Page:American Historical Review, Vol. 23.djvu/146

136 an observation which applies admirably to many medieval states. Stephen Dushan's determination to build up a great cosmopolitan land empire at Constantinople, in preference to a national naval empire on the Adriatic, is only further evidence of the obscurity of vision, on the part of the Slavs, to the role which sea power would play in future history.

In another sentence the author very aptly states a fact more evident to-day than ever before: "The victory of the Turks over the Serbs was a victory less of arms than of institutions" (p. 106). The Turks had developed a standing army and a government or polity organized for military conquest, which neither the Serbs nor Western Europe possessed, owing to the character of their feudalism and the weakness of their kings. The author will hardly be able to substantiate his position that "Turkish rule does not appear to have been as oppressive as that of a Latin conqueror might have been" (p. 120). He has given enough evidence himself that it was otherwise.

Among the more apparent defects in the work may be noted the following. The original home of the Slavs was certainly further north than that indicated (p. 9). Names such as Šafařík, Jagić, Hrebelianovitch, and others are not uniformly spelled in the book. The bibliography is good, though lacking in the works mentioned above, but the index is inadequate.

On the whole, while Mr. Temperley has written the best popular account of the history of Serbia in the English language, he verifies the truth of his own words that "Slavonic nationalities are the despair of the historian".

turn from the contemplation of evil in order to examine exclusively the good of any nation is an unusual but gratifying method of historical research. The evil that Mahmud and other tyrannical bigots have done has lived after them for a thousand years and Mr. Narendra Nath Law feels it is high time to bring into stronger light the good so long interred with their bones. For this purpose the genial author of Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity has associated with himself a number of Indian Muhammadans and compiled this attractive account of Muhammadan imperial virtues, chiefly educational; but Promotion of Learning leads the authors naturally to animadvert upon other laudable traits than that of fostering talent.

This book is not wholly the product of fresh investigation. Elliot's