MODERN GREEK HISTORIANS O F MODERN GREECE

1. ASPREAS, G. K. JJoXCrt~ij ‘ IaTop la ~ i j ~ KeorEpaq ‘EXGBoq, 1821-1921. Vols. i., ii. 1821-1900. Athens : 1922-23.

2. EULAMBIO, M. S. The National Bunk of Greece : a History of the Financial and Economic Evolution of Greece. Athens : 1924.

3. KAROLIDES, P. C 6 y x p o v o ~ ‘ I a r o p l a r&v ‘ELb,bwu uai r&v AOLAGV XaGv 7ijp ’AvaroXijq &I& 1821 ,&WL 1921. Vols. i . 4 . 1821-1850. Athens : 1922-23.

4. KORDATOS, I. K. ‘H K O L V O V L K ~ ~ uqpaala r i j q ‘EXcXqvrwijq ’E7ravaor&reoq 70; 1821. Athens : 1924.

5. LASCARIS, S . TFI. La Politique exttrieure de la Ch2ce avant el aprds le Congris de Berlin (1876-1881). Paris : 6ditions Bossard, 1924.

6. ZOORAPROS, A. L. ‘ I u ~ o p h r7 jq ‘ E X X T ~ U ~ ~ F I’aopylaq. Vols. i.-iii. 1821-33. Athens : 1922-24.

MUCH attention has recently been paid in Athens to the medieval, the Turkish and the modern history of Greece. The chasm which separated the Roman conquest from the War of Independence has been h l y bridged, and Buchon, Finlay and Hopf have found worthy followers among the Greeks. It is recognised that, if there “ lived strong men before Agamemnon,” there also “ lived strong men ” after Philopoimen. Materials for these later periods have been accumulated ; the ” Historical and Ethnological Society of Greece ” has an admirable museum of costumes and memorials of the War of Independence and the Othonian period ; the archives of Lontoa, Karaiskakes, Hydra and the two Kountouriotai are in course of publication, and have already rendered great services to the increasing band of modern Greek historians of modern Greece.’

Professor Karolides approaches the “ contemporary history of the Greeks ” from a novel standpoint, that of a Greek born in Turkey, who, as he tells us in two autobiographical notes (ii, 266 ; iii, I l l ) , in addition to “ 37 years’ ” experience as a lecturer and

‘ loropirbv ’Apxeiov 706 u+par)IYo6 ’Av8piou Advrou (1789-1847). Vols. i., ii (1789-1824). Athens: 1914-16. ’Apxciov r twpylou KapaiUKdxr) (1826-1827). Athens: 1924. Antonio6 Lignos, ‘Apxriow 7 e s K O I V ~ T $ T O S %par. 1778-1832. Vole. i.-iv (1778-1812). The Pireus : 1921-23. Idem, ’Apxeia Aa(dpfp0u ra1 r r w p y h u KOUVTOU~I&TOU, 1821-1832. Vols. i.-iii. (1821-24). Athens : 1920-22.

JULY 19251 MODERN GREEK HISTORIANS OF MODERN GREECE 11 1

professor at the Athens University, sat as a deputy in the Turkish parliament of 1909 and took an active part in its debates. His birth and political experience as an “ unredeemed Greek ” naturally tend to make him take a broad view of national ques- tions, and explain his devotion to the (Ecumenical Patriarchate and his severe criticism of the creation of an autocephaloua Church of Greece by the Bavarian Regency, in 1833. The last two patriarchal elections and the expulsion of the present Patriarch have, however, shown, even 90 years later, the grave disadvantages of having the seat of the chief functionary of the Orthodox Church in the hostile surroundings of a Turkish city. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the Patriarch is now less, and that of the autocephalous Church of Greece more, than in the days of Otho. This author is writing .his h t o r y upon a much larger scale

than any of his predecessors. Three volumes of 1677 pages cover a period of really only 23 years, for the detailed narrative begins only with the election of Capo d’Istria aa President of the Greek Republic in 1827, and the chapter summarising the six preceding years is baaed upon his previous History of tire Nineteenth Century. Many of tho diplomatic documents are translated in full, and there are disquisitions upon several con- stitutional points such as “ the conception of the Greek monarchy )’ and I‘ the evolution of the so-called constitutional polity.” Throughout, the author emphasises the international, a-8 well as the local, aspects of Greek politics. But, unlike most historians of modern Greece, he doos not confine himself to politics alone. Some of the most interesting passages of this valuable book are those deecribing the social life of Athens and the journeys of Otho. Abundant sources for a description of Athenian society in the early days of liberated Greece exist in the writings of Ross, Wordsworth, Giffard, Buchon, Abbet-Grasset, Brandis, von Klenze, Neezer, SourmelQ, Dragoumes, Rangabb (whose son ie about to issue a further instalment of his I ‘ Memoira ”), and above all in the letters of Frl. von Nordenflycht, Queen Amalia’s observant maid-of-honour, who tells us many things unmen- tioned by the austere and secluded Finlay. Like practically all Greeks, Professor Karolides has strong political sympathies, which he occasionally shows in his illustrative allusions to con- temporary politics and University administration (ii. 212, 226, 228, 235, 253-66, 429, 484). But in the Greece of to-day there is no need for the law of Solon, compelling the citizen to take sidea in a political crisis.

112 HISTOBY [JULY

- The hero of the h t volume is Capo d‘Istria. The author declines to accept the often received definition of the Reaident as a “ Russian proconsul,” and regards him as a patriotic Greek. But he loyally publishes the unfavourable opinions of other historiana about this Corfiote aristocrat, whose Venetian educa- tion and official employment in Tsarist Russia hardly fitted him for the task of governing the newly-emancipated Greeks. Capo d’It3tria was a diplomatist rather than a statesman, and it is easier to make a statesman into a diplomatist than to turn a diplomatist into a statesman. He found the heroes of the War, who had fought while he had written, tiresome fellows; he had little sympathy with the great past of Greece, regarding Athens ae “ a town like so many others,” and his system of govern- ment was “ simply a system of personal power,” and naturally so, for it was the only one of which, as a Russian Minister, he had had experience. His promotion of his far less able brothers and his preference for his fellow-Corfiotes were bound to offend the strongly-developed local patriotism of the Morea, while his policy converted the heroic island of Hydra, the home of the Koun- touriotai and the priaon of the leadera of the civil war of 1825, into the oentre of the opposition to himself, the refuge of the journal Apollo, and the Greek Cave of Adullam. Hence the destruction of the Greek ships in the beautiful harbour of Poros. But there was great exaggeration in the denunciatione of the President as a “ tyrant ” and in the contemporary comparison of the Mavro- michalai with Harmodios and Aristogeiton. The rule of Capo d’Istria was far superior to the anarchy which followed his assassination and which ended only on the arrival of Otho. The provisional triumvirate, culminating in the inoompetent preei- dency of Agostino, the struggle between him and the Roumeliote “ Constitutionalists ” under Kolettes, the battle of Loutraki and the fighting wit4 the French at Argos closed this last chapter of.the Revohtion (1831-33), “ with which,” as our author writm, “no period of disturbances and civil broils in the more than thrice d e n n i a l history of the Greek nation can be compared ” (i. 320). And yet “ the social and domestic virtues of the Greek people replaced the lacking political virtues of its rulers.” Out- siders who judge Greek history merely from political orises ignore the sterling qualities of the masses.

The Bavarian Regency hae found few admirers, deapite von Maurer’s self-laudatory volumes, which I have had the advantage of re-reading in Finlay’s copy with the owner’s caustic pencil- notes in the margin. One sees in the press of the period (of whioh

19251 MOD= GREEK HISTOBIAN9 OF MODERN GREECE 113

Professor Karolides has made good use) what the Greeks thought of the well-meaning but ignorant foreigners who then governed them, &B if Nauplia were Munich. Of one important event of the Regency-the transference of the capital from Nauplia to Athens on 1/13 December, 1834-he gives a most intereating account. Few now realise what a competition there was for the honour of becoming the seat of Government, how Corinth, Argos, Tripolis, Syra, the Pirsus and even Megara were all suggested, and how, despite the London protocol of 1830, the last Turk did not

March 31 leave the Akropolis till the Greek Good Friday, April 1 2 ’ 1833. The author gives an impartial judgment of &no; it is curious to read the estimate of him made by Abbet-Grasset in a letter of 1834. The writer found that the young King knew little about modern Greek history, even about quite recent events, but that he learnt Greek quickly and was ‘‘ full of enthusiasm.” Otho said to the French visitor : ‘‘ I dream of thie country great and strong, and of my throne there where the last Emperor fell.” Thus early had he imbibed the intoxicating draught of “the Grand Idea,” of which his patriotic Queen was to become an even more fervent votary. For this reason Abbet-Grasset thought him not suited for the Greek throne ’) ; but a monarch, unless he be a very strong one, should share his subjects’ aspira- tions. Stmtford Canning, who re-visited Athens in 1842, con- eidered the position and work of any King in Greece difficult; subsequent experience has confirmed the opinion of “the great Eltehi.” But Otho, if not a statesman, was a tremendous worker, who not only read every document conscientiously, but toured about the country at the cost of much discomfort to see for himself how his subjects were governed. Professor Karolides, who takes what we should call Conservative views, quotes with approval the contemporary diarist, Dragoumes, to the effect that the provinces did not want the September Revolution of 1843, which led to the establishment of constitutional monarchy. Personal motives, he thinks, played a considerable part in the town-bred movement for the Constitution. ‘‘ There was, outside Athens, no current of public opinion on behalf of a Constitution, nor any anti-monarchical or anti-dynastic current tending to the expulsion of the King ” (ii. 416). He considers, indeed, that the Third of September was only negatively beneficial-for what it prevented, not for what it accomplished. But in a country where intelli- gence is so general and minds are so active parliamentary govern-

NO. 38.-VOL. X. I ‘Appoda (1902), ii . 124-126.

114 HISTOBY [JULY

ment was inevitable. Critics can easily point out the weak spots of Greek parliamentarism-the personal group which me called parties, the frequent changes of Cabinet, the ‘‘ log-rolling,” and the waste of time. But experience, recent experience, has con- firmed the saying of Cavour, which Senator Luzzatti, the veteran Italian statesman, quoted to William I1 : “ the worst Chamber is better than the beat ante-Chamber.”

Moreover, the Constitution of 1844, of which Professor Karo- lid= has made a careful and detailed study, was no Jacobin manifeato. Indeed, as Finlay’ disclosed long afterwards, it waa at the suggestion of Sir Robert Peel, to whom Aberdeen had read the draft of the Constitution, that the Greeks imerted clauses “ which reserve to the Crown the sole right of introducing votes of appropriation.” A t the present moment, when the young Greek Republic has been discussing the creation of a Senate-for the Comtitution of 1864 and the amendments of 1911 left G m c e without a second Chamber-the circumstances attending tho institution of an Upper House in 1844 possess practical value. The principle was adopted by 159 to 37, after vigorous opposi- tion, and Professor Karolidea considers the erection of a Senate “ most unfortunate, aa not in harmony with the true character of Greek society and the causea productive of the Constitution.” The Conservative British and French Governments of that day, however, thought it desirable as a check to democracy, and Aberdeen, in strange ignorance of the social conditions of a country where there is no aristocracy, actually recommended that it should be hereditary! The author shows historically that a second chamber is not a Greek institution, for the Senate, created a t Argos in 1829, was not a ~uccess, in antiquity B d and aerousia were identical, and the Byzantine Swkletos was a single ‘‘ Senate.” As a matter of fact, the Othonian Senate became anti-monarchical. The proposal to create the Senators for life instead of ten years was carried by only twenty votes, after t i first vote had resulted in a tie. Still Boulgaris and George I in 1872 advocated the restoration of a Senate, and since Professor Karolides wrote the “ very few ” whom he mentions as favouring its revival (iii. 118) have become very many, includ- ing such different men aa K.2 Papanaatasiou, the Republican ex- Premier, and K. P. Argyropoulos, one of the Royalist leaders.

The influence of foreign Governments in thie purely internal matter was typical of this period of Greek history. Much of Professor Karolidea’ narrative is occupied with the rival intrigues

The T i m , 21 Feb. 1866. * i.e., Kyrioa (‘. Mr.”).

19251 MODERN. GREEK HISTORIANS OF MODERN OREECE 116

of the British, French and Russian Legations and the struggle8 between the (‘ English,” (‘ French,” and ‘( Russian ” partiea among the Greek politicians. We have in our own day seen similar phenomena elsewhere-the ‘( Russian ” and (( Austrian ” parties in Serbia in the reign of Milan, the (‘ Italian’’ and ‘( Austrian ” parties in Albania in that of William of Wied, the ((Russian” party in Bulgaria in that of Alexander. The characters of the early representatives of the three Protecting Powera at Otho’s Court aggravated this unfortunate system. Dawkim and his succwsor, Lyons, were strong partkans, and the latter more at home on his quarter-deck than in diplomacy. Piscatory, a Corsican politician, who had fought in the War of Independence, boasted of his interference in Greek politics to secure the defeat of Mavrokordatos, the leader of the “ English ” party, and Catacazy, the Phanarioto Greek who reprcsented Russia till his summary dismissal in 1843, was a born intriguer, whose house was tho most hospitable in Athens. The French put all their money upon one man, Kolettes, just 89 the British and French staked everything on Venizelos, with the result that when Kolettes died in 1847, the French, as Thouvenel sadly confessed, found themselves isolated. The newspapers, by that time numerous at Athem, aggravated these international feuds. When a Bavarian officer boxed the ears of a journalist on the Elpb, the British Minister paid a visit of sympathy to the Opposi- tion writer ! Happily nowadays the British Government realiees that Greek internal politics are the affair of the Greeks, whereas Finlay wrote in 1869, that “ if the Hellenes could forget foreign Governments and foreign Governments could forget the Hellenic kingdom for six months or a year, it might do much good to Greece. Forty years’ experience proves that the three Protect- ing Powers do not understand whet is the first political want of the Greek people.” The nicknames of the three foreign parties are now almost forgotten, and few know that the ‘(English” partbarn were called Burlahi from Barhis, a Herculean Anglo- Phil delegate to the Assembly of Hermione, the (‘ Russian ” Nupaioi from the Moreote Napaa, and the (‘French,” who fol- lowed Kolettes, bloschomringai, “aa being mostly composed of the mob and the swashbucklers ” (ii. 381, 410). This last term, originally applied to the ((hooligans ” who frequented the ‘( bastion of Moschos ” near the harbour of Nauplia, was transferred to the “ French ” party, owing perhaps to the proximity of the French Legation.2 Of Kolettea, on the whole the biggest politician of

The Tima, 15 May. 186% * Lamprynidee, ‘H N U W A ~ U , 644 n. I 2

116 HISTORY [JULY

Otho’s reign, the author presenta an elaborate character-sketch. This former physician of the Court of Joannina, the picturesque leader of the Roumeliotes a t Perachora, wa.s a marvellous manager of men, whom he preferred to cajole in his own house rather than persuade from the parliamentary tribune. A patriot, but not a statesman, his policy was one of expedients, and the author accuses him of such complete subservience to France that in his Premiership the speeches from the throne were composed in the French Legation and translated into Greek ! When he died, the language of the Opposition press about him was as violent as that of the Royalist press about Venizelos ; for, if he inspired devotion in his fustanella-wearing followers, he aroused fierce animosity in his black-coated enemies.

Professor Karolides’ work ends at present with the Don Pacific0 affair and the blockade by Admiral Parker in 1850. No English- man can be proud of this incident, so strongly criticised at the time by Palmerston’s opponents at home, and so embarrassing to British relations abroad. As a curiosity of history, it may be added that in the archives of the British Consulate at Athens there is a record of the burial of British sailors in that year on the classic islet of Psyttaleia. The book contains numerous smaller matters usually lacking in histories of the period. There is an account of the foundation, in 1846, of the French Archeological School, and it is amusing to learn that the Russophil press at first regarded this scientific ht i tut ion with distrust, as an instrument of Roman Catholic propaganda,of which Otho was alleged to be an instrument ! Similarly, in 1901, Queen Olga was accused, a t the time of the “ Gospel Riots,” of seeking to undermine the pure traditions of the Greek Church in the interests of Russia. There is 60me information about the admirable school for girls-the first in Athens-tarted in 1831 by Dr. Hill, the American missionary, who was from 1845 to 1870 the chaplain of the English Church and whose work still survives. Less praise is bestowed upon his colleague, King, who was expelled for prosely- tism by Kolettes. The water supply of Athens, to-day the most vital problem of the capital, was pressing even in 1848, for we find the Kanares’ Ministry proposing a loan for the purpose. In that revolutionary year, when the proclamation of the French Republic perhaps caused the fall of the Tsavellas’ Cabinet and led a few Athenians to talk about a Greek Republic, Manin sent the greetings of liberated Venice to the Greek Government, alluding to the

“Volume I, 1838-1892. Foreign Office Despatches. British Consulate Pireus,” 16 January, 1861.

19251 MODERN GREEK HISTORIANS OF MODERN QREECE 117

“ millions ” (!) of Italian-speaking Greeks and the small Greek colonies in Italy. In this rhetorical exaggeration Professor Karolidea sees “ the germs of the present Italian imperialism ” in regard to Corfu.

Seeing how important a part the press plays in Greece, it is a pity that the author has not inserted a brief history of its growth eince March 1821, when there was not a printing-press in Greece, for which there are ample materials-in the admirable catalogue of Greek newspapers in the library of the B d , and in the monographs of Wilberg and 0thers.l To Englishmen it is interesting to know that the first Athenian newspaper, Ephemeris Athen& (of which there is a complete file in the Finlay library), was printed in 1824-the first number at Salamis-from a press presented in the name of the “ Greek Committee ” of London by Byron’s “ typographical colonel,” Leicester Stanhope,a whose name is connected with the still earlier HeUenikri Chronikd of Mesolonghi. Thus England may claim a share in the foundation of Greek journalism, although the first newspaper in Greece, the Sdpingx Llellenike‘, of which the only three numbers, August 1, 5 and 25 (O.S.), are preserved in the library of the Bode‘, was published at Kalamata in 1821. A copy of tho other Mesolonghiote paper of 1824, the rare TeZegrafo Greco (incomplete in tho Finlay collection), has recently been presented, together with the other archives of the “Greek Committee” of London, to the Greek nation. But few Greek newspapers have been very long-lived. Except the Official Gazette, founded in 1826 at Nauplia, and published, under somewhat Merent titles, at PoroB, Aigina and Athens, only one existing journal-the Nda H e d r a of Trieate (at Athens since 1912)- dates from as far back a~ 1853, although the Amriltheia of Smyrna lived from 1838 to 1923. Nor has the Greek press, with one brilliant exception, the unique but, alas! defunct R d s , produced a modern successor to the political comedies of Aristophanes, of whom Sourb, like Alex- ander Soiitsos in an earlier generation, waa the worthy heir. But of clever leader-writers there has been no lack, and from the first it showed a characteristic interest in the affairs of other countries.

Of another infjtitution, the influence of which has been far- reachmg, alike in home and foreign politics, the University, the

‘ A p p v h , ii. 135-169: iii. 178-189; Annuaire dea #ludes grecquw. v. 117-179;

’ c k e w in 1823and 1824, pp. 142-144; Emerson, A Picture 01 cheecs in 1825, ’EBvrra ’Aywyf~ (1900), 345, 366 et seq.

i. 339-341.

118 HISTORY [JULY

author has much to say. Founded in 1837, the University has produced the leaders of most political movements a t home and has sent out bands of apostles of Hellenism to the Greek provinces of Turkey. It waa the new generation, trained at the University, aa Kolokotrones prophesied, which really dethroned Otho; for, aa Professor Karolides remarks, “ down till about 1857 nearly all the Premiers and many of the Ministers were chosen from the politiciana and soldiers of the War of Independence,” the Greek Whige or “revolutionary families,” as we should call them. Nor, in a country where the language question (which K. Kordatos dates from 1880) has aroused such fierco con- troversy, must we overlook the linguistic influence of tho University. But upon this question no foreigner has the right to express an opinion. Only German professors will have the rashness to tell the Greeks how they ought to speak and write their own language. Of the historism under review Professor Karolides is a purist, K. Kordatos a modernist.

The Political History of Hodmn Greece by K. Aspreas is the work of an experienced, well-informed and eminently sensible political historian. The author is briefer than Pro- fessor Karolides, but he possesses the faculty of giving all the salient points of the period. Like the professor, he has his own political opinions, but he is impartial as far as he has yet gone : it will be in the third volume that he will tread volcanic ground. Indeed, what Greek could a t present write absolutely objectively the history of the years 1915 to 1921 ? The nearest approach to impartiality that we have seen is the chapter, Ein Jahtzent neqriechischer Qeschichte, in the otherwise inaccurate German book1 of B. Guttmann, who brings the story down to the plebiscite of 1924. K. Aspreas has in these two volumes pro- duced what is really a series of interesting and well-documented historical essays. He is acquainted with the latest English biographies, and has collected a number of portraits and auto- graphs of the chief Greek and foreign statesmen connected with his subject. He holds the realistic and rather unusual view that British policy at the time of the Crimean War and later waa really a blessing to Greece. It “had never denied to Greece her future,” he writes (ii. 101), “bu t the policy of Palmerston and Beaconsfield was one of rough sincerity towards Hellenism, while that of Petrograd, and especially that of Gortchakof, was one of error and guile, within whose treacherous mares al l Greek politicians except Ch. Trikoupea were caught. The dogma of

1 T q e in Hdlau (Frankfurt, 1924). pp. 181-214.

19251 MODERN GREEK HISTORIANS OF MODERN GREECE 119

the integrity of Turkey certainly seemed hard and anti-Greek; nevertheless, the cool judgment of a century’s vicissitudes of the East proves to UE that it WM often the saviour of Hellenism, because it removed from the arena in which the subject races were struggling the intervention of the powerful from outside, from which the others had much, but the Greek nothing, to expect.” He shows, however, that Trikoupes had a policy independent of .England. In that great statesman he finda much to praise-his holding in 1875 “ the first really free elections sixice 1865,’’ hie participation with three Greek ships in the Egyptian Question by the side of England in 1882, his SUP- preasion of the “ National Defence ” and similar organiaatione, of which the “National Society,” 60 active in promoting the war of 1897, wm the later product, and his policy of roads and railways. Trikoupes, it appears, was not informed, until it wm settled, of the engagement of the future King Corntantine, a union profoundly affecting the course of Greek history.

The suppok given by Delegeorges to the Cretan insurrection of 1866, owing to his miscalculation of Russian aid and Turkish weakness, the lack of Greek preparation for the Emtern crisis between 1875 and 1877, and the action of Dehgiannes at the Berlin Congreas and in 1885, are criticised by the author, who thinks that the blockade of 1886 “ saved Greece from disaster.” He shows that the unfortunate war with Turkey in 1897 WILE

directed from Athem, blames Smolenski for disobeying Con- stantine’s orders, but praises him for not making himself dictator, which would have been easy, as I well remember, when he entered Athens and his portraits displaced those of the royal family in the Athenian shops. The late General Ricciotti Garibaldi, then at Athens, often told me that he also had been offered the dictatorship. The author justly extola the diplomacy of George I -the Edward VII of Greece-about whose archives and whose dismissal of Deligiannes in 1892 he gives valuable information. Of topical interest are his account of the first appearance of a Republican group of five (of whom one is alive) in the Chamber of 1882, and his severe remarks on the popular ingratitude to Premiers. He declam that “ of the twelve political chiefs who governed the country during George 1’s reign, none was justified by his contemporaries; small and great alike, they descended into the tomb with bitterness on their lips and grief in their EOU~S ” (5. 242). In his third volume he will be able to add a oompanion to Trikoupes in exile. The truth is that the Greek people is very grateful, as we British have cause to know ; but

120 HISTORY CJrnY

party spirit runs high, and in a country where of the many leaders each wishes to be the first, the capacity for team-work is less than the tendency to “atomism.” On the day when Greek politicians forget the recent past and pull together, Greece will be the most successful, as she is the most intelligent, nation of the Near East. On the day when politics cease to enter into so many relations of life, she will be a model state.

The Social Significance of the Greek Revolution of 1821 is a very different type of book. K. Kordatos, a Marxist, who takes many of his facts from the Hydriote archives and Professor Karolides, interprets them far otherwise. His unorthodox thesis-for he has a thesis to support-is that the Revolution arose from purely material and economic causes, not from national or religious motives. Economic factors, he argues, ruined the Byzantine Empire and brought the Turks into E u r o p - a curious hypothesis, seeing that Asia Minor waa the richer country-and he contends that the Greek insurrection was the work of the middle classes, proclaimed in the name of their ideals and the result of their economic development (p. 153), of which the prosperity of the “ nautical ” islands, of the villages on Pelion and of Demetsana gave examples. “ The islanders,” he writes, “ especially represented the middle-class spirit, and Hydra was called ‘ the little England of the Xgean ’ ” (p. 83). He denies patriotism, idealism, Philhellenism and sentiment as elements in the struggle, refuses the title of “ National Martyr ” to the Patriarch Gregory V, and thinks that even the civil wars between the Greek leaders were due to social rather than personal causes, being a conflict between feudalism and the bourgeuhie, the Morea and the islands. That the book should have met with some unfavourable criticism in Greece’ is, in these cir- cumstances, not surprising. A suggestive passage is the com- parison between the “ outside ” Greeks of 1829 and the refugees of to-day. But the author scarcely realises that men usually act not from one motive-in his view, materialism-but from mixed motives.

K. Laacaris, a young Greek diplomatist, already very favour- ably known for an excellent study of “ The Catholic Church in Greece,” has written a monograph upon the “ Hellenic factor in the Eastern Question,” as Gladstone called it, during the six years’ crisis, which began with the insurrection in the Herze- govina in 1876 and ended with the annexation of Thessaly and the district of Arta. Ilia volume contaim much hitherto un-

E.g. ‘EAdBrpov BGpa, 6 November, 1924.

19261 MODERN GREEK HISTORIANS OF MODERN GEEECE 121

published material from the archives of the Greek Foreign Office, including despatches from M. Gennadios, for so long Greek Minister in London, who, as far back aa 1879, alluded to " the Italian pretensions to Corfu " (184 n2). But the most important document, which now first sees the light, is the text of the Greco- Serbian treaty of 1867, signed at the timo of the Cretan insur- rection and assigning to Greece at least Thessaly and Epeiros, and to Serbia at least Bosnia and the Herzegovina (then Turkish), while an annexe provided compensation for both parties in case it were impossible to annex those provinces, Crete being, how- ever, conaidered as in any case Greek, and outside this arrange- ment. This treaty has topical interest in view of the recent negotiations for the renewal of the Greco-Jugoslav treaty of alliance. A knowledge of Serbian sources adds to the value of this careful work, which shows the author to be a worthy disciple of his uncle, Professor Andreadea, the historian and economist.

AgriculturaI history is not a subject that has hitherto appealed to Greek scholars, and K. Zographos can lay claim to the dis- tinction of being a pioneer. Finlay, whose Timed correspondence waa full of laments upon the state of agriculture, which he attri- buted to the lack of roads and the survival of the tithe system, would have welcomed this interesting and voluminous treatise. After a summary of Greek agriculture from the Frankish conquest down to the War of Independence, the author describes the agricultural policy of Capo d'Istria, who imported potatoes- already planted by one man in Corfu in 1800 and generally introduced there in 1811-tried to re-afforest the country, and founded the still existent agricultural school at T i r p , which, however, Finlay considered useless, aa long aa the fiscal system remained unchanged. He mentions the interesting fact that the first professional agriculturist of Greece was an Irishman, named Stevenson. A subject of topical interost is that of the national lands, for the present refugee problem is largely concerned with agrarian questions. When we read of & " New Smyrna " and of Bithynian and Thracian refugees, we seem to find a similar difficulty to that which confronts the Refugees' Settlement Copmiasion to-day. Now, too, as in 1832, party politics com- plicate agricultural questions. Much of this work is, however, occupied with copious translations and quotations from other writers, notably Thiersch. The remarks about the destruction of the Greek forests are aa true now as in 1833. Ex-Queen

The Timer, 31 March. 1873.

122 EXSTORY [JULY

Sophia conferred a boon upon her adopted country by her patronage of plantations. Lykabettos and Philopappos are now green; Pelion still, as in Homer’s time, has “ waving foliage ”; but the goats, the peasants and the forest fires have bared many a mountain and island. It is hoped, however, that the refugees will in a few years make Macedonia blossom like the rose.

The managing director of the National Bank of Greece-an institution closely identified with the national welfare-deah with a subject more congenial to a commercial people. He describes the law of 1841, which wm “really the foundation- stone of the Bank,” opened next year, and calls that institution “ the heart wherefrom and whereto every economic artery of Greece ia directed.” Ita founder and first Governor, George Stavrou, whose face is portrayed on current bank-notes, waa, like 60 many benefactors of Athens an Epeirote ; and the stability of the Bank’s administration as compared with that of Greek Cabineta is shown by the fact that, where& in sixty-nine years there were only four Governors, in thirteen months at the begin- ning of George 1’s reign there were nine Cabinets, and last year six. Since 1910, however, politics have somewhat affected even the Governorship, and the last fourteen years have seen five Governors, including one ex-Premier, the “ handy man” of Greek public life, K. Za-mes. The author points the moral (p. 18), “ that a people endowed with the qualities of the Greeks might have accomplished far more during the first period of tho hiatory of the free kingdom (of over sixty years) if it had possesaed a properly organised administration during the first decades of the kingdom.” But it must be remembered that, beaidea an inexperienced Civil service and constant party struggles, Greece was handicapped from the outset, aa the future King of the Belgians, Leopold I, pointed out 80 a reason for declining the Greek throne, by the exclusion of Crete. “ The Cretan question,” as the author remarks, “ waa alone responsible for more than one-third of the public debt” down to the end of the Greco- Turkish war of 1897. It was responsible for much besides- for several insurrections, for one war, for the diversion of public attention to foreign policy from roads and railways, and for the first of those inundations of refugees, of which Greece is experi- encing the last. Nevertheless, those who, like myself, first knew Greece in 1894, cannot fail to be struck by the material progress achieved in these last thirty years. Greece, without a mile of railway till 1869, haa now a considemble network of lines in the

19251 MODERN GREEK HISTORIANS OF MODERN GBEECE 123

Peloponnese, and since 1916 has enjoyed the boon of direct railway communication with Western Europe. There is now 8

daily postal service from London in five days; there soon d l be an air service from Italy. At Delphi, in 1894, I slept on the floor of B han, while the chickens walked about my mattress; now Delphi, and not Delphi alone, has a good hotel. Nothing has contributed more towards opening up the country than the spread of motor traffic; Athens alone has daily 7,500 motors plying. Moreover, the statistical diagrams at the end of this book show the great increase of the population and area of Greece since her independence, from 712,618 persons and 48,008 Bquare kilometres in 1832 to 6,087,098 persons and 140,135 square kilometres in 1924.

K c e s and the’ rate of exchange have risen enormously since tho late war. Whereas in 1914 the 2 fetched 25 dr. 16 l . , and only 24 dr. 32 1. in 1919, in 1923 it roso to 293 dr. 86 1.) and in March 1925 to 327 dr. In one month of 1923, however, it fell from 383 to 126 dr. The index-number of commodities for Athens is slightly over thirteen times what it was eleven years ago. The exchange would be higher still if the National Bank were unable to stabilise it. But “ taxation went up even faster than the index-numbers of the commodities,” and in 1922 waa adopted the curious plan of cutting in half the bank-notes (which, since the expiration of the Ionian Bank’s privilege in 1920, the National Bank alone issues), so that “ the one with the effigy of George Stavrou represented money, the other half with the crown became a security.” On the occasion of this forced loan, the National Bank paid “all depositors (except the home banks) in Stuvri (‘ crosses ’),” not in “ crowns,’) as the two halves were called, and also I ‘ undertook the task of feeding the country ) ) by “ assuring a supply of wheat ’) during the first two years of the European War. Then came the blockade of 1916-17, when Greece first felt the hardships of that struggle and “not a single cargo of wheat arrived during a period of 104 days.’’

We have thus a modern Greek picture by six hands of the political, aocial, agricultural and economic life of free Greece. And a native artist feels what the best-informed foreigner can only understand.

WILLIAM M~LLER.