Chapter I: Indo-European (6)

More perilous to European peace, however, than any of these issues was the perennial unrest in Macedonia, which threatened sooner or later to open up the whole Eastern Question once more in its acutest form. The situation was due to the internecine struggle of the rival Balkan races--Greek, Bulgarian, Servian--to secure the right to the reversion of territories not yet derelict. But behind these lesser issues loomed the great secular rivalries of the powers, and beyond these again the vast unknown forces of the Mahommedan world, ominously stirring. The very vastness of the perils involved in any attempt at a definitive settlement compelled the powers to accept a compromise which, it was hoped, would restore tolerable conditions in the wretched country. But the "Muerzsteg programme," concerted between the Austrian and Russian emperors in 1903, and imposed upon the Porte by the diplomatic pressure of the great powers, did not produce the effects hoped for. The hideous tale of massacres of helpless villagers by organized Greek bands, and of equally hideous, if less wholesale, reprisals by Bulgarian bands, grew rather than diminished, and reached its climax in the early months of 1908. The usefulness of the new _gendarmerie_, under European officers, which was to have co-operated with the Ottoman authorities in the restoration of order, was from the outset crippled by the passive obstruction of the Turkish government. The sultan, indeed, could hardly be blamed for watching with a certain cynical indifference the mutual slaughter of those "Christians" whose avowed ideal was the overthrow of Mahommedan rule, nor could he be expected to desire the smooth working of a system against which he had protested as a violation of his sovereign rights. In 1908 the powers were still united in bringing pressure to bear on the Porte to make the reforms effective; but the proposal of Great Britain to follow the precedent of the Lebanon and commit the administration of Macedonia to a Mussulman governor appointed by the sultan, but removable only by consent of the powers, met with little favour either at Constantinople or among the powers whose ulterior aims might have been hampered by such an arrangement.

Young Turkish revolution, 1908.

European results.

European crisis provoked by Austria.

Such was the condition of affairs when in October 1908 the revolution in Turkey altered the whole situation. The easy and apparently complete victory of the Young Turks, and the re-establishment without a struggle of the constitution which had been in abeyance since 1876, took the whole world by surprise, and not least those who believed themselves to be most intimately acquainted with the conditions prevailing in the Ottoman empire. The question of the Near East seemed in fair way of settlement by the action of conflicting races themselves, who in the enthusiasm of new-found freedom appeared ready to forget their ancient internecine feuds and to fraternize on the common ground of constitutional liberty (see TURKEY: _History_). By the European powers the proclamation of the constitution was received, at least outwardly, with unanimous approval, general admiration being expressed for the singular moderation and self-restraint shown by the Turkish leaders and people. Whatever views, however, may have been openly expressed, or secretly held, as to the revolution so far as it affected the Ottoman empire itself, there could be no doubt that its effects on the general situation in Europe would be profound. These effects were not slow in revealing themselves. On the 5th of October Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria proclaimed himself king (_tsar_) of the Bulgarians; and two days later the emperor Francis Joseph issued a rescript announcing the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Habsburg monarchy (see BULGARIA: _History_ and BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: _History_). Whatever cogent reasons there may have been for altering the status of these countries in view of the changed conditions in Turkey, there could be no doubt that the method employed was a violation of the public law of Europe. By the declaration of London of 1871, to which Austria-Hungary herself had been a principal party, it had been laid down that "contracting powers could only rid themselves of their treaty engagements by an understanding with their co-signatories." This solemn reaffirmation of a principle on which the whole imposing structure of international law had, during the 19th century, been laboriously built up was now cynically violated. The other powers, confronted with the _fait accompli_, protested; but the astute statesman who had staked his reputation as foreign minister of the Dual Monarchy on the success of this _coup_ had well gauged the character and force of the opposition he would have to meet. Baron von Aehrenthal, himself more Slav than German, in spite of his name, had served a long apprenticeship in diplomacy at Belgrade and St Petersburg; he knew how fully he could rely upon the weakness of Russia, and that if Russian Pan-Slav sentiment could be cowed, he need fear nothing from the resentment of the Servians. He was strong, too, in the moral and--in case of need--the material support of Germany. With Germany behind her, Austria-Hungary had little to fear from the opposition of the powers of the triple _entente_, Great Britain, France and Russia. This diagnosis of the situation was justified by the event. For months, indeed, Europe seemed on the verge of a general war. During the autumn the nationalist excitement in Servia and Montenegro rose to fever-heat, and Austria responded by mobilizing her forces on the frontiers and arming the Catholic Bosnians as a precaution against a rising of their Orthodox countrymen. Only the winter seemed to stand between Europe and a war bound to become general, and men looked forward with apprehension to the melting of the snows. It is too early as yet to write the history of the diplomatic activities by which this disaster was avoided. Their general outline, however, is clear enough. The protests of Turkey at a violation of treaty rights, doubly resented as likely to damage the prestige of the new constitutional regime, were sympathetically received by the powers of the triple _entente_. An international conference was at once suggested as the only proper authority for carrying out any modifications of the treaty of Berlin necessitated by the new conditions in Turkey; the right of Austria-Hungary to act on her own initiative was strenuously denied; Bulgarian independence and Prince Ferdinand's title of king were meantime refused recognition. In the assertion of these principles Great Britain, Russia and France were united. Germany, on the other hand, maintained an attitude of reserve, though diplomatically "correct"; she accepted the principle of a conference, but made her consent to its convocation conditional on that of her ally Austria-Hungary. But the latter refused to agree to any conference in which the questions at issue should be reopened; the most that she would accept was a conference summoned merely to register the _fait accompli_ and to arrange "compensations" not territorial but financial.

The German-Austrian victory.

For a while it seemed as though Baron Aehrenthal's ambition had o'erleaped itself. The reluctance of the Russian government, conscious of its military and political weakness, to take extreme measures seemed likely to be overborne by the Pan-Slav enthusiasm of the Russian people, and the Austrian statesman's policy to have placed him in an _impasse_ from which it would be difficult to extricate himself, save at an expense greater than that on which he had calculated. At this point Germany, conscious throughout of holding the key to the situation, intervened with effect. Towards the end of March 1909 the German ambassador at St Petersburg, armed with an autograph letter from the emperor William II., had an interview with the tsar. What were the arguments he used is not known; but the most powerful are supposed to have been the German forces which had been mobilized on the Polish frontier. In any case, the result was immediate and startling. Russia, without previous discussion with her allies, dissociated herself from the views she had hitherto held in common with them, and accepted the German-Austrian standpoint. All question of a conference was now at an end; and all that the powers most friendly to Turkey could do was to persuade her to make the best of a bad bargain. The Ottoman government, preoccupied with the internal questions which were to issue in the abortive attempt at counter-revolution in April, was in no condition to resist friendly or unfriendly pressure. The principle of a money payment in compensation for the shadowy rights of the sultan over the lost provinces was accepted,[79] and Bulgarian independence under King Ferdinand was recognized on the very eve of the new victory of the Young Turks which led to the deposition of Abd-ul-Hamid II. and the proclamation of Sultan Mahommed V. (see TURKEY: _History_).

Its moral.

The change made by these events in the territorial system of Europe was of little moment. A subject principality, long practically independent, became a sovereign state; the _Almanach de Gotha_ was enriched with a new royal title; the sentiment of the Bulgarian people was gratified by the restoration of their historic tsardom. Two provinces long annexed to the Habsburg monarchy _de facto_ became so _de jure_, and the vision of a Serb empire with a free outlet to the sea, never very practicable, was finally dissolved. Of vastly greater importance were the moral and international issues involved. The whole conception of an effective concert of Europe, or of the World, based on the supposed sacred obligation of treaties and the validity of international law, was revealed, suddenly and brutally, as the baseless fabric of a dream. The most momentous outcome of the international debates caused by Austria's high-handed action was the complete triumph of Bismarck's principle that treaties cease to be valid "when the private interest of those who lie under them no longer reinforces the text." Henceforth, it was felt, no reaffirmation of a principle of international comity and law, so successfully violated, could serve to disguise the brutal truth that in questions between nations, in the long-run, might is right--that there is no middle term between the naked submission preached by Tolstoy and his disciples and Napoleon's _dictum_ that "Providence is with the big battalions." In Great Britain, especially, public opinion was quick to grasp this truth. It was realized that it was the immense armed power of Germany that had made her the arbiter in a question vitally affecting the interests of all Europe. Germany alone emerged from the crisis with prestige enormously enhanced; for without her intervention Austria could not have resisted the pressure of the powers. The cry for disarmament, encouraged by the action of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman's government, suddenly died down in England; and the agitation in favour of an increased ship-building programme, that followed the revelation by the first lord of the admiralty (April 1909) of Germany's accelerated activity in naval construction, showed that public opinion had been thoroughly awakened to the necessity of maintaining for Great Britain her maritime supremacy, on which not only her position in Europe but the existence of her over-sea empire depended.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE.--(1) _Bibliographies_.--Lists of the principal
works on the history of the various European countries, and of their
main sources, are given in the bibliographies attached to the separate
articles (see also those appended to the articles PAPACY; CHURCH
HISTORY; DIPLOMACY; CRUSADES; FEUDALISM, &c.). For the sources of the
medieval history of Europe see Ulysse Chevalier's monumental
_Repertoire des sources historiques du moyen age; Bio-Bibliography_
(Paris, 1877, &c.), which with certain limitations (notably as regards
the Slav, Hungarian and Scandinavian countries) gives references to
published documents for all names of people, however obscure,
occurring in medieval history. In 1894 M. Chevalier began the
publication of a second series of his _Repertoire_, under the somewhat
misleading title of _Topo-Bibliographie_, intended as a compendious
guide to the places, institutions, &c., of the middle ages; though
very useful, this is by no means so complete as the
_Bio-Bibliographie_. August Potthast's _Bibliotheca historica medii
aevi_ (2nd ed., Berlin, 1895-1896) gives a complete catalogue of all
the annals, chronicles and other historical works which appeared in
Europe between the years 375 and 1500 and have since been printed,
with short notes on their value and significance, and references to
critical works upon them. See also the article RECORD. For authorities
on the history of Europe from the end of the 15th to the 19th
centuries inclusive the excellent bibliographies appended to the
volumes of the _Cambridge Modern History_ are invaluable.

(2) _Works_.--Of general works the most important are the _Histoire
generale du IV^me siecle a nos jours_, published under the direction
of E. Lavisse and A. Rambaud (Paris, 1894, &c.), in 12 vols., covering
the period from the 4th to the end of the 19th century: Leopold von
Ranke's _Weltgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1881, &c.), in 9 vols., covering
(i.) the oldest group of nations and the Greeks; (ii.) the Roman
Republic; (iii.) the ancient Roman Empire; (iv.) the East Roman empire
and the origin of the Romano-German kingdoms; (v.) the Arab
world-power and the empire of Charlemagne; (vi.) dissolution of the
Carolingian and foundation of the German empire; (vii.) zenith and
decay of the German empire; the hierarchy under Gregory VII.; (viii.)
crusades and papal world-power (12th and 13th centuries); (ix.) period
of transition to the modern world (14th and 15th centuries). To this
may be added Ranke's works on special periods: e.g. _Die Fuersten und
Voelker von Sued-Europa im 16ten und 17ten Jahrhundert_ (2nd ed.,
Leipzig, 1837-1839); _Geschichten der romanischen und germanischen
Voelker_, 1494-1514 (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1874, Eng. trans. 1887). In
English the most important general work is the _Cambridge Modern
History_ (1903, &c.), produced by the collaboration of English and
foreign scholars, and covering the ground from the end of the 15th to
the 19th century inclusive. The _Historians' History of the World_,
edited by Dr H. Smith Williams (1908), is a compilation from the works
of eminent historians of all ages, and the value of its various parts
is therefore that of the historians responsible for them. Its chief
merit is that it makes accessible to English readers many foreign or
obscure sources which would otherwise have remained closed to the
general reader. It also contains essays by notable modern scholars on
the principal epochs and tendencies of the world's history, the texts
of a certain number of treaties, &c., not included as yet in other
collections, and comprehensive bibliographies. On a less ambitious
scale are the volumes of the "Periods of European History" series
(London, 1893, &c.): Per. I. _The Dark Ages, 476-918_, by C.W.C. Oman
(1893); Per. II. _The Empire and the Papacy, 918-1273_, by T.F. Tout
(1898); Per. III. _The Close of the Middle Ages, 1273-1494_, by R.
Lodge (1901); _Europe in the 16th Century, 1494-1598_, by A.H. Johnson
(1897); _The Ascendancy of France_, by H.O. Wakeman (1894); _The
Balance of Power_, by A. Hassal (1896); _Revolutionary Europe_, by H.
Morse Stephens (1893); _Modern Europe_, by W. Alison Phillips (1901,
5th ed., 1908). See also T.H. Dyer, _History of Modern Europe from
the fall of Constantinople_, revised and continued to the end of the
19th century by A. Hassal (6 vols., London, 1901). Besides the above
may be mentioned, for European history since the outbreak of the
French Revolution, A. Sorel, _l'Europe et la Revolution Francaise_ (7
vols., Paris, 1885, &c.), a work of first-class importance; A. Stern,
_Geschichte Europas seit den Wiener Vertraegen von 1815_ (Stuttgart and
Berlin, 1894, &c.), based on the study of much new material, still in
progress (1908); C. Seignobos, _Histoire politique de l'Europe
contemporaine_ (Paris, 1897), a valuable text-book with copious
bibliography (Eng. trans., London, 1901); C.M. Andrews, _Historical
development of Europe_, 2 vols. (New York, 1896-1898).

(3) _Published Documents_.--For the vast mass of published sources
reference must be made to the bibliographies mentioned above. It must
be borne in mind, however, that these represent but a fraction of the
unpublished material, and that the great development of original
research is constantly revealing fresh sources, throwing new light on
old problems, and not seldom upsetting conclusions long established as
final. For these latest developments of scholarship the numerous
historical and archaeological reviews published in various countries
should be consulted: e.g. _The English Historical Review_ (London);
_The Scottish Hist. Rev._ (Glasgow); _The American Hist. Rev._ (London
and New York); the _Revue historique_ (Paris); the _Historische
Zeitschrift_ (Munich). The most notable collections of treaties are J.
Dumont's _Corps diplomatique_, covering the period from A.D. 800 to
1731 (Amsterdam and the Hague, 1726-1731); F.G. de Martens and his
continuators, _Recueil des traites_, &c. (1791, &c.), covering with
its supplements the period from 1494 to 1874; F. (T.T.) de Martens,
_Recueil des traites conclus par la Russie_, &c. (14 vols., St
Petersburg, 1874, &c.); A. and J. de Clercq, _Recueil des traites de
la France_ (Paris, 1864; new ed., 1880, &c.); L. Neumann, _Recueil des
traites conclus par l'Autriche_ (from 1763), (6 vols., Leipzig, 1855);
new series, by. L. Neumann and A. de Plason (16 vols., Vienna,
1877-1903); _Oesterreichische Staatsvertraege_ (vol. i. _England_,
1526-1748), published by the Commission for the modern history of
Austria (Innsbruck, 1907), with valuable introductory notes; _British
and Foreign State Papers_ (from the termination of the war in 1814),
compiled at the Foreign Office by the Librarian and Keeper of the
Papers (London, 1819, &c.); Sir E. Hertslet, _The Map of Europe by
Treaty_ (from 1814), (4 vols., London, 1875-1891). See the article
TREATIES. (W. A. P.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] H. Wagner's edition of Guthe's _Lehrbuch der Geographie_ (5th
ed., Hanover 1882).

[2] At the summit of each of the Trans-Ural railways (Perm-Tyumen and
Ufa-Chelyabinsk) and that of the road across the Caucasus from
Vladikavkaz to Tiflis, sign-posts, with the name Europe on one side,
Asia on the other, mark this boundary.

[3] Fifth edition, vol. ii. pp. 24-25.

[4] Pt. i. pp. 11-12.

[5] Griesbach, on the strength of Middendorff's observations, remarks
that, in addition to European fruit trees, oak, maples, elms, ashes
and the black alder do not cross the Urals, while the lime tree is
reduced to the size of a shrub (_La Vegetation du globe_, translated
by Tchihatchef, i. p. 181).

[6] On the history of the boundary between Asia and Europe see F.G.
Hahn in the _Mitteilungen des Vereins fuer Erdkunde zu Leipzig_
(1881), pp. 83-104. Hahn, on the ground that true mountain systems
must be regarded as forming geographical units, pronounces against
the practice of making "natural boundaries" run along mountain
crests, and assigns the whole of the Caucasus region to Europe as all
belonging to such a system, but orographically quite different from
the Armenian plateau (p. 103). But surely it is no less different
from the European plain.

[7] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1890), p. 91.

[8] See Supan's _Physische Erdkunde_, 4th ed., pp. 376-377, and the
authorities there quoted.

[9] "Kustenveranderungen im Mittelmeergebiet," in _Ztschr. der Ges.
fuer Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1878).

[10] See _Mitteil der Wiener Geog. Gesellschaft_ (1890), p. 333.

[11] See R.T. Gunther, _Contributions to the Study of Earth-Movements
in the Bay of Naples_ (Oxford, 1903), and "Earth-Movements in the Bay
of Naples," in the _Geog. Journ._ vol. xxii. pp. 121-149, 269-285.

[12] See _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1891), Pl. 8.

[13] _Ib._ (1893), Pl. 12.

[14] See Ed. Suess, _The Face of the Earth_, translated by H.B.C.
Sollas, vol. i. (Oxford, 1904); J. Milne, _Seismology_ (London,
1886); R. Hoernes, _Erdbebenkunde_ (Leipzig, 1893).

[15] _Die mittlere Hoehe Europas_ (Plauen, 1874).

[16] _Traite de geologie_ (Paris, 1883).

[17] _Scot. Geog. Mag._ (1888), p. 23.

[18] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1889), p. 17.

[19] _Trans. (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog. Soc._ (1889), p. 113.

[20] _Die mittleren Erhebungsverhaltnisse der Erdoberflaeche_, pt. i.,
in Penck's _Geographische Abhandlungen_, vol. v. (Vienna, 1891).

[21] _Morphologie der Erdoberflaeche_, vol. i.

[22] The equivalent of the figures given in _Superficie de l'Europe_.
A later measurement by Strelbitsky yielded a result equal to 2215
English miles.

[23] General von Tillo, in _Transactions (Izvestiya) Imp. Rus. Geog.
Soc._ vol. xix. (1883), pp. 160-161.

[24] Dr Al. Bludau in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1898), pp. 185-187,
has given new calculations of the areas of the basins of certain
European rivers, namely, the Tagus, 31,250 sq. m.; Ebro, 32,810 sq.
m.; Guadalquivir, 21,620 sq. m.; Po, 28,800 sq. m.; Guadiana, 25,810
sq. m.; and Jucar, 8245 sq. m.

[25] St Martin, _Dict. de geog. univ._

[26] In other parts of this work areas of river-basins and lakes, and
other measurements, may be observed to conflict in some degree with
those given here. Various authorities naturally differ, both in
methods of estimating and in standards of precision.

[27] Penck's _Geographische Abhandlungen_, vol. v. pt. iv. (Vienna,
1894); noticed in _Geog. Journ._ vol. vi. p. 264.

[28] Including L. Pskov as well as the connecting arm known as
Teploye.

[29] _Sweden, its People and its Industry_ (Stockholm, 1904).

[30] See Ascherson, "Die Austrocknung des Neusiedler Sees," in _Z.
der Ges. fuer Erdkunde zu Berlin_ (1865).

[31] See Suess, _The Face of the Earth_; M. Bertrand, "Sur la
distribution geographique des roches eruptives en Europe," _Bull.
Soc. Geol. France_, ser. 3, vol. xvi. (1887-1888), pp. 573-617. A
translation of a lecture by Suess, giving a short summary of his
views on the structure of Europe, will be found in the _Canadian
Record of Science_, vol. vii. pp. 235-246.

[32] Vesselovski, as quoted by Voeikov, _Die atmosphaerische
Circulation_.

[33] Plate 1 in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1903).

[34] See a paper on "Das regenreichste Gebiet Europas," by Prof.
Kassner, Berlin, in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1904), p. 281.

[35] London, 1901 (one of the publications of the Royal Geog.
Society).

[36] Plate 21 in _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1900).

[37] _Nova Acta Leop. Karol. d. deutschen Akad. d. Naturforscher_,
vol. lxvii. No. 3 (Halle, 1896).

[38] _Petermanns Mitteilungen_ (1890), pl. 11 (text pp. 137-145).

[39] _Ib._ (1887), pl. 10 (text pp. 165-172).

[40] Berlin, 3 vols. (one made up of maps), 1898-1899.

[41] By this term (_Getreideflaeche_) Engelbrecht designates the area
occupied by wheat and other varieties of triticum, rye, oats and
barley.

[42] Based on Scherzer, _Das wirtschaftliche Leben der Voelker_, p.
12.

[43] From the _Fifth Report of the United States Department of
Agriculture_, Division of Statistics, Miscellaneous Series, p. 13.

[44] Based on the _Corn Trade Year-book_ (1904), p. 284.

[45] Exclusive of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which the average
production in 1894-1903 was about 21/2 million bushels.

[46] The estimates for Bulgaria, Rumania, Servia and Turkey in Europe
for 1872-1876 are not comparable with those of the two later periods
on account of the territorial changes since that date. Those for
Bulgaria in the period 1881-1890 include Eastern Rumelia.

[47] Including Poland.

[48] Spanish statistics very imperfect.

[49] Based on the same authorities as the wheat table. In the
original, however, the figures for 1894-1903 are given in "quarters
of 480 lb.," while the figures given above are calculated on an
average quarter of 462 lb.

[50] Including Poland, but not Finland, in which the average
production of rye is estimated at about 11,000,000 bushels.

[51] Mainly from or based on the Agricultural Returns for Great
Britain, 1905.

[52] Single years.

[53] Period 1883-1887.

[54] Based on _Mines and Quarries: General Report and Statistics for
1906_, pt. iv. (Cd. 4145), 1908.

[55] Production in the Ural districts only.

[56] See note 11.

[57] A considerable quantity of quicksilver is produced in the
government of Ekaterinoslav.

[58] Dressed.

[59] Cupreous pyrites and cupreous iron pyrites, besides which a
considerable quantity of copper precipitate is produced.

[60] A small quantity of copper ore is produced in Finland, but the
bulk of the Russian production is in the Asiatic provinces.

[61] Mainly cupreous iron pyrites.

[62] Argentiferous.

[63] In 1906 Greece produced 12,308 m.t. of argentiferous pig lead.

[64] Of which 158,424 m.t. argentiferous.

[65] A considerable quantity of manganese ore is produced in the
government of Ekaterinoslav, but the main seat of Russian production
is the Caucasus.

[66] Zinc and lead ore.

[67] In addition to 28,891 m.t. of calcined zinc ore.

[68] Probably the most complete synopsis of the evidence on this
point is to be found in Prince Kropotkin's _Fields, Factories and
Workshops_ (London, 1899).

[69] The total horse-power used in mechanical industries is obtained
by adding 650,000, the estimated total of horse-power in hydraulic
installations given in an article in the _Annales de geographie_ for
January 1904, to the total steam-power in fixed engines officially
given for 1903, and accordingly excludes gas and other engines not
driven by steam- or water-power.

[70] The proportion estimated in the official publication entitled
_Sweden: its People and its Industry_, edited by G. Sundbaerg
(Stockholm, 1904).

[71] Including the installations returned in the Swiss industrial
censuses as electric, most if not all of which are probably driven by
water-power.

[72] See bibliography at the end of the article.

[73] See on the whole subject Hovelacque's _Science of Language_,
Latham's _Nationalities of Europe_, and the same author's
_Philology_.

[74] Taken from a paper by Professor Voeikov on "Verteilung der
Bevoelkerung auf der Erde unter dem Einfluss der Naturverhaeltnisse und
der menschlichen Tatigkeit," in _Petermanns Mitteil._ (1906), p. 249,
where corresponding figures are given for other parts of the world.

[75] Kaluga, Smolensk, Tver, Moscow, Yaroslav, Kostromer and
Vladimir.

[76] Kursk, Orel, Tula, Ryazan, Tambov, Voronezh and Penza.

[77] Nizhniy Novgorod, Kazan, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov and
Astrakhan.

[78] Bessarabia, Kherson, Taurida, Ekaterinoslav and Don Province.

[79] The Austro-Turkish protocol had been signed at Constantinople on
the 5th of March; it was now ratified by the Turkish parliament on
the 5th of April.

EUROPIUM, a metallic chemical element, symbol Eu, atomic weight 152.0 (O = 16). The oxide Eu2O3 occurs in very small quantity in the minerals of the rare earths, and was first obtained in 1896 by E, A. Demarcay from Lecoq de Boisbaudran's samarium; G. Urbain and H. Lacombe in 1904 obtained the pure salts by fractional crystallization of the nitric acid solution with magnesium nitrate in the presence of bismuth nitrate. The salts have a faint pink colour, and show a faint absorption spectrum; the spark spectrum is brilliant and well characterized.

EURYDICE ([Greek: Eurudike]), in Greek mythology, the wife of Orpheus (q.v.). She was the daughter of Nereus and Doris, and died from the bite of a serpent when fleeing from Aristaeus, who wished to offer her violence (Virgil, _Georgics_, iv. 454-527; Ovid, _Metam_. x. 1 ff.).

EURYMEDON, one of the Athenian generals during the Peloponnesian War. In 428 B.C. he was sent by the Athenians to intercept the Peloponnesian fleet which was on the way to attack Corcyra. On his arrival, finding that Nicostratus with a small squadron from Naupactus had already placed the island in security, he took the command of the combined fleet, which, owing to the absence of the enemy, had no chance of distinguishing itself. In the following summer, in joint command of the land forces, he ravaged the district of Tanagra; and in 425 he was appointed, with Sophocles, the son of Sostratides, to the command of an expedition destined for Sicily. Having touched at Corcyra on the way, in order to assist the democratic party against the oligarchical exiles, but without taking any steps to prevent the massacre of the latter, Eurymedon proceeded to Sicily. Immediately after his arrival a pacification was concluded by Hermocrates, to which Eurymedon and Sophocles were induced to agree. The terms of the pacification did not, however, satisfy the Athenians, who attributed its conclusion to bribery; two of the chief agents in the negotiations were banished, while Eurymedon was sentenced to pay a heavy fine. In 414 Eurymedon, who had been sent with Demosthenes to reinforce the Athenians at the siege of Syracuse, was defeated and slain before reaching land (Thucydides iii., iv., vii.; Diod. Sic. xiii. 8, 11, 13).

EUSDEN, LAURENCE (1688-1730), English poet, son of the Rev. Laurence Eusden, rector of Spofforth, Yorkshire, was baptized on the 6th of September 1688. He was educated at St Peter's school, York, and at Trinity College, Cambridge. He became a minor fellow of his college in 1711, and in the next year was admitted to a full fellowship. He was made poet laureate in 1718 by the lord chancellor, the duke of Newcastle, as a reward for a flattering poem on his marriage. He was rector of Coningsby, Lincolnshire, where he died on the 27th of September 1730. His name is less remembered by his translations and gratulatory poems than by the numerous satirical allusions of Pope, e.g.

"Know, Eusden thirsts no more for sack or praise;
He sleeps among the dull of ancient days."

_Dunciad_, bk. i. 11. 293-294.

EUSEBIUS (Gr. [Greek: Eusebios], from [Greek: eusebes], pious, cf. the Latin name Pius), a name borne by a large number of bishops and others in the early ages of the Christian Church. Of these the most important are separately noticed below. No less than 25 saints of this name (sometimes corrupted into Eusoge, Euruge, Usoge, Usuge, Uruge and St Sebis) are venerated in the Roman Catholic Church, of whom 23 are included in the Bollandist _Acta Sanctorum_; many are obscure martyrs, monks or anchorites, but two deserve at least a passing notice.

EUSEBIUS, bishop of Vercelli (d. 371), is notable not only as a stout opponent of Arianism, but also as having been, with St Augustine, the first Western bishop to unite with his clergy in adopting a strict monastic life after the Eastern model (see Ambrose, _Ep. 63 ad Vercellenses_, Sec. 66). The legend that he was stoned to death by the Arians was probably invented for the edification of the Orthodox.

EUSEBIUS, bishop of Samosata (d. 380), played a considerable part in the later stages of the Arian controversy in the East. He is first mentioned among the Homoean and Homoeusian bishops who in 363 accepted the Homousian formula at the synod of Antioch presided over by Meletius, with whose views he seems to have identified himself (see MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH). According to Theodoret (5, 4, 8) he was killed at Doliche in Syria, where he had gone to consecrate a bishop, by a stone cast by an Arian woman. He thus became a martyr, and found a place in the Catholic calendar (see the article by Loofs in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencykl._, ed. 1898, v. p. 620).

EUSEBIUS OF LAODICEA, though not included among the saints, was noted for his saintly life. He was an Alexandrian by birth, and gained so great a reputation for his self-denial and charity that when in 262 the city was besieged by the troops of the emperor Gallienus he obtained permission, together with Anatolius, from their commander Theodotus, to lead out the non-combatants, whom he tended "like a father and physician." He went with Anatolius to Syria, and took part in the controversy against Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch. He became bishop of Laodicea, probably in the following year (263), and died some time before 268. His friend Anatolius succeeded him as bishop in the latter year (see the article by E. Hennecke in Herzog-Hauck, v. 619).

EUSEBIUS, bishop of Rome for four months under the emperor Maxentius, in 309 or 310. The Christians in Rome, divided on the question of the reconciliation of apostates, on which Eusebius held the milder view, brought forward a competitor, Heraclius. Both competitors were expelled by the emperor, Eusebius dying in exile in Sicily. He was buried in the cemetery of St Calixtus at Rome; and the extant epitaph, in eight hexameter lines, set up here by his successor Damasus, contains all the information there is about his life.

EUSEBIUS [OF CAESAREA] (c. 260-c. 340), ecclesiastical historian, who called himself Eusebius Pamphili, because of his devotion to his friend and teacher Pamphilus, was born probably in Palestine between A.D. 260 and 265, and died as bishop of Caesarea in the year 339 or 340. We know little of his youth beyond the fact that he became associated at an early day with Pamphilus, presbyter of the Church of Caesarea, and founder of a theological school there (see _Hist. Eccl._ vii. 32). Pamphilus gathered about him a circle of earnest students who devoted themselves especially to the study of the Bible and the transcription of Biblical codices, and also to the defence and spread of the writings of Origen, whom they regarded as their master. Pamphilus had a magnificent library, which Eusebius made diligent use of, and a catalogue of which he published in his lost _Life_ of Pamphilus (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 32). In the course of the Diocletian persecution, which broke out in 303, Pamphilus was imprisoned for two years, and finally suffered martyrdom. During the time of his imprisonment (307-309) Eusebius distinguished himself by assiduous devotion to his friend, and assisted him in the preparation of an apology for Origen's teaching (_Hist. Eccl._ vi. 33), the first book of which survives in the Latin of Rufinus (printed in Routh's _Reliquiae sacrae_, iv. 339 sq., and in Lommatzsch's edition of Origen's Works, xxiv. p. 293 sq.). After the death of Pamphilus Eusebius withdrew to Tyre, and later, while the Diocletian persecution was still raging, went to Egypt, where he seems to have been imprisoned, but soon released. He became bishop of Caesarea between 313 and 315, and remained such until his death. The patriarchate of Antioch was offered him in 331, but declined (_Vita Constantini_, iii. 59 sq.).

Eusebius was a very important figure in the church of his day. He was not a great theologian nor a profound thinker, but he was the most learned man of his age, and stood high in favour with the emperor Constantine. At the council of Nicaea in 325 he took a prominent part, occupying a seat at the emperor's right hand, and being appointed to deliver the panegyrical oration in his honour. He was the leader of the large middle party of Moderates at the council, and submitted the first draft of the creed which was afterwards adopted with important changes and additions. In the beginning he was the most influential man present, but was finally forced to yield to the Alexandrian party, and to vote for a creed which completely repudiated the position of the Arians, with whom he had himself been hitherto more in sympathy than with the Alexandrians. He was placed in a difficult predicament by the action of the council, and his letter to the Caesarean church explaining his conduct is exceedingly interesting and instructive (see Socrates, _Hist. Eccl._ i. 8, and cf. McGiffert's translation of Eusebius' _Church History_, p. 15 sq.). To understand his conduct, it is necessary to look briefly at his theological position. By many he has been called an Arian, by many his orthodoxy has been defended. The truth is, three stages are to be distinguished in his theological development. The first preceded the outbreak of the Arian controversy, when, as might be expected in a follower of Origen, his interest was anti-Sabellian and his emphasis chiefly upon the subordination of the Son of God. In his works written during this period (for instance, the _Praeparatio evangelica_ and _Demonstratio evangelica_), as in the works of Origen himself and other ante-Nicene fathers, expressions occur looking in the direction of Arianism, and others looking in the opposite direction. The second stage began with the outbreak of the controversy in 318, and continued until the Nicene Council. During this period he took the side of Arius in the dispute with Alexander of Alexandria, and accepted what he understood to be the position of Arius and his supporters, who, as he supposed, taught both the divinity and subordination of the Son. It was natural that he should take this side, for in his traditional fear of Sabellianism, in which he was one with the followers of Origen in general, he found it difficult to approve the position of Alexander, who seemed to be doing away altogether with the subordination of the Son. And, moreover, he believed that Alexander was misrepresenting the teaching of Arius and doing him great injustice (cf. his letters to Alexander and Euphration preserved in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea, Act. vi. tom. 5: see Mansi's _Concilia_, xiii. 316 sq.; English translation in McGiffert, _op. cit._ p. 70). Meanwhile at the council of Nicaea he seems to have discovered that the Alexandrians were right in claiming that Arius was carrying his subordinationism so far as to deny all real divinity to Christ. To this length Eusebius himself was unwilling to go, and so, convinced that he had misunderstood Arius, and that the teaching of the latter was imperilling the historic belief in the divinity of Christ, he gave his support to the opposition, and voted for the Nicene Creed, in which the teachings of the Arians were repudiated. From this time on he was a supporter of Nicene orthodoxy over against Arianism (cf., e.g., his _Contra Marcellum, De ecclesiastica theologia_, and _Theophania_). But he never felt in sympathy with the extreme views of the Athanasian party, for they seemed to him to savour of Sabellianism, which always remained his chief dread (cf. his two works against Marcellus of Ancyra). His personal friends, moreover, were principally among the Arians, and he was more closely identified with them than with the supporters of Athanasius. But he was always a man of peace, and while commonly counted one of the opponents of Athanasius, he did not take a place of leadership among them as his position and standing would have justified him in doing, and Athanasius never spoke of him with bitterness as he did of other prominent men in the party. (For a fuller description of the development of Eusebius' Christology and of his attitude throughout the Arian controversy, see McGiffert, _op. cit._ p. 11 sq.)

Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his labours covered almost every field of theological learning. If we look in his works for brilliancy and originality we shall be disappointed. He was not a creative genius like Origen or Augustine. His claim to greatness rests upon his vast erudition and his sound judgment. Nearly all his works possess genuine and solid merits which raise them above the commonplace, and many of them still remain valuable. His exegesis is superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetic is marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and an instinctive appreciation of the difference between important and unimportant points. His style, it is true, is involved and obscure, often rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the desultory character of his thinking. He did not always clearly define his theme before beginning to write, and he failed to subject what he produced to a careful revision. Ideas of all sorts poured in upon him while he was writing, and he was not always able to resist the temptation to insert them whether pertinent or not. His great learning is evident everywhere, but he is often its slave rather than its master. It is as an historian that he is best known, and to his _History of the Christian Church_ he owes his fame and his familiar title "The Father of Church History." This work, which was published in its final form in ten books in 324 or early in 325, is the most important ecclesiastical history produced in ancient times. The reasons leading to the great undertaking, in which Eusebius had no predecessors, were in part historical, in part apologetic. He believed that he was living at the beginning of a new age, and he felt that it was a fitting time, when the old order of things was passing away, to put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had occurred during the generations that were past. He thus wrote, as any historian might, for the information and instruction of his readers, and yet he had all the time an apologetic purpose, to exhibit to the world the history of Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. His plan is stated at the very beginning of the work:--

"It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the holy
Apostles as well as of the times which have elapsed from the day of
our Saviour to our own; to relate how many and important events are
said to have occurred in the history of the church; and to mention
those who have governed and presided over the church in the most
prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have proclaimed
the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my purpose also to
give the names and number and times of those who through love of
innovation have run into the greatest errors, and proclaiming
themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so called, have like
fierce wolves unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ. It is my
intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which immediately came
on the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their plots against our
Saviour, and to record the ways and times in which the divine word has
been attacked by the Gentiles, and to describe the character of those
who at various periods have contended for it in the face of blood and
tortures, as well as the confessions which have been made in our own
day, and the gracious and kindly succour which our Saviour has
accorded them all."

The value of the work does not lie in its literary merit, but in the wealth of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early church. Many prominent figures of the first three centuries are known to us only from its pages. Many fragments, priceless on account of the light which they shed upon movements of far-reaching consequence, have been preserved in it alone. Eusebius often fails to appreciate the significance of the events which he records; in many cases he draws unwarranted conclusions from the given premises; he sometimes misinterprets his documents and misunderstands men and movements; but usually he presents us with the material upon which to form our own judgment, and if we differ with him we must at the same time thank him for the data that enable us independently to reach other results. But the work is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in a true sense, and it has an intrinsic value of its own, independent of its quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us. The number of books referred to as read is enormous. He also had access to the archives of state, and gathered from them information beyond the reach of most. But the value of his work is due, not simply to the sources employed, but also to the use made of them. Upon this matter there has been, it is true, some diversity of opinion among modern scholars, but it is now generally admitted, and can be abundantly shown, that he was not only diligent in gathering material, but also far more thorough-going than most writers of antiquity in discriminating between trustworthy and untrustworthy reports, frank in acknowledging his ignorance, scrupulous in indicating his authorities in doubtful cases, less credulous than most of his contemporaries, and unfailingly honest. His principal faults are his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology, his lack of artistic skill in the presentation of his material, his desultory method of treatment, and his failure to look below the surface and grasp the real significance and vital connexion of events. He commonly regards an occurrence as sufficiently accounted for when it is ascribed to the activity of God or of Satan. But in spite of its defects the _Church History_ is a monumental work, which need only be compared with its continuations by Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Rufinus and others, to be appreciated at its true worth.

In addition to the _Church History_ we have from Eusebius' pen a
_Chronicle_ in two books (c. 303; later continued down to 325), the
first containing an epitome of universal history, the second
chronological tables exhibiting in parallel columns the royal
succession in different nations, and accompanied by notes marking the
dates of historical events. A revised edition of the second book with
a continuation down to his own day was published in Latin by St
Jerome, and this, together with some fragments of the original Greek,
was our only source for a knowledge of the Chronicle until the
discovery of an Armenian version of the whole work, which was
published by Aucher in 1818 (Latin translation in Schoene's edition),
and of two Syriac versions published in Latin translation respectively
in 1866 (by Roediger in Schoene's edition) and in 1884 (by Siegfried
and Gelzer). Other historical works still extant are the _Martyrs of
Palestine_ and the _Life of Constantine_. The former is an account of
martyrdoms occurring in Palestine during the years 303 to 310, of most
of which Eusebius himself was an eye-witness. The work exists in a
longer and a shorter recension, the former in a Syriac version
(published with English translation by Cureton, 1861), the latter in
the original Greek attached to the _Church History_ in most MSS.
(printed with the History in the various editions). _The Life of
Constantine_, in four books, published after the death of the emperor,
which occurred in 337, is a panegyric rather than a sober history, but
contains much valuable material. Of Eusebius' apologetic works we
still have the _Contra Hieroclem_, _Praeparatio evangelica_,
_Demonstratio evangelica_, and _Theophania_. The first is a reply to a
lost work against the Christians written by Hierocles, a Roman
governor and contemporary of Eusebius. The second and third, taken
together, are the most elaborate and important apologetic work of the
early church. The former, in fifteen books, aims to show that the
Christians are justified in accepting the sacred writings of the
Hebrews, and in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks.
The latter, in twenty books, of which only the first ten and fragments
of the fifteenth are extant, endeavours to prove from the Hebrew
Scriptures themselves that the Christians are right in going beyond
the Jews and adopting new principles and practices. The former is thus
a preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a
defence of Christianity against all the world, heathen as well as
Jews. In grandeur of conception, comprehensiveness of treatment, and
breadth of learning, this apology surpasses all other similar works of
antiquity. The _Praeparatio_ is also valuable because of its large
number of quotations from classical literature, many of them
otherwise unknown to us. The _Theophania_, though we have many
fragments of the original Greek, is extant as a whole only in a Syriac
version first published by Lee in 1842. Its subject is the
manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word, and it aims to
give with an apologetic purpose a brief exposition of the divine
authority and influence of Christianity. Of Eusebius' dogmatic and
polemic writings, we still have two works against his contemporary,
Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, the one known as _Contra Marcellum_, the
other as _De theologia ecclesiastica_. The former and briefer aims
simply to expose the errors of Marcellus, whom Eusebius accuses of
Sabellianism, the latter to refute them. We also have parts of a
General Introduction ([Greek: He katholon stoicheiodes eisagoge]),
which consisted of ten-books (the sixth to the ninth books and a few
other fragments still extant), under the title of _Prophetical
Extracts_ ([Greek: Prophetikai eklogai]). Although this formed part of
a larger work it was complete in itself and circulated separately. It
contains prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the
person and work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. Of
Biblical and exegetical works we have a considerable part of Eusebius'
Commentaries on the Psalms and on Isaiah, which are monuments of
learning, industry and critical acumen, though marred by the use of
the allegorical method characteristic of the school of Origen; also a
work on the names of places mentioned in Scripture, or the
_Onomasticon_, the only one extant of a number of writings on Old
Testament topography; and an epitome and some fragments of a work in
two parts on Gospel Questions and Solutions, the first part dealing
with the genealogies of Christ given in Matthew and Luke, the second
with the apparent discrepancies between the various gospel accounts of
the resurrection. Other important works which have perished wholly or
in large part, and some orations and minor writings still extant, it
is not necessary to refer to more particularly. (See Preuschen's list
in Harnack's _Alt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte_, i. 2, p. 55 sq.
Preuschen gives thirty-eight titles, besides orations and letters, but
it is doubtful whether all of the Commentaries mentioned really
existed.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--The only edition of Eusebius' extant works which can
lay claim even to relative completeness is that of Migne (_Patrologia
graeca_, tom, xix.-xxiv.). The publication of a new critical edition
was begun in 1902 in the Berlin Academy's _Greek Fathers_ (_Die
griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte_, Leipzig). Many of Eusebius' works have been published
separately. Thus the _Church History_, first by Stephanus (Paris,
1554); by Valesius with copious notes, together with the _Life of
Constantine_, the _Oration in Praise of Constantine_, and the
Histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, &c. (best edition that of
Reading (Cambridge, 1720), in three volumes, folio); by Heinichen
(1827, second edition 1868-1870 in three volumes, a very useful
edition, containing also the _Life of Constantine_ and the _Oration in
Praise of Constantine_, with elaborate notes); by Burton (1838; a
handy reprint in a single volume by Bright, 1881), and by many others.
The most recent and best edition is that of Schwartz in the Berlin
Academy's _Greek Fathers_, of which the first half has appeared,
accompanied by the Latin version of Rufinus edited by Mommsen. The
history was early put into Syriac (edited by Bedjan, Leipzig, 1897;
also by Wright, McLean and Merx, London, 1898), Armenian (edited by
Djarian, Venice, 1877), and Latin, and has been translated into many
modern languages, the latest English version being that of McGiffert,
in the _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, second series, volume i. (New
York, 1890). Of the _Chronicle_, the best edition is by Schoene in two
volumes (Berlin, 1866-1875). The _Life of Constantine_ and the
_Oration in Praise of Constantine_ are published by Valesius,
Heinichen and others in their editions of the _Church History_, also
in the first volume of the Berlin Academy's edition (ed. by Heikel),
and an English translation by Richardson in the volume containing
McGiffert's translation of the _Church History_. Gaisford published
the _Prophetical Extracts_ (Oxford, 1842), the _Praeparatio
evangelica_ (1843), the _Demonstratio evangelica_ (1852), and the
works against Hierocles and Marcellus (1852); and the works against
Marcellus have appeared in the edition of the Berlin Academy (vol.
iv.). The _Onomasticon_ has been published frequently, among others by
Lagarde (Goettingen, 1870; 2nd ed., 1887), and is contained in the
edition of the Berlin Academy (vol. iii.). The _Theophania_ was first
published by Lee (Syriac version, 1842; English translation, 1843). A
German translation of the Syriac version, with the extant fragments of
the original Greek, is given in the edition of the Berlin Academy
(vol. iii.).

Acacius, the pupil of Eusebius and his successor in the see of
Caesarea, wrote a life of him which is unfortunately lost. His own
writings contain little biographical material, but we get information
from Athanasius, Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Jerome's
_De vir. ill._, and Photius. Among the many modern accounts in church
histories, histories of Christian literature, encyclopaedias, &c., may
be mentioned a monograph by Stein, _Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea_
(Wuerzburg, 1859), meagre but useful as far as it goes; the magnificent
article by Lightfoot in the _Dictionary of Christian Biography_; the
account by McGiffert in his translation of the _Church History_; Erwin
Preuschen's article in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklop_. (3rd ed., 1898);
the treatment of the Chronology of Eusebius writings in Harnack's
_Alt-christliche Litteraturgeschichte_, ii. 2, p. 106 sq.; and
Bardenhewer's _Patrologie_, p. 2260 f. The many special discussions
of Eusebius' separate works, particularly of his _Church History_, and
of his character as an historian, cannot be referred to here.
Elaborate bibliographies will be found in McGiffert's translation, and
in Preuschen's article in Herzog-Hauck. (A. C. McG.)

EUSEBIUS [OF EMESA] (d. c. 360), a learned ecclesiastic of the Greek church, was born at Edessa about the beginning of the 4th century. After receiving his early education in his native town, he studied theology at Caesarea and Antioch and philosophy and science at Alexandria. Among his teachers were Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. The reputation he acquired for learning and eloquence led to his being offered the see of Alexandria in succession to the deposed Athanasius at the beginning of 339, but he declined, and the council (of Antioch) chose Gregory of Cappadocia, "a fitter agent for the rough work to be done." Eusebius accepted the small bishopric of Emesa (the modern Horns) in Phoenicia, but his powers as mathematician and astronomer led his flock to accuse him of practising sorcery, and he had to flee to Laodicea. A reconciliation was effected by the patriarch of Antioch, but tradition says that Eusebius finally resigned his charge and lived a studious life in Antioch. His fame as an astrologer commended him to the notice of the emperor Constantius II., with whom he became a great favourite, accompanying him on many of his expeditions. The theological sympathies of Eusebius were with the semi-Arian party, but his interest in the controversy was not strong. His life was written by his friend George of Laodicea. He was a man of extraordinary learning, great eloquence and considerable intellectual power, but of his numerous writings only a few fragments are now in existence.

See Migne, _Patrol. Graec._ vol. lxxxvi.