statesmen to the lessons taught by history, their complete sterility in the domain of political thought, and their inability to adapt themselves and the institutions of their country to the growing requirements of the age, might almost lead an historical student to suppose that they were bent on committing political suicide.  The combined diplomatists of Europe, Lord Salisbury sorrowfully remarked in 1877, “all tried to save Turkey,” but she scorned salvation and persisted in a course of action which could lead to but one result.  That result has now been attained.  The dismemberment of European Turkey, begun so long ago as the Peace of Karlovitz in 1699, is now almost complete.  “Modern history,” Lord Acton said, “begins under the stress of the Ottoman conquest.”  Whatever troubles the future may have in store, Europe has at last thrown off the Ottoman incubus.  A new chapter in modern history has thus been opened.  Henceforth, if Ottoman power is to survive at all, it must be in Asia, albeit the conflicting jealousies of the European Powers allow for the time being the maintenance of an Asiatic outpost on European soil.

It is as yet too early to expect any complete or philosophic account of this stupendous occurrence, which the future historian will rank with the unification first of Italy and later of Germany, as one of the most epoch-making events of the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Notably, there are two subjects which require much further elucidation before the final verdict of contemporaries or posterity can be passed upon them.  In the first place, the causes which have led to the military humiliation of a race which, whatever may be its defects, has been noted in history for its martial virility, require to be differentiated.  Was the collapse of the Turkish army due merely to incapacity and mismanagement on the part of the commanders, aided by the corruption which has eaten like a canker into the whole Ottoman system of government and administration?  Or must the causes be sought deeper, and, if so, was it the palsy of an unbridled and malevolent despotism which in itself produced the result, or did the sudden downfall of the despot, by the removal of a time-honoured, if unworthy, symbol of government, abstract the corner-stone from the tottering political edifice, and thus, by disarranging the whole administrative gear of the Empire at a critical moment, render the catastrophe inevitable?  Further information is required before a matured opinion on this point, which possesses more than a mere academic importance, can be formed.

There is yet another subject which, if only from a biographical point of view, is of great interest.  Two untoward circumstances have caused Turkish domination in Europe to survive, and to resist the pressure of the civilisation by which it was surrounded, but which seemed at one time doomed to thunder ineffectually at its gates.  One was excessive jealousy—­in Solomon’s words, “as cruel as the grave”—­amongst