from their spirit of distrust did not allow the great fiefs to assume a hereditary character, but assigned small fiefs to the sons of great feudal tenants.

It may be anticipated, and proved by many examples, that the Byzantine law of land was generally continued under Turkish rule. Prior rights (πρoτíμnois) in the narrower sense of the right of the neighbour to pre-emption passed into Turkish law at least early in the sixteenth century (As Schifaat). The Turkish regulations as to the re-cultivation of untilled fields (Thya el-emwat), such as are found in the Nóμos yewpуixòs (p. 67) of Leo III, are of less importance, considering the universality of some legal principles (we may compare the laws of Hammurabi, p. 67); the jus talionis, which had been emphasised by the Isaurian emperors (p. 68) and figures largely in the Turkish criminal code (Al Djinayat), need not necessarily be borrowed.

As early as 1263 we have proofs of a fief (Timar) being conferred by a Seljuk Sultan; the accurate elaboration of the already existent feudal system is attributed to Timurtash, the commander of the conquered Europeo-Byzantine territories under Murad I (1359-1389). The thoroughly military feudal system, the profits of which are called "the prize of battle," was instituted in such a way that lesser fiefs (Timars) were conferred by the governors, greater (Ziamets) only by the central power. The owners of the great fiefs had subsequently to furnish fifteen horsemen, the proprietors of Timars, two horsemen; the proportion of large and small landed property in the six Greek provinces can be learnt from the proportion of Ziamets to Timars. Since the ratio between Ziamets and Timars was, in the Morea 13, but in Epacto is 1: 22, a system of numerous large properties exists in the former, while in the latter a pronounced system of small estates prevails (Negroponte 1: 15, Thessaly 1: 5, Kartili = Aetolia 1: 22, Acarnania 1 : 10, Joannina 1:5). If therefore a primitive Turkish tribal regulation existed, Byzantine influence presumedly gave it a more permanent form.

Byzantine influences can also be discerned in the Turkish State: the old idea that every trace of Byzantine institutions was destroyed root and branch is shown to be more and more incorrect, the deeper we inquire into the question. The general division of the government into the European and the Asiatic department (τῆς Δύσεως and τῆς ̓Ανατολῆς) was retained in the distinction between Rumili and Anatoli. The Exarch of the city of Constantinople (Stambul = 's Tηv Tóλɩ, locaτὴν πόλι, tive case), which formed an independent sphere of administration, retained his place in the Turkish Empire as Schrimaneti. The Chushes (taoùs in Anna Comnena, ushers), who appeared with silver wands on which silver chains jingled, were imitated from the Manglavites of the Byzantine Court, so that the Chush-Bashi (uéyas Taous) may have corresponded to the head of the Manglavites; like the Protomanglavites in Byzantium, the Chushes were always employed as extraordinary ambassadors in the first period of the Osman Empire; the name then travelled to Byzantium.

The official correspondence of the first Emirs and Sultans was conducted in a peculiar dialect of Greek, an example of which is given by the ultimatum to the Venetians in 1570. A number of Greek expressions which the Turkish Empire employs attests the preservation of the institutions which these terms denote. The Defterdar has his name from the Greek Sip0épat (skin, then book); the Greek term (Canones) for official regulations was adopted into Turkish (Kanun, Kanunnameh; cf. below, p. 123); a series of terms point to the connection with Byzan

The Greeks after Alexander the Great

=

=

tine financial institutions: Koμμéρktov, from commercium=gümrük, excise, TóπTOS= tapu, ground rent, Snμóσiov, Fiscus Bulgarian dimosija, Armenian dimos, duos =dimos, the farmed-out profits in money or corn, payyáva mangane aktschessi, cask-money. Effendi (lord) significantly is derived from the Greek, ápévrηS = avdévτns. As might be expected, the Turks, when they began to build and furnish houses and to construct a navy, borrowed expressions for the new ideas from the Greek (courtyard, basement, roof, window, bolt; seaman, ferry, galley, freight, tiller, beach, gulf, haven, lighthouse, storm, northwest, all sorts of fish). Coins, weights, and measures similarly were borrowed from Byzantium. The early organisation of the empire, which had been created under Urkhan's younger brother and Vezir Alâ ed-dîn, is only to be explained by the pre-eminent importance of Western civilization. The stress laid on the right of coining money as a right of sovereignty must have been due to familiarity with Western ideas of monarchy; the institution of a standing army on the Greek model, later composed of Christians (p. 122), shows the value attached to the countries conquered and still to be conquered. The West is finally as it were the great public, before which the question of head-gear (p. 18) can be seriously discussed. The Greek Mime still extant in the Byzantine Empire has reappeared in the Karagöz (Shadow play, p. 124) possibly learnt from the Chinese, in which even the great Hercules appears as Köroglu, son of the blind man, who conquers the lion.

We must not, therefore, regard the career of the Osman nation merely as an expansion of power, but also as an absorption of alien races and foreign culture. From the time when, in 1300, they established themselves at Sögud (Zayoudάous in Anna Comnena), in the vicinity of the old Dorylæum, down to the occupation of Byzantium, only one hundred and fifty years had elapsed. If we run our eyes over the dates of their advance (they conquered Nicomedia and Brusa in 1326; Nicæa, 1330; Ancient Mysia after 1340; Gallipoli, 1358; Ancyra, 1360; Adrianople, 1361; Philippopoli, 1362; Belgrade, 1385, and the greater part of Asia Minor by 1393), we are amazed at the aggressive powers of the nation. The dismemberment of the Osman Empire by the Tartar Timur was quickly retrieved; half a century later, Constantinople fell before the onslaught of the Osmans, which was at its fiercest under Mohammed II (1451-1481), but was revived again under Selim II (1512-1520), from the fact of his being the Head of the Faith. The foreign racial elements were really incorporated; in the year 1334 Marino Sanudo said that Asia Minor was Turkish as far as Philadelphia. The Crusaders and Byzantines of the twelfth century discovered to their cost that the Greeks of Southern Asia Minor (on Lake Pungusa) had decided for the Central Asiatics. The Greek words taken from the Turkish point to the close intercourse in later times: such are the words for stuffs (damask, taffeta, morocco leather), plants (hyacinth, jasmine, elder, crocus, violet), articles of clothing (shoes, trunk-hose), ornaments (necklace), games (chess and dice), trades (butcher, whitesmith, greengrocer, and guild itself), military terms (musket, bullet, cartridge, powder). The reverse is indeed suggested by the abusive terms (lazy, stupid, hunchbacked, garrulous), and it is amazing to notice that the words for quarrel, violence, swindling, and favouritism come from the Turkish.

The Turkish race has absorbed so much Western blood that its whole anthropological appearance is changed, and the Turkish character, as we find it in the Khanates, is absolutely differentiated from that of the Osmanli: the latter severs

his connection with the East when he designates the former by Turk (= coarse, rude). In this way the historical destiny of the Osmans is sealed: deprived of its resources, its coherency, and its reinforcement from the East, the Osman nation is at heart a stranger to the West, and the empire fossilises even more than its Byzantine predecessor. An erratic boulder on the plains of Europe, it awaits the time when strong hands will push it back to Asia, and the right heir of Byzantinism shall once more take possession of Hagia Sophia.

B. THE KINGDOM OF GREECE (FROM 1832)

BOTH under the first monarchy1 (1832-1862, Otto of Bavaria; cf. Vol. VIII) and under the second monarchy (from 1863 with William of Denmark as George I), the country oscillated between attempts at outward expansion and inner consolidation. The constitution granted on March 16, 1844, gave an opportunity to the contending parties of crippling all progress in a barren struggle which was a caricature of parliamentary life. A pre-eminent cause of internal disturbances was supplied by the Cretan question (1866-1869 and 1897). The Berlin Conference in 1881 had promised Thessaly and a part of Albania to Greece.2 The financial distress which led to national bankruptcy in 1893 was as much due to the ambition of the half-educated men who played the greatest rôle in the country as to the outbreak of the Turco-Greek war, which showed the incapacity of the superior commanders as well as the inadequacy of the military training. The admirable handling of the cavalry and the reserves by Edhem Pasha and the splendid efficiency of the Turkish artillery quickly decided the war. The peace signed on December 4, 1897, between Greece and Turkey gave Greece a defined frontier. The delimitation, more especially in the valley of the Peneius, entailed considerable losses to Greece (between Larissa and Triccala), and the payment of a war indemnity of four million pounds (Turkish = £3,750,000), in addition to a compensation of £100,000 to the owners in the region of the theatre of war. The second article of the preliminary peace of September 18 provided that a financial committee of control, composed of foreigners, should watch over the financial question at Athens.

The difficulties of arriving at a settlement are indisputably prodigious; but now that an end has probably been set to the interminable alternation of the party of order and the adventurist party (Tricupists and Delyannists) by the breaking up of the Delyannists, there is more room for hope, since the nation, which prides itself on being of one blood with Socrates, seems at last to see the truth of Socrates' words: "If I wish to have a flute mended, I go to the flutemaker; if a ship, to the ship-builder; but for the State, anyone seems good enough." How small has hitherto been the produce of the soil, of which only oneseventh is cultivated, is shown by the statistics of the year 1901, in which the exports amounted to 67.2 million drachmas, including, amongst other things, currants (23.1 million dr.), figs (3.4 million dr.), tobacco (4.4 million dr.), oil and

1 The Greek War of Liberation, as a revolt from the Osman tyranny, so far as it is an integral part of Turkish history, has been recorded in the second main section; so far as Western Europe was concerned in it, the eighth volume may be consulted.

2 Cf. the map "Turkey and Adjacent Countries after the Treaty of Berlin" on the large "Map Illus trating the History of Turkey in Europe" in the second main section.

olives (6.6 million dr.), while the imports reached 122.8 million drachmas (of which 34.1 millions were for corn). The importation of textiles to a value of nearly 19 million drachmas shows the depression of that industry which is only able to export to the value of 1.3 million drachmas, while 57 millions must be paid to foreign countries for other industrial needs.

Development of energy, training in Central European methods of labour, instruction in agriculture and the re-cultivation of fallow lands, but above all the repression of the half-educated class (which still dominates politics and journalism) by the highly educated (cf. Vol. VIII) and by the lower section of the people, which, although unaccustomed to work, is still healthy; combined with this, a stern repression of that nauseating boastfulness which finds its pleasure in rhetoric and useless architectural display (Academy of Sciences and Library), and an iron discipline in fiscal departments and in the army, such measures may save the country to which all of us owe the deepest gratitude for the imperishable services of its past.

II

TURKEY IN EUROPE AND ARMENIA

BY PROFESSOR DR. HEINRICH ZIMMERER

1. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE OSMAN EMPIRE

A. THE ORIGIN AND THE DESTINIES OF THE OSMANS TO THE YEAR 1360

T

HE Osman power and the Turkish nationality are rooted at the present day, as they have been from the beginning of the Osman State, in Asia. For this reason the historian of Turkey in Europe is obliged to direct his gaze from the shores of the Bosphorus steadily towards the East, since from the East came forth that warlike people who for nearly four centuries were the terror of Europe, and still present to Western diplomatists the insoluble problem of the "Eastern Question" (cf. Vol. IV. p. 44).

As regards the origin of the modern Turks, the information available since the discovery of the "Orthon inscriptions" on the upper Yenisei in Siberia (18891890; cf. also above, p. 46) enables us to describe their ancestors without hesitation as of pure Mongolian race. From the earliest times their nomadic tribes have formed compact political unions, which measured swords with their neighbours the Chinese in continual frontier warfare, and also possessed some degree of Asiatic civilization, including the art of writing, as is evidenced by inscriptions from the eighth century A. D. Generally speaking, however, the fact is that the great stretch of territory between Lake Baikal and the Caspian Sea has been for centuries, and still remains, the arena of barbaric struggle between the nomad Turkish and Tartar tribes. During this long epoch in Eastern and Western Turkestan, that inexhaustible breeding-ground of nations, the seeds were sown of those military and civil characteristics which are clearly recognisable, in the Turks of Asia Minor at any rate, notwithstanding manifold infusions of Aryan, Hamitic, and Semitic blood. We refer to the virtues of the warrior who, at the trumpet blast, obediently pitches or strikes his tent, saddles or unsaddles his little horse, arranges his camp kettle where he may happen to bivouac, takes his simple meal, content with the humblest fare and crouching on the ground like a true son of the steppes, bears with infinite patience the toils of march and migration, bends piously and devoutly in prayer towards the rising sun, performs the duties of hospitality where he feels himself the lord and master, but where he meets resistance slaughters his victims with the cruelty of the hunter of the steppes, like his brothers the Avars and Huns, the Pecheneges, Seljuks, and Mongols, and so devastates the land that desolation marks the pathway of his feet.