Page:American Historical Review, Vol. 23.djvu/183

Rh reaction against the extreme Greek claims, is on the whole unpartizan, is neither quoted, nor mentioned in the bibliography). But the fact remains, and ought to be faced, that the prevailingly Slavic population of inland Macedonia was never even claimed as Serbian until after Serbia's disappointment at being denied access to the Adriatic. With removal of the ban on Serbia's natural expansion westward and some compromise with the Hellenism which is strongly intrenched in the larger towns, a permanent solution of the Macedonian question ought to be possible. The previous blunders of European diplomacy, of commission and omission, seem intolerable, now that we see to what they have given an opening.

"The inhabitants of Albania are totally devoid of national feeling. Various causes militate against national unity." The second statement is true, but the first is much too strong. Despite religious differences, tribal feuds, and backward social conditions, the Albanians are fully conscious that they are not Slavs, Turks, or Greeks, but a distinct nationality. The sentiment is not less there because it has not overcome the obstacles to effectiveness. Witness the formal demands of the Albanian leaders in 1911 for Turkish recognition of Albanian nationality and language, and the vaguer dreams of the peasants described in Miss Edith Durham's High Albania (also not mentioned in the author's bibliography). It is not unlikely that this small nationality will be sacrificed to larger issues. But an Italian protectorate would at least give it a much better chance to try itself out than a division between Serbia and Greece, which have an inherited contempt for the very idea of Albanian nationality and would aim to uproot it. Recognition of an Italian protectorate might also induce Italy to withdraw her claims to the Dalmatian coast, thereby aiding Serbo-Croatian unity (and so indirectly the solution of the Macedonian question), and to give up the purely Greek islands of Rhodes, Cos, etc., her retention of which is the grossest violation of principles proclaimed.

In matters touching the character, history, and relationship of languages, there are not a few remarks which savor of uncritical popular philology, some merely naïve in expression, some positively erroneous. But these do not seriously affect the main purpose and value of the book.