Part 2 — Chapter III. (These four articles abrogated by the four articles following them, 118-122.) Article 118. The Federal Constitution may at any time be amended. (continued 13)

The territory occupied by the Greek speaking people is clearly shown on the accompanying map. As in all history, it is the coast lands where they seem to have formed the strongest hold. In free Greece itself and in the Turkish territories immediately adjoining, the Greek population overwhelmingly preponderates.

Nevertheless there is still a considerable Albanian element in Attica and Argolis, a Vlach element in Epirus while the Turk himself still lingers in certain quarters of Thessaly. All these are remnants left over from the successive migrations of the Middle Ages. The Slavs, who also figured most prominently in these migrations, have disappeared in Greece as a distinct race. The question as to the degree of Slavic admixture among the modern Greeks is however another fruitful source of ethnic controversy. The general features of the question are most compactly stated in Finlay, volume 4, pages 1-37.

NON-ARYAN PEOPLES.

The Non-Aryan peoples on the soil of modern Europe, excepting the Jews and also probably excepting those already placed in the unsolved class of pre-Aryan, all belong to the Finno-Tatar or Ural-Altaic family, and all, possibly excepting the Finns, date their arrival in Europe from comparatively recent and historic times. The four principal divisions of this race, the Ugric, Finnic, Turkic and Mongolic, all have their European representatives.

Of the first the only representatives are the Hungarians (Magyars). The rift between the North and South Slavic peoples opened by the Huns in the fifth century, reopened and enlarged by the Avars in the sixth, was finally occupied by their kinsmen the Magyars in the ninth. The receding of this wave of Asiatic invasion left the Magyars in utter isolation among their Aryan neighbors. It follows as a natural consequence that they have been the only one of the Ural-Altaic peoples to accept the religion and civilization of the West. Since the conversion of their king St. Stephen in the year 1000, their geographical position has not altered. Roughly speaking, it comprises the western half of Hungary, with an outlying branch in the Carpathians.

More closely allied to the Magyars than to their more immediate neighbors of the same race are the Finnic stems of the extreme north. Stretching originally over nearly the whole northern half of Scandinavia and Russia they have been gradually displaced, in the one case by their Germanic, in the other by their Slavic neighbors. Their present representatives are the Ehsts and Tschudes of Ehstland, the Finns and Karelians of Finland, the Tscheremissians of the upper Volga, the Siryenians in the basin of the Petchora and the Lapps in northern Scandinavia and along the shores of the Arctic ocean.

East of the Lapps, also bordering the Arctic ocean, lie the Samojedes, a people forming a distinct branch of the Ural-Altaic family though most closely allied to the Finnic peoples. The great division of the Ural-Altaic family known indifferently as Tatar (Tartar) or Turk, has, like the Aryan Slavs, through the accidents of historical geography rather than race divergence been separated into two great divisions: the northern or Russian division commonly comprised under the specific name of Tartar; and the southern, the Turk.

These are the latest additions to the European family of races. The Mongol-Tatar invasion of Russia occurred as late as the thirteenth century, while the Turks did not gain their first foothold in Europe through the gates of Gallipoli until 1353. The bulk of the Turks of the present day are congregated in Asia-Minor.

Barring the Armenians, the Georgians of the northeast, the Greeks of the seacoast and the scattered Circassians, the whole peninsula is substantially Turkish.

In Europe proper the Turks as a distinct people never cut a great figure. Even in the grandest days of Osmanli conquest they were always outnumbered by the conquered nations whose land they occupied, and with the decline of their power this numerical inferiority has become more and more marked. At the present day there are very few portions of the Balkan peninsula where the Turkish population actually predominates; their general distribution is clearly shown on the map.

{v}

The Tartars or Russian Turks represent the siftings of the Asiatic invasions of the thirteenth century.

Their number has been steadily dwindling until they now count scarcely three millions, a mere handful in the mass of their former Slavic subjects.

The survivors are scattered in irregular and isolated groups over the south and east. Prominent among them are the Crim Tartars, the kindred Nogais of the west shores of the Caspian, the Kirghis of the north shore and Ural valley, and the Bashkirs between the upper Ural and the Volga, with an isolated branch of Tartars in the valley of the Araxes south of the Caucasus.

The great Asiatic irruption of the thirteenth century has been commonly known as the Mongol invasion. Such it was in leadership, though the residuum which it has left behind in European Russia proves that the rank and file were mostly Tartars. One Mongol people however, the Kalmucks, did make their way into Europe and still exist in the steppes between the lower Don and the lower Volga.

The ethnology of the Caucasian peoples is the most difficult part of the entire subject. On the steppes of the Black and Caspian seas up to the very limit of the Caucasus we have two races between whom the ethnic distinction is clearly defined, the Mongol-Tartar and the Slav. Entering the Caucasus however we find a vast number of races differing alike from these and from each other.

To enumerate all the different divisions of these races, whose ethnology is so very uncertain, would be useless. Grouped in three general divisions however they are as follows: the so-called Circassians who formerly occupied the whole western Caucasus with the adjoining Black sea coast but who, since the Russian conquest of 1864, have for the most part emigrated to different quarters of the Turkish Empire; the Lesghians, under which general name are included the motley crowd of peoples inhabiting the eastern Caucasus; and the Georgians, the supposed descendants of the ancient Iberians of the Caucasus, who inhabit the southern slope, including all the Tiflis province and the Trapezuntine lands on the southeast coast of the Black sea.

The Tartars are hardly found in the Caucasus though they reappear immediately south of it in the lower basin of the Kura and the Araxes. Here also appear the various Iranian stems of the Asiatic Aryans, the Armenians, the Persians and the Kurds.

R. H. Latham's works on "European Ethnology" are the best general authority in English. Of more recent German guides, map and otherwise, the following are noteworthy: Bastain's "Ethnologisches Bilderbuch," "Das Beständige in den Menschenrassen," "Allgemeine Grundzüge der Ethnologie," Kiepert's "Ethnographische Uebersichtskarte des Europäischen Orients," Menke's "Europa nach seinen Ethnologischen Verhältnissen in der Mitte des 19. Jahrhundert," Rittich's "Ethnographie des europäischen Russland," Sax's "Ethnographische Karte der europäischen Turkei," Berghaus's "Ethnographische Karte vom österreichischen Kaiserstaat," Wendt's "Bilder Atlas der Länder und Völkerkunde," Andree's "Allgemeiner Hand-atlas (Ethnographischen Karten)," Gerland's "Atlas der Ethnographie."

A. C. Reiley.

{vi}

APPENDIX B.

NOTES TO FOUR MAPS OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (TWELFTH TO THE FIFTEENTH CENTURY.)

There exists to-day upon the map of Europe no section whose historical geography has a greater present interest than the Danubian, Balkan and Levantine states. It is these and the Austro-Hungarian lands immediately adjoining which have formed one of the great fulcrums for those national movements which constitute the prime feature of the historical geography of the present age.

Upon the present map of Europe in this quarter we discover a number of separate and diminutive national entities, the Roumanian, Bulgarian, Servian and Montenegrin, the Greek and Albanian, all struggling desperately to establish themselves on the debris of the crumbling Turkish Empire.

What the issue will be of these numerous and mutually conflicting struggles for separate national existence it is out of our province to forecast.

It is only intended in this map series to throw all possible light on their true character from the lessons and analogies of the past. At first sight the period treated in the four Levantine maps (from the last of the twelfth to the middle of the fifteenth century) must appear the most intricate and the most obscure in the entire history of this region. The most intricate it certainly is, and possibly the most obscure, though the obscurity arises largely from neglect. Its importance, however, arises from the fact that it is the only past period of Levantine history which presents a clear analogy to the present, not alone in its purely transitionary character, but also from the several national movements which during this time were diligently at work.

During the Roman and the earlier Byzantine periods, which from their continuity may be taken as one, any special tendency was of course stifled under the preponderant rule of a single great empire.

The same was equally true at a later time, when all of these regions passed under the rule of the Turk. These four maps treat of that most interesting period intervening between the crumbling of the Byzantine power and the Turkish conquest. That in our own day the crumbling in turn of the Turkish power has repeated, in its general features, the same historical situation, is the point upon which the interest must inevitably centre.

What the outcome will be in modern times forms the most interesting of political studies. Whether the native races of the Danube, the Balkans and the southern peninsula are to work out their full national development, either federately or independently, or whether they are destined to pass again, as is threatened, under the domination of another and greater empire, is one of the most important of the questions which agitates the mind of the modern European statesman. That the latter outcome is now the less likely is due to the great unfolding of separate national spirit which marks so strongly the age in which we live. The reason why the previous age treated in this map series ended in nothing better than foreign and Mohammedan conquest may perhaps be sought in the imperfect development of this same national spirit.

THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE.

The first map (Asia Minor and the Balkans near the close of the twelfth century) is intended to show the geographical situation as it existed immediately prior to the dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire. The Byzantine Empire of this period is in itself an important study. It must be regarded more as the offspring than the direct continuation of the great East-Roman Empire of Arcadius and Justinian; for with the centuries which had intervened the great changes in polity, internal geography, external neighbors and lastly the continual geographical contraction, present us with an entirely new series of relations. It is this geographical contraction which concerns us most vitally, for with it the frontiers of the empire conform more and more closely to the ethnic limits of the Greek nation. The later Byzantine Empire was, therefore, essentially a Greek Empire, and as such it appeals most vividly to the national consciousness of the Greek of our own time. The restoration of this empire, with the little kingdom of free Greece as the nucleus, is the vision which inspires the more aggressive and venturesome school of modern Greek politicians. In the twelfth century the bulk of Asia Minor had been wrested from the Byzantine Empire by the Turks, but it was the Crusaders, not the Turks, who overthrew the first empire. In one view this fact is fortunate, otherwise there would have been no transition period whose study would be productive of such fruitful results.

Owing to the artful policy of the Comnenian emperors, the Byzantine Empire actually profited by the early crusades and was enabled through them to recover a considerable part of Asia Minor from the Turks. This apparent success, however, was only the prelude to final disaster.

Isolated from western Christendom by the schism, the Greeks were an object of suspicion and hatred to the Latin Crusaders and it only required a slight abatement of the original crusading spirit for their warlike ardor to be diverted from Jerusalem to Constantinople. Cyprus was torn away from the Greek Empire and created a separate kingdom under Latin rule, in 1191. Finally, the so-called Fourth Crusade, controlled by Venetian intrigue, ended in the complete dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire (1204).

{vii}

This nefarious enterprise forms a dark spot in history: it also ushers in the greatest period of geographical intricacy in Levantine annals, the geography which immediately resulted from it is not directly shown in this Levantine map series, but can be seen on the general map of Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century. Briefly stated, it represented the establishment of a fragmentary and disjointed Latin Empire in the place of the former Greek Empire of Constantinople. Known as the Latin Empire of Romania, this new creation included the Empire of Constantinople proper and its feudal dependencies, the kingdom of Thessalonica, the duchy of Athens, and the principality of Achaia.

Three orphan Greek states survived the fall of the parent power: in Europe, the despotat of Epirus, and in Asia, the empires of Nicæa and Trebizond.

The Latin states of the East are scarcely worthy the historian's notice. They have no place whatever in the natural development, either political or geographical, of the Levantine states. They were not only forced by foreign lances upon an unwilling population, but were clumsy feudalisms, established among a people to whom the feudal idea was unintelligible and barbarous. Like their prototypes, the Crusading states of Syria, they resembled artificial encroachments upon the sea, standing for a time, but with the ordinary course of nature the ocean reclaims its own.

Even the weak little Greek states were strong in comparison and immediately began to recover ground at their expense. The kingdom of Thessalonica was overthrown by the despot of Epirus in 1222; the Latin Empire of Constantinople itself fell before the Greek Emperor of Nicæa in 1261; while the last of the barons of the principality of Achaia submitted to the Byzantine despots of the Morea in 1430.

The duchy of Athens alone of all these Latin states survived long enough to fall at last before the Turkish conquest. The Levantine possessions won by Venice at this and later times were destined, partly from their insular or maritime location, and partly from the greater vitality of trade relations, to enjoy a somewhat longer life.

To the Nicæan emperors of the house of Paleologus belongs the achievement of having restored the Byzantine Empire in the event of 1261. The expression Restored Byzantine Empire has been employed, since it has the sanction of usage, though a complete restoration never occurred. The geography of the Restored Empire as shown on the second map (1265 A. D.) fails to include the greater part of what we may term the cradle of the Greek race. The only subsequent extension was over the balance of the Morea. In every other quarter the frontiers of the Restored Empire soon began to recede until it included only the city of Constantinople and an ever decreasing portion of Thrace. With the commencement of the fourteenth century the Turks, having thrown off the Mongol-Tartar dominion, began under the house of Osmanlis their final career of conquest. This, of course, was the beginning of the end. Their first foothold in Europe was gained in 1353, but over a century was destined to elapse before the completion of their sovereignty in all the lands south of the Danube. There remains, therefore, a considerable period during which whatever separate national tendencies existed had full opportunity to work.

THE FIRST AND SECOND BULGARIAN KINGDOMS.

It was this age which saw not only the highest point in the national greatness of Bulgaria and Servia, but also witnessed the evolution of the Wallachian principalities in the lands north of the Danube.

The separate states of Bulgaria and Servia, born in the seventh century of the great southward migration of the Slavic peoples, had in after times risen or fallen according to the strength or weakness of the Byzantine Empire. Bulgaria had hitherto shown the greatest power. At several different periods, notably under Simeon (883-927), and again under Samuel (976-1014), it developed a strength which fairly overawed the Empire itself. These Slavic states had, however, been subjected by the Byzantine Empire in the first half of the eleventh century, and, though Servia enjoyed another period of independence (1040-1148), it was not until the final crumbling of the Byzantine Empire, the premonition of the event of 1204, that their expansion recommences. The Wallachian, or Second Bulgarian kingdom, which came into existence in 1187 in the lands between the Balkans and the Danube, has been the subject of an ethnic discussion which need not detain us. That it was not purely Slavic is well established, for the great and singular revival of the Vlach or Rouman peoples and their movement from the lands south of Haemus to their present seats north of the Danube, which is one of the great features of this age, had already begun. (The country between the Danube and the Balkans, the seat of the Second Bulgarian kingdom, appears as Aspro or White-Wallachia in some Byzantine writings. So also north of the Danube the later Moldavia and Great Wallachia are known respectively as Mavro [Black] and Hungarowallachia. Still the fact of a continuous Roumnn civilization north of the Danube is not established. The theory of a great northward movement of the Vlach peoples is the one now generally accepted and is ably advocated in Roesler's "Romänische Studien.")

At the present day this movement has been so long completed that scarcely the trace of Vlach population remains in the lands south of the Danube. These emigrants appear, as it were, in passing, to have shared with the native Bulgarians in the creation of this Second Bulgarian kingdom. This realm achieved a momentary greatness under its rulers of the house of Asau. The dismemberment of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 enabled them to make great encroachments to the south, and it seemed for a time that to the Bulgarian, not the Greek, would fall the task of overthrowing the Latin Empire of Roumania (see general map of Europe at the opening of the thirteenth century). With the reëstablishment, however, of the Greek Empire of Constantinople, in 1261, the Bulgarian kingdom began to lose much of its importance, and its power was finally broken in 1285 by the Mongols.

SERVIA.

In the following century it was the turn of Servia to enjoy a period of preeminent greatness. The latter kingdom had recovered its independence under the house of Nemanja in 1183.

{viii}

Under the great giant conqueror Stephen Dushan (1321-1355) it enjoyed a period of greater power than has ever before or since fallen to the lot of a single Balkan state. The Restored Byzantine Empire had sustained no permanent loss from the period of Bulgarian greatness: it was by the sudden Servian conquest that it was deprived forever of nearly all its European possessions (see Balkan map III). A Byzantine reaction might have come under other conditions, but already another and greater enemy was at her gates. Dushan died in 1355; and already, in 1353, two years before, the Turk at Gallipoli had made his entrance into Europe. From this time every Christian state of the East grew steadily weaker until Bulgaria, Servia, the Greek Empire, and finally even Hungary, had passed under the Turkish dominion.

THE VLACHS.

Passing on from these Slavic peoples, another national manifestation of the greatest importance belonging to this period, one which, unlike the Greek and Slavic, may be said in one sense to have originated in the period, was that of the Vlachs. This Latin population, which ethnologists have attempted to identify with the ancient Thracians, was, previous to the twelfth century, scattered in irregular groups throughout the entire Balkan peninsula. During the twelfth century their great northward migration began. A single result of this movement has already been noticed in the rise of the Second Bulgarian kingdom. South of the Danube, however, their influence was transitory. It was north of the river that the evolution of the two principalities, Great Wallachia (Roumania) and Moldavia, and the growth of a Vlach population in the Transylvanian lands of Eastern Hungary, has yielded the ethnic and in great part the political geography of the present day.

The process of this evolution may be understood from a comparative study of the four Balkan maps. Upon the first map the Cumanians, a Finno-Tatar people, who in the twelfth century had displaced a kindred race, the Patzinaks or Petschenegs, occupy the whole country between the Danube and the Transylvanian Alps. These were in turn swept forever from the map of Europe by the Mongols (1224). With the receding of this exterminating wave of Asiatic conquest the great wilderness was thrown open to new settlers. The settlements of the Vlachs north of the Danube and east of the Aluta became the principality of Great Wallachia, the nucleus of the modern Roumania. West of the Aluta the district of Little Wallachia was incorporated for a long period, as the banat of Severin, in the Hungarian kingdom.

Finally, the principality of Moldavia came into existence in 1341, in land previously won by the Hungarians from the Mongols, between the Dniester and the Carpathians. Both the principalities of Great Wallachia and Moldavia were in the fourteenth century dependencies of Hungary. The grasp of Hungary was loosened, however, towards the close of the century and after a period of shifting dependence, now on Hungary, now on Turkey, and for a time, in the case of Moldavia, on Poland, we come to the period of permanent Turkish supremacy.

With the presence and influence of the Vlachs south of the Balkans, during this period, we are less interested, since their subsequent disappearance has removed the subject from any direct connection with modern politics. The only quarter where they still linger and where this influence led to the founding of an independent state, was in the country east of the range of Pindus, the Great Wallachia of the Byzantines. Here the principality of Wallachian Thessaly appeared as an offshoot of the Greek despotat of Epirus in 1259 (see map II).

This state retained its independent existence until 1308, when it was divided between the Catalan dukes of Athens and the Byzantine Empire.

ALBANIANS.

The Skipetars (Albanians) during this period appear to have been the slowest to grasp out for a separate national existence. The southern section of Albania formed, after the fall of Constantinople, a part of the despotat of Epirus, and whatever independence existed in the northern section was lost in the revival, first of the Byzantine, then, in the ensuing century, of the Servian power. It was not until 1444 that a certain George Castriot, known to the Turks as Iskander-i-beg, or Scanderbeg, created a Christian principality in the mountain fastnesses of Albania. This little realm stretched along the Adriatic from Butrinto almost to Antivari, embracing, further inland, Kroja and the basin of the Drin (see map IV).

It was not until after Scanderbeg's death that Ottoman control was confirmed over this spirited Albanian population.

THE TURKISH CONQUEST.

The reign of Mohammed II. (1451-1481) witnessed the final conquest of the entire country south of the Danube and the Save. The extent of the Turkish Empire at his accession is shown on map IV. The acquisitions of territory during his reign included in Asia Minor the old Greek Empire of Trebizond (1461) and the Turkish dynasty of Karaman; in Europe, Constantinople, whose fall brought the Byzantine Empire to a close in 1453, the duchy of Athens (1456), the despotats of Patras and Misithra (1460), Servia (1458), Bosnia (1463), Albania (1468), Epirus and Acarnania, the continental dominion of the Counts of Cephalonia (1479), and Herzegovina (1481). In the mountainous district immediately south of Herzegovina, the principality of Montenegro, situated in lands which had formed the southern part of the first Servian kingdom, alone preserved its independence, even at the height of the Turkish domination.

The chronicle of Turkish history thereafter records only conquest after conquest. The islands of the Ægean were many of them won during Mohammed's own reign, the acquisition of the remainder ensued shortly after. Venice was hunted step by step out of all her Levantine possessions save the Ionian Islands; the superiority over the Crim Tartars, Wallachia, Moldavia and Jedisan followed, finally, the defeat at Mohacs (1526), and the subsequent internal anarchy left nearly all Hungary at the mercy of the Ottoman conqueror.

The geographical homogeneity thus restored by the Turkish conquest was not again disturbed until the present century. The repetition of almost the same conditions in our own time, though with the process reversed, has been referred to in the sketch of Balkan geography of the present day. The extreme importance of the period just described, for the purposes of minute historical analogy, will be apparent at once wherever comparison is attempted.

{ix}

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries were of course periods of far greater geographical intricacy, but the purpose has been rather to indicate the nature of this intricacy than to describe it in detail. The principal feature, namely, the national movements, wherever they have manifested themselves, have been more carefully dwelt upon. The object has been simply to show that the four separate national movements, the Greek, the Slavic, the Rouman, and the Albanian, which may be said to have created the present Levantine problem, were all present, and in the case of the two last may even be said to have had their inception, in the period just traversed.

In the present century the unfolding of national spirit has been so much greater and far-reaching that a different outcome may be looked for. It is sufficient for the present that the incipient existence of these same movements has been shown to have existed in a previous age. The best general text authority in English for the geography of this period is George Finlay's "History of Greece," volumes. III. and IV.; a more exhaustive guide in German is Hopf's "Geschichte Griechenlands." For the purely geographical works see the general bibliography of historical geography.

A. C. Reiley.

{x}

APPENDIX C.

NOTES TO THE MAP OF THE BALKAN PENINSULA. (PRESENT CENTURY.)

The present century has been a remarkable one for the settlement of great political and geographical questions. These questions resolve themselves into two great classes, which indicate the political forces of the present age,—the first, represented in the growth of democratic thought, and the second arising from the awakening of national spirit. The first of these concerns historical geography only incidentally, but the second has already done much to reconstruct the political geography of our time.

RECENT NATIONAL MOVEMENTS.

Within a little over thirty years it has changed the map of central Europe from a medley of small states into a united Italy and a united Germany; it has also led to a reconstruction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, In Italy, Germany and Austria-Hungary, the national questions may, however, be regarded as settled; and if, in the case of Austria-Hungary, owing to exactly reverse conditions, the settlement has been a tentative one, it has at least removed the question from the more immediate concern of the present. In a different quarter of Europe, however, the rise of the national movements has led to a question, infinitely more complicated than the others, and which, so far from being settled, is becoming ever more pressing year by year. This reference is to the great Balkan problem. That this question has been delayed in its solution for over four centuries, is due, no doubt, to the conquests of the Turk, and it is still complicated by his presence. In the notes to the four previous Balkan maps (1191-1451), attention was especially directed to the national movements, so far as they had opportunity to develop themselves during this period. These movements, feeble in their character, were all smothered by the Turkish conquest. With the decline of this power in the present century these forces once more have opportunity for reappearance. In this regard the history of the Balkans during the nineteenth century is simply the history of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries read backwards.

The Turkish Empire had suffered terrible reverses during the eighteenth century. Hungary (1699), the Crim Tartars (1774), Bukovina (1777), Jedisan (1792), Bessarabia and Eastern Moldavia (1812) were all successively wrested from the Ottomans, while Egypt on one side and Moldavia and Wallachia on another recovered practical autonomy, the one under the restored rule of the Mamelukes (1766), the other under native hospodars.

THE SERVIAN AND GREEK REVOLTS.

All of these losses, though greatly weakening the Ottoman power, did not destroy its geographical integrity. It was with the Servian revolt of 1804 that the series of events pointing to the actual disruption of the Turkish Empire may be said to have begun. The first period of dissolution was measured by the reign of Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), at once the greatest and the most unfortunate of all the later Turkish sultans. Servia, first under Kara Georg, then under Milosch Obrenovitch, the founder of the present dynasty, maintained a struggle which led to the recognition of Servian local autonomy in 1817. The second step in the process of dissolution was the tragic Greek revolution (1821-1828). The Sultan, after a terrible war of extermination, had practically reduced Greece to subjection, when all his work was undone by the intervention of the great powers.

The Turkish fleet was destroyed by the combined squadrons of England, France and Russia at Navarin, October 20, 1827, and in the campaign of the ensuing year the Moscovite arms for the first time in history penetrated south of the Balkans. The treaty of Adrianople, between Russia and Turkey (September 14, 1829), gave to the Czar the protectorate over Moldavia and Wallachia. By the treaty of London earlier in this year Greece was made autonomous under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and the protocol of March 22, 1829, drew her northern frontier in a line between the gulfs of Arta and Volo. The titular sovereignty of the Sultan over Greece was annulled later in the year at the peace of Adrianople, though the northern boundary of the Hellenic kingdom was then curtailed to a line drawn from the mouth of the Achelous to the gulf of Lamia. With the accession of the Bavarian king Otho, in 1833, after the failure of the republic, the northern boundary was again adjusted, returning to about the limits laid down in the March protocol of 1829. Greece then remained for over fifty years bounded on the north by Mount Othrys, the Pindus range and the gulf of Arta. In 1863, on the accession of the Danish king George I., the Ionian Isles, which had been under English administration since the Napoleonic wars, were ceded to the Greek kingdom, and in May, 1881, almost the last change in European geography to the present day was accomplished in the cession, by the Sultan, of Thessaly and a small part of Epirus. The agitation in 1886 for a further extension of Greek territory was unsuccessful.

THE TREATY OF UNKIAR SKELESSI.

A series of still greater reverses brought the reign of the Sultan Mahmoud to a close. The chief of these were the defeats sustained at the hands of his rebellious vassal Mehemet Ali, pacha of Egypt, a man who takes rank even before the Sultan himself as the greatest figure in the Mohammedan world during the present century. The immediate issue of this struggle was the practical independence of Egypt, where the descendants of Mehemet still rule, their title having been changed in 1867 from viceroy to that of khedive. An event incidental to the strife between Mehemet Ali and the Sultan is of far greater importance in the history of European Turkey. {xi} Mahmoud in his distress looked for aid to the great powers, and the final issue of the rival interests struggling at Constantinople was the memorable treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July, 1833) by which the Sultan resigned himself completely to the interests of his former implacable foe, the Czar of Russia. In outward appearance this treaty was an offensive and defensive alliance; in practical results it gave the Moscovite, in exchange for armed assistance, when needed, the practical control of the Dardanelles. It is no extravagance of statement to say that this treaty forms absolutely the high watermark of Russian predominance in the affairs of the Levant. During the subsequent sixty years, this influence, taken as a whole, strange paradox as it may seem, has rather receded than advanced. The utter prostration of the Turkish Empire on the death of Mahmoud (1839) compelled Russia to recede from the conditions of Unkiar Skelessi while a concert of the European powers undertook the task of rehabilitating the prostrate power; the Crimean war (1854-1855) struck a more damaging blow at the Russian power, and the events of 1878, though they again shattered the Turkish Empire, did not, as will be shown, lead to corresponding return of the Czar's ascendency.

THE CRIMEAN WAR AND TREATY OF PARIS.

The Crimean War was brought on by the attempt of the Czar to dictate concerning the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire—a policy which culminated in the occupation of Moldavia and Wallachia (1853). All Europe became arrayed against Russia on this question,—Prussia and Austria in tacit opposition, while England, France, and afterwards Piedmont, drifted into war with the northern power.

By the treaty of Paris (1856), which terminated the sanguinary struggle, the Danube, closed since the peace of Adrianople (1829), was reopened; the southern part of Bessarabia was taken from Russia and added to the principality of Moldavia; the treaty powers renounced all right to interfere in the internal affairs of the Porte; and, lastly, the Black Sea, which twenty years before, by the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, had become a private Russian pond, was swept of the Russian fleets and converted into a neutral sea. The latter condition however was abrogated by the powers (March 13, 1871).

Despite the defeat of Russia, the settlement effected at the congress of Paris was but tentative. The most that the allied powers could possibly have hoped for, was so far to cripple Russia as to render her no longer a menace to the Ottoman Empire. They succeeded only in so far as to defer the recurrence of a Turkish crisis for another twenty years.

The chief event of importance during this interval was the birth of the united Roumania. In 1857 the representative councils of both Moldavia and Wallachia voted for their union under this name. This personal union was accomplished by the choice of a common ruler, John Cuza (1859), whose election was confirmed by a new conference at Paris in 1861. A single ministry and single assembly were formed at Bucharest in 1862. Prince Karl of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen was elected hospodar in 1866, and finally crowned as king in 1881.

THE REVIVED EASTERN QUESTION OF 1875-78.

The Eastern question was reopened with all its perplexities in the Herzegovinian and Bosnian revolt of August, 1875. These provinces, almost cut off from the Turkish Empire by Montenegro and Servia, occupied a position which rendered their subjugation almost a hopeless task. Preparations were already under way for a settlement by joint action of the powers, when a wave of fanatical fury sweeping over the Ottoman Empire rendered all these efforts abortive. Another Christian insurrection in Bulgaria was suppressed in a series of wholesale and atrocious massacres. Servia and Montenegro in a ferment declared war on Turkey (July 2, 1876). The Turkish arms, however, were easily victorious, and Russia only saved the Servian capital by compelling an armistice (October 30). A conference of the representatives of the powers was then held at Constantinople in a final effort to arrange for a reorganization of the Empire, which should include the granting of autonomy to Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria. These conditions, though subsequently embodied in a general ultimatum, the London protocol of March 31, 1877, were rejected by the Porte, and Russia, who had determined to proceed alone in the event of this rejection, immediately declared war (April 24). Into this war, owing to the horror excited in England by the Bulgarian massacres, and the altered policy of France, the Turk was compelled to go without allies, and thus unassisted his defeat was assured. Then followed the sanguinary campaigns in Bulgaria, the memories of which are still recent and unobscured. Plevna, the central point of the Turkish resistance, fell on December 10th; Adrianople was occupied by the Russians on January 20th, 1878; and on January 31st., an armistice was granted.

Great Britain now seemed roused to a sense of the danger to herself in the Russian approach to Constantinople, and public opinion at last permitted Lord Beaconsfield to send a fleet to the Bosporus.

By the Russo-Turkish peace of San Stephano (March 3, 1878) Turkey recognized the complete independence of Servia, Roumania and Montenegro, while Bulgaria became what Servia and Roumania had just ceased to be, an autonomous principality under nominal Turkish sovereignty. Russia received the Dobrutcha in Europe, which was to be given by the Czar to Roumania in exchange for the portion of Bessarabia lost in 1856. Servia and Montenegro received accessions of territory, the latter securing Antivari on the coast, but the greatest geographical change was the frontier assigned to the new Bulgaria, which was to include all the territory bounded by an irregular line beginning at Midia on the Black Sea and running north of Adrianople, and, in addition, a vast realm in Macedonia, bounded on the west only by Albania, approaching Salonica, and touching the Ægean on either side of the Chalcidice.

It was evident that the terms of this treaty involved the interests of other powers, especially of Great Britain. An ultimate settlement which involved as parties only the conqueror and conquered was therefore impossible. A general congress of the Powers was seen to be the only solvent of the difficulty; but before such a congress was possible it was necessary for Great Britain and Russia to find at least a tangible basis of negotiation for the adjustment of their differences.

{xii}

By the secret agreement of May 30th, Russia agreed to abandon the disputed points—chief among these the creation of a Bulgarian seaboard on the Ægean—and the congress of Berlin then assembled (June 13-July 13, 1878).

ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATY OF BERLIN.

Great Britain was represented at the congress by the Marquis of Salisbury and the premier, the Earl of Beaconsfield. The treaty of Berlin modified the conditions of San Stephano by reducing the Russian acquisitions in Asia Minor and also by curtailing the cessions of territory to Servia and Montenegro. A recommendation was also made to the Porte to cede Thessaly and a part of Epirus to Greece, a transfer which was accomplished in 1881. A more important provision was the transfer of the administrative control of the provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Austria. This cession was the outcome of the secret agreement between Russia and Austria at Reichstadt, in July of the previous year, by which the former had secured from her rival a free hand in the Turkish war. These districts were at once occupied by Austria, despite the resistance of the Mohammedan population, and the sanjak of Novibazar, the military occupation of which was agreed to by the Porte, was also entered by Austrian troops in September of the following year. England secured as her share of the spoil the control of the island of Cyprus.

The greatest work accomplished at Berlin, however, was the complete readjustment of the boundaries of the new Bulgarian principality. This result was achieved through the agency of Great Britain. The great Bulgarian domain, which by the treaty of San Stephano would have conformed almost to the limits of the Bulgarian Empire of the tenth century, was, with the exception of a small western strip including the capital, Sofia, pushed entirely north of the Balkans. This new principality was to enjoy local autonomy; and immediately south of the Balkans was formed a new province, Eastern Roumelia, also with local autonomy, although under the military authority of the Sultan.

The result of the Berlin Congress was the apparent triumph of the Beaconsfield policy. It is doubtful, however, if the idea of this triumph has been fully sustained by the course of subsequent events. The idea of Beaconsfield appears to have been that the new Bulgaria could not become other than a virtual dependency of Russia, and that in curtailing its boundaries he was checking by so much the growth of Russian influence. If he could have foreseen, however, the unexpected spirit with which the Bulgarians have defended their autonomy, not from Turkish but from Russian aggression, it is doubtful if he would have lent himself with such vigor to that portion of his policy which had for its result the weakening of this "buffer" state. The determination to resist Russian aggression in the Balkans continues to form the purpose of English politicians of nearly all schools; but the idea that this policy is best served by maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire in Europe has been steadily losing adherents since Beaconsfield's day. The one event of importance in Balkan history since 1878 has served well to illustrate this fact.

LATER CHANGES.

In September, 1885, the revolt of Eastern Roumelia partially undid the work of the Berlin treaty. After the usual negotiations between the Powers, the question at issue was settled by a conference of ambassadors at Constantinople in November, by which Eastern Roumelia was placed under the rule of the Bulgarian prince as vassal of the Sultan. This result was achieved through the agency of England, and against the opposition of Russia and other continental powers. England and Russia had in fact exchanged policies since 1878, now that the real temper of the Bulgarian people was more generally understood.

The governments of Greece and Servia, alarmed at the predominance thus given to Bulgaria among the liberated states, sought similar compensation, but were both foiled.

Servia, which sought this direct from Bulgaria, was worsted in a short war (Nov.-December 1885), and Greece was checked in her aspiration for further territorial aggrandizement at the expense of Turkey by the combined blockade of the Powers in the spring of 1886.

Since then, no geographical change has taken place in the old lands of European Turkey. Prince Alexander of Bulgaria was forced to abdicate by Russian intrigue in September 1886; but under his successor, Prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg (crowned in 1887), und his able minister Stambouloff, Bulgaria has successfully preserved its autonomy.

THE PRESENT-DAY PROBLEM.

A general statement of the Balkan problem as it exists to-day may be briefly given. The non-Turkish populations of European Turkey, for the most part Christian, are divided ethnically into four groups: the Roumans or Vlachs, the Greeks, the Albanians and the Slavs. The process of liberation, as it has proceeded during the present century, has given among these people the following separate states. The Vlachs are represented in the present kingdom of Roumania ruled by a Hohenzollern prince; the Greeks are represented in the little kingdom of Greece ruled by a prince of the house of Denmark; while the Slavs are represented by three autonomous realms: Bulgaria under Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg, Servia under the native dynasty of Obrenovitch, and the little principality of Montenegro, the only one of all which had never yielded to Turkish supremacy, under the Petrovic house, which is likewise native.

The Albanians alone of the four races, owing in part, perhaps, to their more or less general acceptance of Mohammedanism, have not as yet made a determined effort for separate national existence.

To these peoples, under any normal process of development, belongs the inheritance of the Turkish Empire in Europe. The time has long passed when any such process can be effectually hindered on the Turkish side. It will be hindered, if at all, either by the aggressive and rival ambitions of their two great neighbors, Austria and Russia, or by the mutual jealousies and opposing claims of the peoples themselves. The unfortunate part which these jealousies are likely to play in the history of the future was dimly foreshadowed in the events of 1885.

{xiii}

It is indeed these rival aspirations, rather than the collapse of the Turkish power, which are most likely to afford Russia and even Austria the opportunity for territorial extension over the Balkan lands. A confederation, or even a tacit understanding between the Balkan states, would do much to provide against this danger; but the idea of a confederation, though often suggested and even planned, belongs at present only to the realm of possibilities. On the one hand Servia, menaced by the proximity of Austria, leans upon Russian support; on the other, Bulgaria, under exactly reverse conditions, yields to the influence of Austria. It will be seen at once that these are unfavorable conditions on which to build up any federative action. If at the next crisis, however, the liberated states are fated to act independently, it will be seen at once that Greece and Bulgaria possess the better chance. Not only are they the most remote from any of the great powers, but they alone possess a geography which is entirely open on the Turkish side. Moreover, what is of still greater consequence, it is they who, from an ethnic standpoint, have the most legitimate interest in the still unliberated population of European Turkey. The unliberated Greek population predominates in southern Macedonia, the Chalcidian peninsula and along almost the entire seaboard, both of Thrace and Asia Minor; on the other hand the ethnographical limits of the Bulgarian people conform almost exactly to the boundaries of Bulgaria as provided for at San Stephano. The creation of a political Bulgaria to correspond to the ethnic Bulgaria was indeed the purpose of the Russian government in 1878, though with the repetition of the same conditions it would hardly be its purpose again. Barring, therefore, the Albanians of the west, who as yet have asserted no clearly defined national claim, the Greeks and the Bulgarians are the logical heirs to what remains of European Turkey.

These observations are not intended as a fore-cast; they merely indicate what would be an inevitable outcome, were the question permitted a natural settlement.

Concerning the Turks themselves a popular fallacy has ever been to consider their destiny as a whole. But here again an important division of the subject intrudes itself.

In Asia Minor, where the Turkish population overwhelmingly preponderates, the question of their destiny, barring the ever threatened Russian interference, ought not to arouse great concern in the present. But in European Turkey the utter lack of this predominance seems to deprive the Ottoman of his only legitimate title. The Turkish population in Thrace and the Balkans never did in fact constitute a majority; and with its continual decline, measured indeed by the decline of the Ottoman Empire itself, the greatest of all obstacles to an equitable and final settlement has been removed. (See the ethnic map of Europe at the present day.)

The historical geography of the Balkans during the present century is not so intricate that it may not be understood even from the current literature of the subject. The best purely geographical authority is E. Hertslet's "Map of Europe by Treaty." Of text works A. C. Fyffe's. "History of Modern Europe," and J. H. Rose's "A Century of Continental History" afford excellent general views. The facts concerning the settlement of the first northern boundary of free Greece are given in Finlay's "History of Greece," Volume VII. Of excellent works dealing more or less directly with present Balkan politics there is hardly an end. It is necessary to mention but a few: E. de Laveleye's "The Balkan Peninsula," E. A. Freeman's "The Ottoman Power in Europe," the Duke of Argyll's "The Eastern Question," and James Baker's "Turkey." See also the general bibliography of historical geography.

A. C. Reiley.

{xiv}

APPENDIX D.

NOTES TO THE DEVELOPMENT MAP OF CHRISTIANITY.

The subject matter contained in this map is of a character so distinct from that of the other maps of this series that the reader must expect a corresponding modification in the method of treatment.

The use of historical maps is confined, for the most part, to the statement of purely political conditions.

This is in fact almost the only field which admits of exact portrayal, within the limits of historical knowledge, by this method. Any other phase of human life, whether religious or social, which concerns the belief or the thought of the people rather than the exact extent of their race or their government, must remain, so far as the limitations of cartography is concerned, comparatively intangible.

Again, it should be noted that, even in the map treatment of a subject as comparatively exact as political geography, it is one condition of exactness that this treatment should be specific in its relation to a date, or at least to a limited period.

The map which treats a subject in its historical development has the undoubted merit of greater comprehensiveness; but this advantage cannot be gained without a certain loss of relation and proportion. Between the "development" map and the "date" map there is this difference: In the one, the whole subject passes before the eye in a sort of moving panorama, the salient points evident, but with their relation to external facts often obscured: in the other, the subject stands still at one particular point and permits itself to be photographed. A progressive series of such photographs, each forming a perfect picture by itself, yet each showing the clear relation with what precedes and follows, affords the method which all must regard as the most logical and the most exact. But from the very intangible nature of the subject treated in this map, the date method, with its demand for exactness, becomes impracticable. These observations are necessary in explaining the limitations of cartography in dealing with a subject of this nature. The notes that follow are intended as a simple elucidation of the plan of treatment.

The central feature in the early development of Christianity is soon stated. The new faith spread by churches from city to city until it became the religion of the Roman Empire; afterwards this spread was continued from people to people until it became the religion of Europe. The statement of the general fact in this crude and untempered form might in an ordinary case provoke criticism, and its invariable historic truth with reference to the second period be open to some question; but within the limits of map presentation it is substantially accurate. It forms, indeed, the key upon which the entire map is constructed.

THE ANTE-NICENE CHURCHES.

During the first three centuries of the Christian era, up to the Constantinian or Nicene period, there is no country, state or province which can be safely described as Christian; yet as early as the second century there is hardly a portion of the Empire which does not number some Christians in its population. The subject of the historical geography of the Christian church during the ante-Nicene period is confined, therefore, to the locating of these Christian bodies wherever they are to be found. On this portion of the subject the map makes its own statement. It is possible merely to elucidate this statement, with the suggestion, in addition, of a few points which the map does not and cannot contain.

Concerning the ante-Nicene churches there is only one division attempted. This division, into the "Apostolic" and "post-Apostolic," concerns merely the period of their foundation. Concerning the churches founded in the Apostolic period (33-100), our knowledge is practically limited to the facts culled from the Acts, the Epistles and the Apocalypse. The churches of the post-Apostolic period afford a much wider field for research, although the materials for study bearing upon them are almost as inadequate. According to the estimate of the late Professor R. D. Hitchcock, there were in the Roman Empire at the close of the persecutions about 1,800 churches, 1,000 in the East and 800 in the West. Of this total, the cities in which churches have been definitely located number only 525. They are distributed as follows: Europe 188, Asia 214, Africa 123 (see volume I, page 443). Through the labors of Professor Henry W. Hulbert, the locations of these 525 cities, so far as established, have been cast in available cartographic form.

It is much to be regretted that, despite the sanction of the author, it has been found impossible, owing to the limitations of space, to locate all of these cities in the present map. The attempt has been limited therefore to the placing of only the more prominent cities, or those whose location is subject to the least dispute.

The Apostolic and post-Apostolic churches, as they appear upon the map, are distinguished by underlines in separate colors. A special feature has been the insertion of double underlines to mark the greater centres of diffusion, so far as their special activity in this respect can be safely assumed. In this class we have as centres in Apostolic times Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica and Corinth; in post-Apostolic times, when the widening of the field necessitates special and limited notices, we may name Alexandria, Edessa, Rome and Carthage.

The city of Rome contains a Christian community in Apostolic times, but its activity as a great diffusion centre, prior to early post-Apostolic times, is a point of considerable historical controversy. In this respect it occupies a peculiar position, which is suggested by the special underlines in the map.

{xv}

CONVERSION OF THE EMPIRE.

The above method of treatment carries us in safety up to the accession in the West of the first Christian Emperor (311). The attempt, however, to pursue the same method beyond that period would involve us at once in insurmountable difficulties.

The exact time of the advent of the Christian-Roman world it is indeed impossible to define with precision. The Empire after the time of Constantine was predominantly Christian, yet paganism still lingered in formidable though declining strength. A map of religions designed to explain this period, even with unlimited historical material, could hardly be executed by any system, for the result could be little better than a chaos, the fragments of the old religion everywhere disappearing or blending with the new. The further treatment of the growth of Christianity by cities or churches is now impossible; for the rapid increase of the latter has carried the subject into details and intricacies where it cannot be followed: on the other hand, to describe the Roman world in the fourth century as a Christian world would be taking an unwarranted liberty with the plain facts of history.

The last feeble remnants of paganism were in fact burned away in the fierce heat of the barbaric invasions of the fifth century. After that time we can safely designate the former limits of the Roman Empire as the Christian world. From this point we can resume the subject of church expansion by the "second method" indicated at the head of this article. But concerning the transition period of the fourth and fifth centuries, from the time Christianity is predominant in the Roman world until it becomes the sole religion of the Roman world, both methods fail us and the map can tell us practically nothing.

BARBARIANS OF THE INVASION.

Another source of intricacy occurring at this point should not escape notice. It was in the fourth century that Christianity began its spread among the barbarian Teutonic nations north of the Danube. The Goths, located on the Danube, between the Theiss and the Euxine, were converted to Christianity, in the form known as Arianism, by the missionary bishop Ulphilas, and the faith extended in the succeeding century to many other confederations of the Germanic race. This fact represented, for a time, the Christianization, whole or partial, of some peoples beyond the borders of the Empire. With the migrations of the fifth and sixth centuries, however, these converts, without exception, carried their new faith with them into the Empire, and their deserted homes, left open to new and pagan settlers, simply became the field for the renewed missionary effort of a later age. It is a historical fact, from a cartographic standpoint a fortunate one, that, with all the geographic oscillations of this period between Christianity and paganism, the Christian world finally emerged with its boundaries conforming, with only a few exceptions, to the former frontiers of the Roman Empire.

Whether or not this is a historical accident it nevertheless gives technical accuracy from the geographic standpoint to the statement that Christianity first made the conquest of the Roman world; from thence it went out to complete the conquest of Europe.

CONVERSION OF EUROPE.

With the view, as afforded on the map, of the extent of Christianity at the commencement of the seventh century, we have entered definitely upon the "second method." Indeed, in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, where the Celtic church has already put forth its missionary effort, the method has, in point of date, been anticipated; but this fact need cause no confusion in treatment. Henceforth the spread of Christianity is noted as it made its way from "people to people." At this point, however, occurs the greatest intangibility of the subject. The dates given under each country represent, as stated in the key to the map, "the approximate periods of conversion." It is not to be inferred, however, that Christianity was completely unknown in any of these countries prior to the periods given, or that the work of conversion was in each case entirely completed within the time specified. But it is an absolute necessity to give some definiteness to these "periods of conversion"; to assign with all distinctness possible the time when each land passed from the list of pagan to the list of Christian nations. The dates marking the limits to these periods are perhaps chosen by an arbitrary method. The basis of their selection, however, has been almost invariably some salient point, first in the introduction and finally in the general acceptance of the Christian faith. In order that the reader may possess the easy means of independent opinion or critical judgment, the explanation is appended of the dates thus used, concerning which a question might legitimately arise.

Goths. Converted to Arian Christianity by Ulphilas, 341-381.

These dates cover the period of the ministry of Ulphilas, whose efforts resulted in the conversion of the great body of the Danubian Goths. He received his ordination and entered upon his work in 341, and died at Constantinople in 381. (See C. A. A. Scott's "Ulfilas.")

Suevi, Burgundians and Lombards.

These people, like the Goths, passed from paganism through the medium of Arian Christianity to final Orthodoxy. Concerning the first process, it is possible to establish nothing, save that these Teutonic peoples appeared in the Empire in the fifth century as professors of the Arian faith. The exact time of the acceptance of this faith is of less consequence. The second transition from Arianism to Orthodoxy occurred at a different time in each case. The Suevi embraced the Catholic faith in 550; the Visigoths, through their Catholic king Reccared, were brought within the church at the third council of Toledo (589). Further north the Burgundians embraced Catholicism through their king Sigismond in 517, and, finally, the Lombards, the last of the Arians, accepted Orthodoxy in the beginning of the seventh century. The Vandals, another Arian German nation of this period, figured in Africa in the fourth century.

They were destroyed, however, by the arms of Belisarius in 534, and their early disappearance renders unnecessary their representation on the present map.

Franks. Christianity introduced in 496.

This is the date of the historic conversion of Clovis and his warriors on the battlefield of Tolbiac. The Franks were the first of the Germanic peoples to pass, as a nation, to orthodoxy direct from paganism, and their conversion, as we have seen, was soon followed by the progress from Arianism to Orthodoxy of the other Germanic nations within the borders of the Empire.

{xvi}

Ireland. Christianity introduced by Patrick, 440-493.

St. Patrick entered upon his missionary work in Ireland in 440; he died on the scene of his labors in 493. This period witnessed the conversion of the bulk of the Irish nation.

Picts. Christianity introduced from Ireland by Columba, 563-597.

These dates cover the period of St. Columba's ministry. The work of St. Ninian, the "apostle of the Lowlands" in the previous century, left very few enduring results. The period from 563, the date of the founding of the famous Celtic monastery of Iona, to the death of Columba in 597, witnessed, however, the conversion of the great mass of the Pictish nation.

Strathclyde. Christianity introduced by Kentigern, 550-603.

These dates, like the two preceding, cover the period of the ministry of a single man, Kentigern, the "apostle of Strathclyde." The date marking the commencement of Kentigern's labors is approximate. He died in 603.

England.

The Celtic church had been uprooted in England by the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the fifth and sixth centuries. While its missionary efforts were now being expended on Scotland, Strathclyde, and Cornwall, its pristine seat had thus fallen away to complete paganism. The Christianization of England was the work of the seventh century, and in this work the Celtic church, though expending great effort, was anticipated and ultimately outstripped by the church of Rome.

Kent. Christianity introduced by Augustine, 597-604.

These dates cover the ministry of St. Augustine, the apostle of Kent. This was the first foothold gained by the Roman church on the soil of Britain.

Northumbria.—627-651.

Edwin (Eadwine), king of Northumbria, received baptism from the Kentish missionary Paulinus on Easter Eve, 627.

The process of conversion was continued by the Celtic missionary, Aidin, who died in 651. The Christianity of Northumbria had begun before the latter date, however, to influence the surrounding states.

East Anglia.—630-647.

East Anglia had one Christian king prior to this period; but it was only with the accession of Sigebert (630) that great progress was made in the conversion of the people. The reign of king Anna witnesses the practical completion of this work. In 647 the efforts of this sovereign led to the baptism of Cenwalch, king of the West Saxons.

Wessex.—634-648.

The conversion of the West Saxons was begun by the missionary Birinus in 634. The year 648 witnessed the restoration of the Christian king Cenwalch.

Mercia.—654-670.

Mercia was one of the last of the great English kingdoms to accept the faith. Their king, Penda, was indeed the most formidable foe the church encountered in the British Isles. The conversion of Penda's son Peada admitted the gospel to the Middle Angles, who accepted Christianity in 653. The East Saxons embraced the faith at about the same time. Finally in 654 the defeat and death of Penda at the hand of Oswy, the Christian king of Northumbria, opened the doors of Mercia as well. The conversion of the realm was practically accomplished during the next few years.

Sussex.—681.

The leaders of the South Saxons received baptism at the hands of the apostle Wilfred in 681. Sussex was the last retreat of paganism on the English mainland, and five years later the conversion of the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight completed the spread of Christianity over every portion of the British Isles.

Frisians. Christianity introduced by Willibrord, 690-739.

The work of St. Willibrord among the Frisians was one of many manifestations of the missionary activity of the Celtic church. Willibrord introduced Christianity among these people during the years of his ministry, but to judge by the subsequent martyrdom of Boniface in Friesland (755) the work of conversion was not fully completed in all quarters until a later time.

Mission Field of Boniface.—722-755.

The object of the map is not merely to locate the mission field of the great "apostle of Germany," but also to give the location and date of the various bishoprics which owed their foundation to his missionary efforts.

Saxons.—787-805.

Of all the nations converted to Christianity up to this time the Saxons were the first conquest of the sword. The two most powerful Saxon chiefs were baptized in 787; but it was not until their complete defeat and subjugation by Charlemagne in 805 that the work of conversion showed a degree of completeness. With the Christianization of the Saxons the cordon of the church was completed around the Germanic nations.

Moravia. Christianity introduced by Cyrillus and Methodius, 863-900.

St. Cyrillus, the "apostle of the Slavs," entered upon his mission in Moravia in 863. The political Moravia of the ninth century, under Rastislav and Sviatopluk, exceeded greatly the limits of the modern province; but the missionary labor of the brothers Cyrillus and Methodius seems to have produced its principal results in the modern Moravian territory, as indicated on the map. Methodius, the survivor of the brothers, died about 900. In the tenth century Moravia figures as Christian.

Czechs.—880-1039.

The door to Bohemia was first opened from Moravia in the time of Sviatopluk. The reactions in favor of paganism were, however, unusually prolonged and violent. Severus, Archbishop of Prague, finally succeeded in enforcing the various rules of the Christian cultus (1039).

Poles.—966-1034.

The Polish duke Mieczyslav was baptized in 966. Mieczyslav II. died in 1034. These dates cover the active missionary time when, indeed, the efforts of the clergy were backed by the strong arm of the sovereign. Poland did not, however, become completely Christian until a somewhat later period.

Bulgarians.—863-900.

The Bulgarian prince Bogoris was baptized in 863. Again, as in so many other cases, the faith was compelled to pass to the people through the medium of the sovereign. The second date is arbitrary, although Bulgaria appears definitely as a Christian country at the commencement of the tenth century.

Magyars.—950-1050.

Missionaries were admitted into the territory of the Magyars in 950.

{xvii}

The coronation of St. Stephen, the "apostolic king," (1000) marked the real triumph of Christianity in Hungary. A number of pagan reactions occurred, however, in the eleventh century, so that it is impossible to place the conversion of the Magyars at an earlier date than the last one assigned.

Russians.—988-1015.

The Russian grand-duke Vladimir was baptized on the occasion of his marriage to the princess Anne, sister of the Byzantine Emperor, in 988. Before his death in 1015 Christianity had through his efforts become the accepted religion of his people.

Danes.—Converted by Ansgar and his successors, 827-1035.

The Danes had been visited by missionaries prior to the ninth century, but their work had left no permanent result. The arrival of Ansgar, the "apostle of the North" (827), marks the real beginning of the period of conversion. This period in Denmark was an unusually long one. It was not fully complete until the reign of Canute the Great (1019-1035).

Swedes (Gothia). Christianity introduced by Ansgar and his successors, 829-1000.

Ansgar made his first visit to Sweden in 829, two years after his arrival in Denmark. The period of conversion, as in Denmark, was a long one; but by the year 1000 the southern section, Gothia or Gothland, had become Christian. The conversion of the northern Swedes was not completed for another century.

Norwegians.—935-1030.

The period of conversion in Norway began with the reign of the Christian king Hakon the Good. The faith made slow progress, however, until the reign of Olaf Trygveson, who ascended the throne near the end of the tenth century. The work of conversion was completed in the reign of Olaf the Saint (1014-1030).

Pomeranians. Christianity introduced by Otho of Bamberg, 1124-1128.

The attempt of the Poles to convert the Pomeranians by the sword prior to these dates had proven unavailing, and missionaries had been driven from the country. Within the short space of four years, however, Otho of Bamberg succeeded in bringing the great mass of the people within the pale of the church.

Abotrites.—1125-1162.

The conversion of these people was clearly the work of the sword. It was accomplished within the time specified by Albert the Bear, first margrave of Brandenburg, and Henry the Lion, duke of Saxony. The last heathen king became the first Christian duke of Mecklenburg in 1162. Further south the kindred Wend nations between the Elbe and the Oder had been the object of German effort, both missionary and military, for over two centuries, but had generally come within the church before this time.

Lives and Prussians. Christianity introduced by the Sword Brothers, 1202-1236, and by the Teutonic Knights, 1230-1289.

These conversions, the work of the transplanted military orders of Palestine, were direct conquests of the sword, and as such possess a definiteness which is so unfortunately lacking in so many other cases.

So much for the character and the purpose of the dates which appear on this map. In the employment of the colors, the periods covered are longer, and as a consequence the general results are somewhat more definite. The use of a color system directly over a date system is intended to afford an immediate though general view, From this to the special aspects presented by the date features is a simple step in the development of the subject.

Another feature of the map which may not escape notice is the different systems used, respectively, in the Roman and Mediæval period for the spelling of urban names. A development map covering a long period of history cannot be entirely free from anachronisms of this nature; but a method has nevertheless been followed in the spelling of these place names:—to give in each case the spelling current at the period of conversion. The fact that the labors of the Christian missionaries were confined mostly to the Roman world in the Roman period, and did not extend to non-Roman lands until the Middle Ages, enables us to limit our spelling of civic names to a double system. The cities of the Roman and of the Mediæval period are shown on the map and in the key in two different styles of type. Only in the cases of cities like Rome, Constantinople and Antioch, where the current form has the absolute sanction of usage even for classic times, has there been any deviation from the strict line of this method.

In conclusion, the general features of the subject present themselves as follows: Had the advance of Christianity, like Mohammedanism, been by conquest, had the bounds of the Christian faith been thus rendered ever conterminous with the limits of a people or an empire, then, indeed, the subject of church expansion would possess a tangibility and coherency concerning which exact statement would be possible. The historical geography of the Christian church would then partake of some of the precision of political division. But the non-political element in the Christian cultus deprives us, in the study of the subject, of this invaluable aid. At a later time, when the conquests of the soul were backed by the strong arm of power, and when the new faith, as often happened, passed to the people from the sovereign, a measure of this exactness is perhaps possible.

We have witnessed an indication of these tendencies in many cases, as we approached the termination of the period covered by this map. But the fact remains that the fundamental character of the Christian faith precludes, in the main, the possibility of its growth being measured by the rules which govern ordinary political expansion.

This being then a subject on which definiteness is well nigh impossible, it has been treated by a method correspondingly elastic. A working basis for the study of the subject is, however, afforded by this system. This basis secured, the student may then systematically pursue his theme.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

The historical geography of the Christian church, if studied only within narrow limits, can be culled from the pages of general church history. All of these accounts, however, are brief—those in the smaller histories extremely so. If studied thus, the reader will derive the most help from:

Neander's "History of the Christian Religion and Church," volume I, pages 68-86. volume II, pages 1-84, 93-129;

Schaff's "History of the Christian Church," volume I, pages 224-406, volume II, pages 13-84, volume III, pages 10-71, volume IV, pages 17-142,

Moeller's "History of the Christian Church."

{xviii}

These works may be supplemented by a vast number of books treating of special phases of church history, though the number in English dealing specifically with geographical expansion is very small.

The most recent, dealing with the ante-Nicene period, is Ramsey's "Church in the Roman Empire before A. D. 170," to which the same author's "Historical Geography of Asia Minor" forms a most indispensible prelude.

Entering the mediæval period, the best general guides are the little books of G. F. Maclear, entitled respectively the conversion of the Celts, English, Continental Teutons, Northmen and Slavs. These works may be supplemented by Thomas Smith's "Mediæval Missions," and for special subjects by G. T. Stokes' "Ireland and the Celtic Church," W. F. Skene's "Celtic Scotland" (volume II), and S. Baring Gould's "The Church in Germany."

The texts of the Councils as contained in Harduin, Labbe, and Mansi are indispensible original aids in the study of church geography.

Of German Works, J. E. T. Wiltsch's "Atlas Sacer," and the same author's "Church Geography and Statistics," translated by John Leitch, have long remained the standard guides for a study of the historical geography of the church. The Atlas Sacer, containing five large plates, is the only pure atlas guide to the subject. The "Church Geography and Statistics," being an ecclesiastical work, dwells with great fulness on the internal facts of church geography, but the outward expansion, barring the early growth of the church, is not so concisely treated. For the history of mediæval missions the reader will be better served elsewhere. To the reader using German, C. G. Blumhardt's "Die Missionsgeschichte der Kirche Christi" (3 volumes, 1828-1837), and a later work, "Handbuch der Missionsgeschichte und Missionsgeographie" (2 volumes, 1863), may be noted.

For modern missions there is a very full literature. Comprehensive works on this subject are Grundemann's "Allgemeine Missions Atlas," Burkhardt and Grundemann's "Les Missions Evangéliques" (4 vols.), and in English the "Encyclopædia of Missions." Several articles in the "Encyclopædia of Missions" should not escape notice. Among them are "Mediæval Missions," and the "Historical Geography of Missions," the latter by Dr. Henry W. Hulbert. The writer is glad at this point to return his thanks to Dr. Hulbert for the valued aid extended in the location of the Church of the ante-Nicene period.

A. C. Reiley

{xix}

APPENDIX E.

THE FOLLOWING NOTES AND CORRECTIONS TO MATTER RELATING TO AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

(PP. 76-108) HAVE BEEN KINDLY MADE BY MAJOR J. W. POWELL AND MR. J. OWEN DORSEY, OF THE BUREAU OF ETHNOLOGY.

Adai.

This tribe, formerly classed as a distinct family—the Adaizan—is now regarded by the Bureau of Ethnology as but a part of the Caddoan or Pawnee.

Apache Group.

Indians of different families are here mentioned together: (A) the Comanches, etc., of the Shoshonean Family; (B) the Apaches (including the Chiricaguis, or Chiri cahua, Coyoteros, etc., but excluding the Tejuas who are Tañoan) of the Athapascan Family, the Navajos of the same family; and (C) the Yuman Family, including the Cosninos, who are not Apache (Athapascan stock).

Athapascan Family.

Not an exact synonym of "Chippewyans, Tinneh and Sarcees." The whole family is sometimes known as Tinneh, though that appellation is more frequently limited to part of the Northern group, the Chippewyans. The Surcees are an offshoot of the Beaver tribe, which latter form part of one of the subdivisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family. The Sarcees are now with the Blackfeet.

Atsinas (Caddoes).

The Atsinas are not a Caddoan people, but they are Algonquian, as are the Blackfeet (Sik-sik-a). The Atsinas are the "Fall Indians," "Minnetarees of the Plains," or "Gros Ventres of the Plains," as distinguished from the Hidatsa, who are sometimes called the "Minnetarees of the Missouri," "Gros Ventres of the Missouri."

Blackfeet or Siksikas.

The Sarcee are a Tinneh or Athapascan tribe, but they are not the Tinneh (see above). The "Atsina" are not a Caddo tribe (see above).

Cherokees.

These people are now included in the Iroquoian Family. See Powell, in Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 79.

Flatheads (Salishan Family).

The "Cherakis," though included among the Flatheads by Force, are of the Iroquoian Family. The "Chicachas" or Chickasaws, are not Salishan, but Muskhogean. See Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 95. The Totiris of Force, are the Tutelos, a tribe of the Siouan Family. See Powell, Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 116. The Cathlamahs, Killmucks (i. e., Tillamooks), Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts are of the Chinookan Family. See Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, pages 65, 66.

Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

There are two distinct tribes which are often confounded, both being known as the Gros Ventres or Minnetarees. 1. The Atsina or Fall Indians, an Algonquian tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Plains," or the "Minnetarees of the Plains." 2. The Hidatsa, a Siouan tribe, the "Gros Ventres of the Missouri," or the "Minnetarees of the Missouri." The former, the Atsina, have been wrongly styled "Caddoes" on page 81.

Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Gros Ventres.

Often confounded with the Atsina, who belong to the Algonquian Family, the Hidatsa being a tribe of the Siouan Family. The Hidatsa have been called Gros Ventres, "Big Paunches," but this nickname could have no reference to any personal peculiarities of the Hidatsa. It seems to have originated in a quarrel between some Indians over the big paunch of a buffalo, resulting in the separation of the people into the present tribes of Hidatsas and Absarokas or Crows, the latter of whom now call the Hidatsa, "Ki-kha-tsa," from ki-kha, a paunch.

Hupas.

They belong to the Athapascan Family: the reference to the Modocs is misleading.

Iroquois Tribes of the South. "The Meherrins or Tuteloes."

These were not identical, the Tutelos being a Siouan tribe, the Meherrins being now identified with the Susquehannocks.

Kenai or Blood Indians.

The Kenai are an Athapascan people inhabiting the shores of Cook's Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, Southern Alaska; while the Blood Indians are a division of the Blackfeet (Siksika), an Algonquian tribe, in Montana.

Kusan Family.

The villages of this family were on Coos River and Bay, and on both sides of Coquille River, near the mouth. See Powell, Seventh, Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 80.

ALSO IN: J. Owen Dorsey, The Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes, in Journal American Folk-Lore, July-Sept., 1890, page 231.

Minnetarees.

See above, ATSINA and HIDATSA.

Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

The Klamaths and Modocs are of the Lutuamian Family; the Shastas of the Sastean; the Pit River Indians of the Palaihnihan; the Eurocs of the Weitspekan; the Cahrocs of the Quoratean; the Hoopahs, Tolewas, and the lower Rogue River Indians of the Athapascan; the upper Rogue River Indians of the Takilman.

Muskhogean Family.

The Biloxi tribe is not Muskhogean but Siouan. See Dorsey (James Owen), "The Biloxi Indians of Louisiana," reprinted from volume 42, Proc. American Association Advancement of Science., Madison meeting, 1893.

Natchitoches.

A tribe of the Caddoan Family.

Dorsey (J. Owen), MS. in the Bureau of Ethnology, 1882.

ALSO IN: Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 61.

Pueblos.

"That Zuni was Cibola it is needless to attempt to prove any further."

A. F. Bandelier, Journal of American Eth. and Arch., volume 3, page 19, 1892.

{xx}

Rogue River Indians.

This includes tribes of various families: the upper Rogue River Indians being the Takelma, who are assigned to a special family, the Takilman; and the lower Rogue River Indians, who are Athapascan tribes.

See Dorsey (J. Owen), "The Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes," in Journal of American Folk-Lore, July-September, 1890, pages 228, 232-236.

Santees.

Two divisions of the Siouan Family are known by this name: 1. The I san-ya-ti or Dwellers on Knife Lake, Minnesota, identical with the Mdewakantonwan Dakota. These figured in the Minnesota outbreak of 1862. The survivors are in Knox County, Nebraska, on what was once the Santee reservation, and near Flandreau, South Dakota. 2. The Santees of South Carolina were part of the Catawba confederacy. The Santee river is named after them.

Sarcee.

These are not all of the Tinneh, nor are they really Blackfeet, though living with them. The Sarcees are an offshoot of the Beaver Indians, a tribe of one of the divisions of the Northern group of the Athapascan Family.

Siouan Family.

All the tribes of this family do not speak the Sioux language, as is wrongly stated on page 103. Those who speak the "Sioux" language are the Dakota proper, nicknamed Sioux, and the Assiniboin. There are, or have been, nine other groups of Indians in this family: to the Cegiha or Dhegiha group belong the Omahas, Ponkas, Osages, Kansas or Kaws, and Kwapas or Quapaws; to the Tchiwere group belong the Iowas, Otos, and Missouris; the Winnebago or Hochangara constitute another group; the fifth group consists of the survivors of the Mandan nation; to the sixth group belong the Hidatsa and the Absarokas or Crows; the Tutelos, Keyauwees, Aconeechis, etc., constituted the seventh group; the tribes of the Catawba confederacy, the eighth; the Biloxis, the ninth; and certain Virginia tribes the tenth group. The Winnebagos call themselves Hochangara, or First Speech (not "Trout Nation"), they are not called Horoje ("fish-eaters") by the Omahas, but Hu-tan-ga, Big Voices, a mistranslation of Hochangara. The Dakotas proper sometimes speak of themselves as the "O-che-ti sha-ko-win," or the Seven Council-fires. Their Algonquian foes called them Nadowe-ssi-wak, the Snake-like ones, from nadowe, a snake; this was corrupted by the Canadian French to Nadouessioux, of which the last syllable is Sioux. The seven primary divisions of the Dakota are as follow: Mdewakantonwan, Wakhpekute, Sisitonwan or Sisseton, Wakhpetonwan or Warpeton, Ihanktonwan or Yankton, Ihanktonwanna or Yanktonnai, and Titonwan or Teton.

The Sheyennes or Cheyennes, mentioned in connection with the Sioux by Gallatin and Carver, are an Algonquian people. Gallatin styles the "Mandanes" a Minnetaree tribe; but as has just been stated, the survivors of the Mandan nation, a people that formerly inhabited many villages (according to Dr. Washington Matthews and others) belong to a distinct group of the Siouan Family, and the Hidatsa (including the Amakhami or "Annahawas" of Gallatin) and the Absaroka, Upsaroka or Crows constitute the sixth group of that family. The "Quappas or Arkansas" of Gallatin are the Kwapas or Quapaws of recent times. The Osages call themselves, not "Wausashe," but Wa-sha-she.

Takilman Family.

"The Takilma formerly dwelt in villages along upper Rogue River, Oregon, all the latter, with one exception, being on the south side, from Illinois River on the southwest, to Deep Rock, which was nearer the head of the stream. They are now included among the 'Rogue River Indians,' and they reside on the Siletz Reservation, Tillamook County, Oregon, where Dorsey found them in 1884."

Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology, page 121.

They call themselves, Ta-kel-ma

Dorsey.

Dorsey had their chief make a map showing the locations of all their villages.

{xxi}

BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States of America, site:archive.org

Without the site restriction (site:archive.org) the search results are flooded with links to commercial sites, hiding the actual targets.

Results can be extended by noting the sequence number in a link such as: (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala Try modifying the number for adjacent volumes of the same title.]

APPENDIX F. BIBLIOGRAPHY.

THE BETTER LITERATURE OF HISTORY IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ON SUBJECTS NAMED BELOW.

In the following Classified List, the date of the first appearance of each one among the older works is given in parentheses, if ascertained. The period covered by the several memoirs, and other works limited in time, is stated in brackets.

AMERICA. DISCOVERY. EXPLORATION. SETTLEMENT. ARCHÆOLOGY. ETHNOLOGY.

GENERAL.

BANCROFT, GEORGE. History of the United States of America, part 1. (Author's last revision.) New York: D. Appleton & Company 1883-5. 6 volumes. https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037605mbp (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa01bancrich (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofunited32banc (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofusa03bancrich (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds04banciala (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds05banciala (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds06banciala (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyoftheunit037606mbp (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyofuniteds0004banc/page/n7/mode/2up

BANCROFT, HUBERT HOWE. History of the Pacific States of North America: Central America, volumes 1-2; Mexico, volumes 1-2. San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft & Company 1882-3. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics11bategoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics16bategoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics24bategoog (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics13bategoog (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics30bategoog (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics02bategoog (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics23bategoog (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics04bategoog (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics29bategoog (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics03bategoog (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics06bategoog (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics07bategoog (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics05bategoog (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific13bancrich (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific14bancrich (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics09bategoog (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics01bategoog (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics10bategoog (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historyofpacific17bancrich (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics22bategoog (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics08bategoog (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics20bategoog (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics27bategoog (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics31bategoog (Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics17bategoog (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics18bategoog (Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics28bategoog (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics19bategoog (Volume 25) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics26bategoog (Volume 26) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics12bategoog (Volume 27) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics21bategoog (Volume 31) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics25bategoog (Volume 32) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics15bategoog (Volume 33) https://archive.org/details/historypacifics14bategoog

BANVARD, REVEREND JOSEPH. Novelties of the new world. Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1851. https://archive.org/details/noveltiesofnew00banv

BELKNAP, JEREMY. American biography, volume 1. (1794-8.) New York: Harper & Brothers. 3 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/americanbiograph185101belk (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_48978 (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37965

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY. Notes of Americana. (Bulletins, volume 3. pages 205-209.)

BROWNELL, HENRY. North and South America Illustrated, from its first discovery. Hartford: Hurlbut, Kellogg & Company 1800. 2 volumes. https://archive.org/details/northsouthameric11brow (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northsouthamill01browrich (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/northandsoutham00browgoog

BRYANT, WILLIAM CULLEN, and SIDNEY H. GAY. Popular history of the United States, volume 1. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1870-81. 4 volumes. https://archive.org/details/3704730.1-4

BUMP, C. W. Bibliographies of America. Baltimore. 1892. (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political science. 10th series, nos. 10-11. appendix)

CARVER, ELVIRA, and MARA L. PRATT. Our fatherland. [Juvenile.] Boston: Educational Publication Company. 1890. volume 1-. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherland00carv (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ourfatherlandvol01carvuoft

FISKE, JOHN. The discovery of America: with some account of ancient America and the Spanish conquest. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. 1892. 2 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/discoveryamerica01fisk (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri02fisk

GORDON, THOMAS F. History of America, volumes. 1-2; containing the history of the Spanish discoveries prior to 1520. Philadelphia. 1832. 2 volumes. (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00gordgoog

HAKLUYT, RICHARD. collection Divers voyages touching the discovery of America and the Islands adjacent (1582); with notes by John W. Jones. London: Hakluyt Society. 1850. https://archive.org/details/diversvoyagesto00thorgoog

HARRISSE, HENRY. The discovery of North America: a critical, documentary, and historic investigation. London: H. Stevens & Son. 1892.

HIGGINSON, THOMAS WENTWORTH. A book of American explorers. Boston: Lee & Shepard. 1877.

Larger history of the United States of America, chapters 1-5. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.

HOLMES, ABIEL. The annals of America, 1492-1826 (1805); 2d edition. Cambridge: Hilliard & Brown. 1829. 2 volumes. https://archive.org/details/annalsamer00holmrich (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/annalsamerica02holmgoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cihm_47269 (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americanannals00unkngoog

HUMBOLDT, ALEXANDER VON. Cosmos (1845-58), translated by E. C. Otté, part 2, section 6 (volume 2). London: H. Bohn. 1847-58. 5 volumes (Audio) https://archive.org/details/cosmos_1603_librivox (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cosmosasketchap00dallgoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/cosmossketchofph0002humb/page/n5/mode/2up (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/cosmosofph03humbrich (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/sketchofphcosmos04humbrich

New York: Harper & Brothers 1850-. 5 volumes. https://archive.org/details/cosmos01humbgoog

KERR, ROBERT, ed. General history and collection of voyages and travels (1811-1824). volumes 1-6. Edinburgh: W. Blackwood. 18 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory06kerrgoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco02kerrrich (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory02kerrgoog (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_zb46AAAAIAAJ (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory07kerrgoog (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory08kerrgoog (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/generalhistoryco05kerrrich (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory15kerrgoog (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10kerrgoog (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory12kerrgoog (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory09kerrgoog (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory11kerrgoog (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory04kerrgoog (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/dli.granth.18187 (Volume 12) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory14kerrgoog (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory05kerrgoog (Volume 15) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory13kerrgoog (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory10unkngoog/page/n5/mode/2up (Volume 18) https://archive.org/details/ageneralhistory03kerrgoog

LODGE, H. C. Gravier's Découverte de l'Amérique. (North American Review 119: 166. 1874.)

MACGREGOR, JOHN. Progress in America. London: Whittaker & Company. 1847. 2 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/progressofameric01macguoft (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/progressamerica02macggoog

MACKENZIE, ROBERT. America; a history. London: Nelson & Sons. 1882. https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.87679

MAVOR, WILLIAM. Historical account of the most celebrated voyages. volumes 1 and 17. London: 1790-7. 20 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou01conggoog/page/n9/mode/2up (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou02conggoog/page/n6/mode/2up (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou13conggoog (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37601 (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37604 (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc03mavogoog (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou11conggoog (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09conggoog (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou17mavogoog (Volume 19) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou09mavogoog (Volume 20) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37614 (Volume 21) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37615 (Volume 22) https://archive.org/details/anhistoricalacc10mavogoog (Volume 23) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37617 (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/historicalaccou08mavogoog/page/n8/mode/2up (Volume 24) https://archive.org/details/cihm_37618

PALFREY, JOHN G. History of New England, volume 1, chapter 2. Boston: Little, Brown & Company. 1858-90. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historynewengla23palfgoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl02palf (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl0002palf/page/n5/mode/2up (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofnewengl00palf

PAYNE, EDWARD JOHN. History of the new world called America. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1892-. volume 1-. New York: Macmillan & Company. 1892-. volume 1-. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld01paynrich (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/histnewworld02paynrich

PINKERTON, JOHN, ed. General collection of the best and most interesting voyages and travels, volume 14. London: Longman. 1808-14. 17 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18698 (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio01pink (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio02pink (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pink (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio04pinkuoft (Volume 5) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect05pinkgoog/page/n15/mode/2up (Volume 6) https://archive.org/details/cihm_18703 (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio07pink (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/ageneralcollect03unkngoog/page/n11/mode/2up (Volume 9) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio09pink (Volume 10) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio10pink (Volume 11) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio11pink (Volume 13) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio12pink (Volume 14) https://archive.org/details/generalcollectio14pink (Volume 16) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.5489 (Volume 17) https://archive.org/details/dli.bengal.10689.1668

ROBERTSON, WILLIAM. History of America (1777-96). (Works, volumes 6-8. Oxford: Talboys & Wheeler. 1825.) (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica12robegoog (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/americarobertson00willrich/page/n3/mode/2up (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyamericab00robegoog (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/historyofamerica03robe (Volume 4) https://archive.org/details/historyamerica01unkngoog

SCAIFE, WALTER B. America, its geographical history, 1492-1892. (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political science, extra volume 13.) Baltimore. 1892. https://archive.org/details/americaitsgeogra00scairich

SNOWDEN, RICHARD. History of North and South America, from its discovery to the death of General Washington. (1806.) Philadelphia: B. Warner. 2 volumes. (Volume 1, 2) /phttps://archive.org/details/historynorthand00snowgoog

STEVENS, HENRY. Historical and geographical notes on the earliest discoveries in America, 1453-1530. London: Henry Stevens. 1869. New Haven: American Journal of Science. 1869. https://archive.org/details/historicalandge00stevgoog

WILLSON, MARCIUS. American history. New York: Mark H. Newman & Company. 1847. https://archive.org/details/americanhistory00will

WINSOR, JUSTIN. Harrisse's Discovery of North America Nation, 55: 244. 264. https://archive.org/details/jstor-196715/page/n11/mode/2up

Editor, Narrative and critical history of America Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company 1886. 8 volumes. (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica01wins/page/n11/mode/2up (Volume 1, 1)https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica51wins (Volume 1, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica12wins (Volume 2 )https://archive.org/details/narrcrithistamerica02winsrich (Volume 2, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica21wins (Volume 2, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica22wins (Volume 3) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0003wins/page/n7/mode/2up (Volume 3, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica31wins (Volume 3, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica32wins (Volume 4 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica04wins (Volume 4, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica41wins (Volume 4, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica42wins (Volume 5 ) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0005wins/page/n7/mode/2up (Volume 5, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica52wins (Volume 6, 1) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica61wins (Volume 6, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica62wins/page/n7/mode/2up (Volume 7) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0007wins/page/n5/mode/2up (Volume 7, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica72wins (Volume 8) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica0008wins/page/n7/mode/2up (Volume 8, 2) https://archive.org/details/narrativecritica82wins

YATES, JOHN V. N., and MOULTON, JOS. W. History of the state of New York, volume 1, part 1. New York: A. T. Goodrich. 1924-6. 2 volumes. (Volume1, 1)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof12moul_0 (Part 2)https://archive.org/details/historyofstateof02moul/page/n3/mode/2up

PRE-COLUMBIAN DISCOVERIES.

ANDERSON, RASMUS B. America not discovered by Columbus. Chicago: S. C. Griggs & Company. 1874. https://archive.org/details/americanotdiscov00andeiala

BEAMISH, NORTH LUDLOW. The discovery of America by the Northmen in the 10th century. London: T. & W. Boone 1841. https://archive.org/details/discoveryameric00beamgoog

BOWEN, Reverend BENJ. F. America discovered by the Welsh in 1170. A. D. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Company. 1876. https://archive.org/details/americadiscovere00boweuoft

DALL, W. H. Alleged early Chinese voyages to America. (Science, 8: 402. 1886.)

DAVIS, ASAHEL. Discovery of America by the Northmen. Rochester: D. Hoyt. 1839. https://archive.org/details/lectureondiscove00davi

{xxii}

DISCOVERY OF AMERICA BY THE NORTHMEN. (Atlantic Monthly, 54: 282. 1884.)

DU BOIS, B. H. Did the Norse discover America? (Magazines of American History, 27: 369. 1892.)

ELLIOTT, CHARLES W. The New England history, chapter 1. New York: Charles Scribner. 1857. 2 volumes. https://archive.org/details/newenglandhisto04elligoog

EVERETT, EDWARD. Discovery of America by the Northmen. (North American Review, 46: 161. 1838.)

FISKE, JOHN. How America came to be discovered. (Harper's Magazine, 64: 111. 1881.)

HIGGINSON, THOMAS W. The visit of the Vikings, (Harper's Magazine, 65: 515. 1882.)

HORSFORD, EBEN NORTON. The problem of the Northmen. Cambridge: J. Wilson & Son. 1889. https://archive.org/details/problemofnorthme00hors

LEGENDS OF OLD America. (Cornhill Magazine 26: 452. 1872.)

LELAND, CHARLES GODFREY. The ante-Norse discoverers of America (Continental Monthly, 1: 389,530. 1862)

Fusang: or the discovery of America by Chinese Buddhist priests in the 5th century. London: Trübner. 1875. New York: J. W. Bouton, 1875. http://link.archive.org/portal/Fusang-or-The-discovery-of-America-by-Chinese/ZD2URRe5Nbs/

MacLEAN, J. P. Pre-Columbian discovery of America (American Antiquarian, 14, 1892)

MAJOR, RICHARD HENRY. The life of prince Henry of Portugal, surnamed the navigator, and its results. London: A. Asher & Company, 1868. https://archive.org/details/lifeofprincehenr00majo

On the voyages of the Venetian brothers Zeno. (Massachusetts History Society Proceedings, 1873-75.)

Translator and editor. Voyages of the Venetian brothers, Nicolò and Antonio Zeno, to the northern seas, in the 14th century. London: Hakluyt Society. 1873. https://archive.org/details/voyagesofvenetia00zenorich

ONDERDONK, J. L. Pre-Columbian discoveries of America, (National Quarterly Review, 33: 1. 1876.) https://archive.org/details/precolumbiandis00ondegoog/page/n4/mode/2up

PILON, M. R. Visits of Europeans to America in the 10th and 11th centuries. (Potter's American Monthly, 5: 903. 1875.)

RANKING, JOHN, Historical researches on the conquest of Peru, Mexico, etc., in the 13th century, by the Mongols. London: Longman. 1827. https://archive.org/details/historicalresear00rank

REEVES, ARTHUR MIDDLETON. The finding of Wineland the good. London: Henry Frowde. 1890. https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

ROPES, A. R. Early explorations of America, real and imaginary. (English Historical Review, 2: 78. 1887.)

SHORT, JOHN T. Claims to the discovery of America (Galaxy, 20: 509. 1875.)

SLAFTER, Rev. EDMUND F. The discovery of America by the Northmen 985-1015: a discourse delivered before the New Hampshire Historical Society, April 24, 1888. https://archive.org/details/winelandthegood00reevrich

Editor. Voyages of the Northmen to America; including extracts from the Icelandic sagas in an English translation by N. L. Beamish, opinion of Professor Rafn, etc. Boston: Prince Society. 1877. https://archive.org/details/voyagesofnorthme00slafiala

SMITH, JOSHUA TOULMIN. The discovery of America by the Northmen In the 10th century; comprising translations of all the most important original narratives (1839). 2d edition. London: William S. Orr & Company 1842. https://archive.org/details/discoveryofameri00smit

SOUTHEY, ROBERT. Madoc (1805). London: Longmans. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Company (Volume 1) https://archive.org/details/madoc03soutgoog/page/n11/mode/2up (Volume 2) https://archive.org/details/madoc00soutgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

STEPHENS, THOMAS. Madoc; an essay on the discovery of America by Madoc ap Owen Gwynedd in the 12th century. London: Longmans, Green & Company. 1893. https://archive.org/details/madocessayondisc00stepuoft

STORM, GUSTAV. Studies on the Vineland voyages. Copenhagen: Thiele. 1889.

VINING, EDWARD P. An inglorious Columbus; or, evidence that Hwui Shán and a party of Buddhist monks from Afghanistan discovered America in the 5th century. New York: D. Appleton & Company. 1885. https://archive.org/details/ingloriouscolumb00vini

VOYAGES TO VINLAND, THE; from the saga of Eric the red. Boston: D. C. Heath & Company. (Old South leaflets, general series, No.31.) https://archive.org/details/cihm_07112/page/n5/mode/2up

WATSON, PAUL B. Bibliography of the pre-Columbian discoveries of America. (Library Journal, 6: 227. 1881.)

WINSOR, JUSTIN. America prefigured: an address at Harvard, October 21, 1892. Cambridge. 1893. https://archive.org/details/prefiguredamerica00winsrich/page/4/mode/2up

COLUMBUS

Some recent discoveries concerning Columbus. (Magazine of American History, 27: 161, 1892.)

ADAMS, HERBERT B., and HENRY WOOD. Columbus and his discovery of America. (Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political science, 10th series, Numbers 10-11,) Baltimore, October-November, 1892. https://archive.org/details/columbusandhisd00woodgoog

BLIND, K. The forerunners of Columbus. (New Review, 7: 346, Living Age, 195: 387. 1892.)

CASTELAR, EMILIO. Christopher Columbus. (Century, 22: 123-921. 1892.) https://archive.org/details/centuryillustrat44newyuoft

COLUMBUS, CHRISTOPHER. Journal, 1492-3; and documents relating to the voyages of John [and Sebastian] Cabot and Gaspar Corte Real; translated by C. R. Markham. London: Hakluyt Society. 1893. https://archive.org/details/cihm_05312

The letter on the discovery of America; a facsimile of the pictorial edition, with a new and literal translation. Printed by the Lenox Library. New York. 1882. https://archive.org/details/letterofcolumbus00colum

Letter to Gabriel Sanchez, 1493. Boston: D. C. Heath & Company. (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 33.) https://archive.org/details/spanishletterco00kerngoog

Select letters, with other original documents; translated and edited by R. H. Major. London: Hakluyt Society. 1847.

Writings descriptive of the discovery and occupation of the new world; edited by Paul Leicester Ford. New York: C. L. Webster & Company. 1892.

COLUMBUS, FERDINAND. The discovery of America; from the life of Columbus. Boston: D. C. Heath & Company. (Old South leaflets, general series, No. 29.)

ELTON, CHARLES. The career of Columbus. New York: Cassell Publishing Company. 1892. https://archive.org/details/careercolumbus00eltogoog