guzlars, 321-322


  Hai, 291

  Hakem, 300

  “Hakenhufen,” 133

  Hamath, 302

  Hamze, 300

  Hanaks, 150

  “Heim,” 44

  “Heimatlose,” 95

  Hejaz railroad, 267

  Hellenism.
    _See_ Greece; Greeks

  Hellenization, 205

  Herzegovina, 181, 182

  High German, 13

  Hittites, 279, 291, 299, 301

  Hochdeutsch, 13

  Holland, 29, 30, 33, 329

  Holstein, 94, 95.
    _See also_ Schleswig-Holstein

  Homo alpinus, 323-324

  Hungarian, 154-159

  Hungarians, 81, 154;
    Croatia, 190

  Hungary, 131;
    debt to Rumania, 168;
    defining, 338-340;
    Germanization, 156-157;
    Germans in, 152;
    individuality, 154;
    Rumanian problem, 157, 158-159;
    sketch-map of Rumanian area, 169;
    Slovakian area, 152;
    Slovaks, 150, 151

  Huns, 176

  Huss, 146, 147, 151

  Huzuli, 168


  Ile-de-France, 9, 11

  Ill valley, 38, 40

  Illyrian, 86

  India, 234, 238, 239, 240, 257

  “Ingen,” 36, 44

  Ipek, 194, 195, 196

  Isarco, 73

  Ismailyehs, 298

  Istria, Italian in, 77

  Istrian peninsula, 76

  Italian borderlands, 59-92;
    Dalmatian islands, 76;
    inhabitants of Italian speech in Adriatic provinces, table, 92;
    Istrian region, 77;
    map showing boundary between Italian and French, 65

  Italic and Celtic, in France, 56

  Italy, 59-92;
    Austrian frontier claims (with sketch-map), 335-337;
    claim on Turkey, 237, 246-247, 256;
    foreign linguistic groups, 60;
    German language in, 66-75;
    Greeks in, 89-90;
    map of Slavic colonies in the Molise group, 89;
    nationality, 59, 90;
    non-Italian vernaculars, table, 91;
    Slavic dialects in and on borders, 78;
    Slavs in, 88;
    Slovene in, and on borders of, map, 81


  Jablunka pass, 115

  Jacobites, 305-306

  Jaffa-Jerusalem railroad, 250, 265

  Jagellons, 120

  Janina, 198-199

  Jerusalem, 301

  Jews, Esthonian, 107;
    Galicia, 125-126;
    German Poland, 123;
    Polish, 123, 126;
    Polish provinces of Russia, 123;
    Turkey, 301

  Judea, 226

  Jugoslavia, 88, 185, 338

  Jura, 49, 52, 55

  Jutland, 93


  Kabardians, 283

  Kalevala, 322-323

  Karapapaks, 284

  Karst land, 77-79

  Kastoria, 211

  Khirgiz, 174

  Kiel Canal, 94

  Kiev, 119

  Kizilbash, 285-288

  Konia, 258, 260

  Kottbus, 134, 135

  Kovno, 132

  Kraljevitch, Marko, 321

  Kurdistan Christians, table, 312-313

  Kurds, 294-296

  Kurland, 106

  Kutzo-Vlachs, 163


  Ladin, 66, 72, 165;
    definition, 72-73

  Ladislas, 119

  Lake beds, 290

  Landsmaal, 99, 100

  Language, economic influences, 325-327;
    formative influence, 18;
    national asset, 320;
    nationality and, 1, 155, 314-315;
    race, nationality, and, 4;
    European, classification, 346-347;
    great groups in Europe, 9

  Langue d’oc, 9, 12, 64

  Langue d’oïl, 9, 12, 20, 328

  Lassi, 149, 150

  Latin, 52, 56, 320;
    Belgium, 21;
    Dalmatian coast, 86, 87;
    introduction into France, and influence, 10;
    Rome’s, 59;
    Rumanian and, 159-161;
    Southeastern Europe, 163

  Latin-Faliscan, 56

  Lazis, 284

  Lebanon, 299, 300

  Lemberg, 125, 130

  Letts, 104-107

  Liége, 28

  _Lingua romana_, 38

  _Lingua teudisca_, 39

  Linguistic areas, 3

  Lippowans, 170-171

  Literature and nationality, 317-319

  Lithuanians, 104-107

  Little Russians, 113, 131, 136

  Livonians, 107

  Lombardo-Venetia, 74

  Lorraine, 36-37, 326, 334.
    _See also_ Alsace-Lorraine

  Lothaire, 39

  Lotharii Regnum, 38

  Lothringia, 29, 40

  Louis the German, 38

  Low German, 13, 94

  Lusatia, 133

  Luther, 13

  Lutherans, 105, 106, 108

  Luxemburg, boundary of French and Germanic languages in, 19-34;
    language, 30-34


  Maalstraev, 97

  Macedonia, 202, 204-214;
    history, 208-209;
    loss to Bulgarians, 207;
    physical, 203-204;
    Serbian claims on, 211-212;
    Slavs, 206

  Macedonian, 165, 166, 206

  Macedonians, 204-214;
    definition, 204;
    ethnic composition, 209;
    groups, 205

  Magyar, area, 155-156

  Magyars, 151, 154, 155

  Malmedy, 22, 33

  Mar Shimun, 305

  Maritza, 215, 219, 220

  Marmora, 218-220, 244

  Maronites, 299, 300-301

  Masurians, 132, 133

  Meander, 255-256

  Mecca, 241, 267, 268

  Mediterranean race, xiv, 4, 5, 6

  Mendai, 306

  Meran, 73

  Mesopotamia, 226, 238, 260, 261, 262, 272, 307, 308;
    reclamation, 239

  Metauilehs, 297-298

  Metsovo, 160

  Metz, 37, 43

  Mezzo-Mezzos, 277

  Middle German, 13

  Midyad, 305

  Migrations, 202;
    seasonal, 162

  Mindvog, 104

  Mirdites, 193

  Mohammedan Albanians, 194, 201

  Mohammedanism, 83;
    Turkey and, 221

  Mohammedans, 101, 136, 164, 177, 189;
    Bosnia, 190;
    Caliphate, 241, 267;
    dissenters, 285-289;
    Great Britain and, 240;
    Greek, 277;
    immigrants into Turkey, 282-284;
    landholders in Europe, 198;
    railroad funds, 267-268

  Moldavia, 171, 172

  Moldavians, 162, 167, 168

  Molise group, 89

  Monastiro, 72

  Mongolian, 104

  Mongolians, 113, 176

  Mont Blanc, 52

  Montenegrins, 180

  Montenegro, 182, 195, 196

  Moravia, 149-150;
    German expansion, 150

  Moravian, 115, 116

  Moravian Slovaks, 149, 150

  Moravians, 142

  Moresnet, 32, 33

  Morlacca, 88

  Mosul, 223, 260;
    Christians, table, 311-312

  Mountains as boundaries, 333-334

  Musariyehs, 298-299

  Muscovy, 16

  Mush, 290, 294


  Nancy, 36, 37, 42, 43

  Naples, kingdom of, Slav colonists, 88

  Nationality, language and, 1, 155, 314-315;
    language, race, and, 4

  Nestorians, 304-305

  Netherlands, 29

  New Norse, 100

  Niederdeutsch, 13

  Nimrud Dagh, 294

  Noghai tartars, 283

  Nomadism, 162, 164, 282, 283, 308

  Nordic race, xiv, 4, 5, 6, 19, 41, 102, 104, 176

  Norse, 98, 99, 100

  Norsk, 98

  Norway, Danish language in, 98;
    linguistic problem, 97-100

  Norwegian, 97, 100

  Norwego-Danish, 98-100

  Novibazar, 188-189


  Oberdeutsch, 13

  Obrenovitch, Miloch, 186

  Oder, 93, 116, 118, 137

  Old Norse, 98, 99

  Oscan-Umbrian, 56


  Palestine, 245, 265

  Pan-Germanism, 331

  Pan-Slavism, 331

  Paris, 9, 11

  Parlers, 11

  Patois, French, 9

  Peacock King, 303

  Persia, trade, 238

  Persian and Armenian, 272

  Persian Gulf, 239

  Persians, Armenians and, 290;
    Greeks and, 227

  Phrygians, 286, 292

  Piasts, 119, 120

  Picard patois, 11, 12

  Piedmont, 59-62;
    German in, 66-67

  Pilsen, 144

  Pindus, 162, 163, 165, 166, 195, 202, 203, 204

  Pjesme, 321, 322

  Plattdeutsch, 13

  Po, 59, 63, 84

  Podgoritza, 196

  Podhalians, 114

  Poetry, nationality and, 318-319;
    Serbia, 321-322

  Poland, 111-140;
    Austro-Hungarian provinces, table, 138;
    autonomy, 340-341;
    German colonization, 116, 127-129;
    German provinces, table, 137-138;
    Jewish element, 124-126;
    nature of land, 119;
    Russia and, 121;
    Russian provinces, table, 138-139;
    Turkey and, 120;
    unity of, 135-136

  Poles, 111-140;
    Austrian, 130;
    Bukovina, 170, 171;
    eastern Germany, 123;
    German contacts, 115-135;
    patriotism and national spirit, 129;
    letters in Germany, 121-122

  Polish, area, 111-140;
    teaching, 129

  Polish Jews.
    _See_ Jews

  Posen, 116, 121-123, 128, 133

  Prague, 146

  Protestants, Bohemia, 146;
    Piedmont, 61-62;
    Polish group, 133

  Prussia, 48, 49, 81, 82, 93, 94, 95, 117, 118, 120, 126, 127;
    ascendency, 329;
    Germanization, 128;
    Poland and, 340-341;
    Poles in, 117, 121

  Pruth, 172


  Race, xv;
    European blending, xiv, 5;
    language, nationality, and, 4;
    mingling, 3

  Ragusa, 77, 88

  Railroads, Turkish, 248-252, 268-269;
    Turkish-owned, 267

  Raskolniks, 136

  Ratzel, F., 325, 326

  “Red head,” 286

  Religious persecution, 61-63

  Reval Esthonian, 108

  Rhine, 35, 37, 46, 47, 326

  Rhone, 51, 52

  Riksmaal, 98, 99, 100

  Rivers as boundaries, 46, 333

  Roman names in Belgium, 21

  Romance languages, 56;
    Balkan peninsula, 86-87, 164-166;
    Belgium, 25;
    easterly group map, 166

  Romanic, 56, 66

  Romanic languages, 9

  Romansh, 54, 165;
    definition, 72-73

  Rome, Dalmatia and, 83-86;
    influence in southeastern Europe, 165;
    Rumania and, 167;
    southeastern Europe and, 161

  Rumania, original element and history, 167;
    Russian influence, 172, 173

  Rumanian, 159-173;
    Albanian and, 165;
    Bessarabia, 172;
    Latin kinship, 159-161, 162;
    map of areas, 166;
    Serbia, 188;
    sketch-map of, in Bukovina and Hungary, 169;
    sketch-map showing parts, 183

  Rumanians, 339;
    Balkan peninsula, 160;
    colonies and groups, 163-164;
    Roman customs, 161;
    in and about Hungary, 157, 158-159;
    Pindus mountains, map, 203

  Russ, 16

  Russia, 15, 16;
    advances southwesterly, 243;
    Baltic provinces, 103-108;
    Bessarabia and Rumania, 172, 173;
    different languages, 18;
    Finland and, 101, 103;
    German settlements in, 343-344;
    Germany and, 330-332;
    Jewish segregation, 124;
    Jews in Polish provinces, 123;
    Poland and, 121;
    Polish provinces, table, 139-140;
    sketch-map showing classification, 112;
    Turkey and, 236, 237, 244-245, 250, 264, 266-267

  Russian, 15;
    Asiatic influence, 16-17;
    blending of dialects, 18;
    Finland, 103;
    origin of modern, 16

  Russians, divisions, 136;
    original, 132

  Russification, 106, 108

  Ruthenia, 16

  Ruthenians, 114, 126, 130, 131, 168;
    Bukovina, 168, 170, 171-172;
    Slav type, 132


  Sabeans, 298, 303, 306

  St. Bernard passes, 52

  Salonica, 181, 213-214

  Samaan mountains, 303

  Samsoun-to-Sivas railroad, 250, 266

  San Juan de Medua, 199

  Sanskrit, 104

  Sardinia, 64

  Sarmatians, 175, 176

  Sasseno, 200, 201

  Saxon, 158

  Saxon colony in Hungary, 157, 158

  Saxonian, 13

  Scandinavian languages, 93-100

  Schelde, 19, 20, 30

  Schleswig, 93-97

  Schleswig-Holstein, 341;
    Germanization, 95;
    problem, 93-97;
    sketch-map of languages from Danish viewpoint, 97;
    sketch-map of languages from German viewpoint, 96

  Scutari, 180, 199

  Scutari Lake, 195, 196

  Scythians, 175

  Sephardim, 301

  Serbia, 182, 243, 337, 338;
    Adriatic and, 180;
    Austrian ultimatum, 181;
    claims on Macedonia, 211-212;
    history and politics, 186;
    linguistic area, 186-189;
    nationality, 191;
    poetry, 321-322

  Serbian, area, 181-182;
    Bulgarian transition dialect, 212

  Serbo-Croatian in the Dalmatian islands, 76

  Serbo-Croats, 79, 136, 184-185

  Serbs, 81, 85, 88;
    Balkan, 174-191;
    culture, 184;
    religion and nationality, 182-183;
    three groups, 182

  Sette communi, 68-69;
    map of German speech in, 69

  Shmuds, 104

  Siberia, 17

  Silesia, 116.
    _See also_ Upper Silesia

  Silk, 246

  Simplon tunnel, 52

  Sinjar range, 303, 304

  Sivas, 250, 266

  Skip, 192

  Skipetars, 189, 192, 193

  Slavic, xv, 9;
    Russian as a form of, 15

  Slavicization, 101;
    Balkan peninsula, 165

  Slavonia, 182, 184

  Slavs, 6;
    Adriatic provinces, 76;
    Austria-Hungary, 82;
    Baltic, 108;
    Bohemian and Moravian, 141;
    Dalmatia, 85, 86, 87;
    early home, 7;
    fusion with aliens, 108;
    German-speaking, 134;
    Italy, 78, 88-89;
    Karst and Adriatic, 77-78;
    languages in Austria, sketch-map, 183;
    Macedonian, 202, 206;
    map of Molise group in Italy, 89;
    Naples, 88;
    note on, 136-137;
    Poland, 111;
    southern unity, 185, 337-338;
    Teutonic clash, 181, 330-332;
    type, 132

  Slovakian, 151;
    Hungarian northern boundary, 152

  Slovaks, 114, 136, 150-153;
    Moravian, 149, 150;
    outside their native land, 153

  Slovene, Italy, 76;
    linguistic area, 76-81;
    map showing area in Austria and parts of Italy, 81

  Slovenes, 136

  Sorabes, 133

  Spalato, 77, 86

  Stapelländern, 326

  Steppes, 15-18

  Strassburg, 37, 38, 41

  Suez Canal, 178, 223

  Suwalki, 132

  Svatopuk, 150

  Swabians, 170

  Sweden, 100, 101;
    Finland and, 102, 103

  Swedish, 100, 102;
    Finland, 103

  Switzerland, distribution of languages, tables, 57, 58;
    languages, 326-327;
    linguistic boundary between French and German (with map), 49-58;
    nationality, 54;
    Valais and German, 66-67

  Syria, 226, 250, 272, 303;
    France and, 245-246, 264, 265;
    French states in time of Crusades, map, 245

  Syrians, 296-298;
    Nestorians and, 305

  Széchenyi, Stephen, 155

  Szekler, 157, 159, 170


  Tahtajis, 285

  Tatar, 16, 101, 102, 166, 167

  Tatars, 177;
    invasion of southern Poland, 113;
    Turks and, 279-280

  Taurus, 229-230, 258, 259

  Tchan, 284

  Temesvar, 188

  Teutonic Knights, 104, 105, 118, 119, 120, 132

  Teutons, Celtic influence, 14;
    early home, 6;
    Slavs and, 181, 330-332.
      _See also_ Germany

  Thessaly, 217

  Thrace, 166, 175

  Tigris, 238, 239, 294, 301, 302, 307;
    Christians, table, 311-312

  Tirnovo, 214

  Tiroler Volksbund, 75

  Toce, 67

  Torre Pellice, 61-62

  Tosks, 193

  Trade, Asiatic and European, 233-236;
    language and, 325-327

  Transylvania, 157, 158, 159, 161, 162, 339;
    social grouping, 159

  Traveri, 287

  Trent, Italian character, 75;
    Bishopric of, 73, 74

  Trentino, 335;
    German in, 72;
    German invasions, 70;
    German propaganda, 75;
    Italian dialects in, 72;
    Italy’s claims and their basis, 73;
    sketch-map showing languages spoken, 71

  Trèves, 287

  Triest, 76, 77

  Troy, 232

  Turani, 306

  Turin, 60, 63

  Turkestan, 283

  Turkey, Armenians and, 293-294;
    classification of peoples of Asiatic, table, 310;
    danger to Europe past, 82-83;
    economic position, 268;
    elements of interest, 228;
    Europe and, 237;
    European powers and, 237;
    geographical case of, 221-270;
    geographical sections and peoples, 271;
    Greeks and Albanians forced into Italy, 89-90;
    groups of peoples, 273;
    highway of commerce, 222-224, 248;
    historic struggle for highway, 226-227;
    literature and nationality, 323-325;
    nationality, 230;
    patriotism absent, 229;
    partition, 236-237;
    peoples of, 271-313;
    Poland and, 120;
    railroads, 248-252;
    spheres of influence of European powers, 250-251;
    summary glance at foreign influence, 269-270;
    world selection, 230-236.
      _See also_ Asia Minor

  Turki, 101, 154, 272, 281, 283, 284

  Turkish, 15, 204, 225;
    Arabic words, 280;
    Bulgarian and, 210;
    Persian words, 272

  Turkomans, 283

  Turko-Persian borderland Christians, table, 311-313

  Turks, 154, 165, 167, 168, 171, 186, 187;
    customs, 176-177;
    European occupation temporary, 177;
    exodus, 202;
    Greek and Bulgarian division of lands, 207-208;
    in Asia Minor, 278-282;
    intruders in Europe, 216-217;
    race, 280;
    religion, language and nationality, 280;
    Tatar character, 279-280;
    two types, 281

  Tyrol, 75;
    German and Italian competition, 74;
    southern, 70


  Ukraine, 131, 135

  Upper Silesia, 126;
    Germans and Poles, 126-127, 139-140

  Uralo-Altaic, 17

  Urals, 17, 333

  Urartu, 290, 291

  Uskub, 186, 204, 210, 211


  Valais, 51-54;
    German in, 66-67

  Valdese valleys, 62

  Valona, 200, 201

  Van, 290

  Vannic, 291, 292

  Var, 64

  Vardar valley, 164, 204

  Venetia, 74;
    German dialects in, 68

  Venice, 72, 85, 200;
    Dalmatian influence and authority, 85, 87

  Venice, Gulf of, 84

  Veria, Rumanians, 164

  Verse, conversing in, 108

  Vienna, 153, 154, 156

  Vienna, treaty of, 315-316, 328-329

  Vistula, 111, 113, 117, 118, 133, 135, 136, 137

  Vosges, 41, 334


  Walas, 22

  Wallachian verse, 160

  Wallachians, 162, 167, 168

  Wallonia, 19, 28

  Walloon, 19-30

  Walloons, 19-30;
    rivalry with Flemings, 28-30

  Warsaw, 123, 124

  Water boundaries, 333

  “Weiler,” 45

  Wends, 133-135;
    map of speech area, 134

  White Russians, 113, 136

  Willcocks, Sir Wm., 239

  Witte, H., 37, 44, 45


  Yemen, 306

  Yezidis, 303-304

  Yuruks, 288-289


  Zara, 77, 85

  Zips, 170




  TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

  Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
  corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
  the text and consultation of external sources.

  Most illustrations had a repeated label “FIG. nn”; this duplicate
  label has been removed.

  Some Figures and their captions were printed sideways; these have
  been rotated to the horizontal in the etext.

  The ‘per cent’ columns in TABLE I and II on page 109 were incorrect.
  The erroneous hundreds digit has been dropped, and the correct
  results with a total 100.0% are obtained. For example 85.1 replaces
  the printed 585.1 percentage. TABLE II has been split into two parts
  for readability.

  A separating line of dashes has been inserted for readability
  between rows of TABLE II on page 310.

  Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text,
  and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained: for example,
  halfway, half-way; tableland, table-land; goodwill, good-will;
  inclosed; coreland; practise; areal; comitat.

  Pg 41: ‘Hohkönigsberg mountains’ replaced by
         ‘Hochkönigsberg mountains’.
  Pg 92: ‘Metkovie’ in TABLE II replaced by ‘Metkovic’.
  Pg 109: ‘Tota’ in 7th column of TABLE III replaced by ‘Total’.
  Pg 110: In TABLE IV three cells misplaced on the ‘Vasa’ heading line
          moved to the correct place on the next line.
  Pg 126: ‘became a thorny’ replaced by ‘become a thorny’.
  Pg 135: ‘comprise wealthly’ replaced by ‘comprise wealthy’.
  Pg 155: ‘and muncipalities were’ replaced by
          ‘and municipalities were’.
  Pg 158: ‘between the town of’ replaced by ‘between the towns of’.
  Pg 265: ‘France the first’ replaced by ‘France in the first’.
  Pg 297: ‘and the explantion’ replaced by ‘and the explanation’.
  Pg 353: (Pittard) ‘la Péninsula des’ replaced by ‘la Péninsule des’.
  Pg 355: (Teutsch) ‘Siebengürger Sachsen’ replaced by
          ‘Siebenbürger Sachsen’.
  Pg 361: ‘Linkelbeek’ replaced by ‘Linkebeek’.
  Pg 364: (Spalato) ‘town, lat. 43° 30°,’ replaced by
          ‘town, lat. 43° 30′,’.

  Footnote [54]: ‘valées italiennes’ replaced by ‘vallées italiennes’.
  Footnote [98]: ‘Talko-Hryncevicz’ replaced by ‘Talko-Hryncewicz’.
  Footnote [200]: ‘Nasetia Srpskikh zrmalia’ replaced by
         ‘Naselia Srpskikh zemalia’.