The new era, which opened for Serbia in 1903, brought a new dynasty and a national policy, and seemed to assure her a future. It is true there was the enmity of Austria-Hungary, but that danger, it could be argued, was balanced by the friendship of Russia. Those who reasoned thus forgot Macedonia. Serbia could no more avoid the Macedonian whirlpool in the twentieth century than she could in the thirteenth. The situation was not indeed dissimilar. The weakness of the Byzantine Empire in the thirteenth century forced Serbia to contest Macedonia with Bulgaria, for otherwise the latter would have become overwhelmingly strong. Similarly, the weakness of the Turkish Empire after 1878 and the power of the newly created Bulgaria turned Serbian aspirations towards Macedonia. At first danger was averted because Austria-Hungary protected Serbia, and Russia Bulgaria. Neither side could go to extremes, and after Slivnitza Austria-Hungary protected Serbia against Bulgaria. There was thus a balance of power in the Balkans which kept the peace in Macedonia. This balance was upset in 1903, when the Karageorgevitch dynasty abandoned Austria-Hungary for Russia. Henceforth new developments in the Balkans were inevitable, and the struggle was fought out in Macedonia, where conflicting nationalities met.

Nationality is a recent but intense growth in the Balkans. Half a century ago Bulgars, Greeks, and Serbs hated the Turk, now they hate one another, and this hatred has its fiercest expression in Macedonia. In the racial sense Macedonia seems a medley of tongues, a kaleidoscope of nationalities. But it seems difficult to say that nationality is false when it is so intensely asserted. The feeling of nationality, however artificial or assumed, is the most potent lever of political life in Macedonia. There is not any room for half-measures, for indifference, or for neutrality. Each man will stand by his nationality—even, if he has once assumed it, will live for it, lie for it, die for it. Of two brothers, one may call himself a Bulgar and the other a Greek, but each assumes the obligations of his nationality, for nothing can bridge the racial gulf between Greek, Serb, and Bulgarian.

Macedonia is full of inconsistencies. Some Bulgars still call themselves Greeks and would die for Bulgaria; the Mussulmanised Serbs known as Arnauts are the bitterest foes of the Serb; some of those who speak Bulgarian wish to be united to Serbia. These are but the effects of the strife of warring nationalities in Macedonia. Into that dark and turbid lake flow many waters—Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, and Greek—coloured with the soils of the lands from which they come. Yet the lake itself is disturbed not only by waters from afar, but by springs from within. There seems to be a Macedonian race, independent of these tributary streams—a race strong, repellent, virile, independent, ever ready to call in the stranger to its aid, and equally ready to abandon or deceive him at the first opportunity. Thus it is that Macedonia has remained a perpetual problem to all surrounding nations, a meeting-place and bloody debatable ground between the various aspirants to conquest and to fame. While the Turks still held her, Macedonia perpetually attracted the Balkan nations and perpetually distracted the Great Powers.

The Macedonian Question is the final vortex of all quarrels that are purely Balkan, and until this local disturbance is settled the Balkan States will continue to exert influence beyond their legitimate sphere, and to trouble waters that are more purely European. This aspect of the case was often overlooked or denied by the Great Powers, and the result was a remote cause of universal European war. The local interests of each Balkan Power in Macedonia became vital in the twentieth century, and forced on the crisis. The Turkish Empire, though still under the iron rule of Abdul Hamid, was believed to be nearing its end in Europe. Great disturbances had occurred in European Turkey, more were foreseen. These could not go on for ever, and therefore the remedies were two—either intervention by the Great Powers, or intervention by the small. The first experiment failed during the first decade; the second, attempted with partial success in the years 1912-13, ultimately merged itself in a colossal struggle for remodelling the map, not only of Macedonia, but of the world.

The claims of the Balkan Powers to the reversion of Turkish territory in Macedonia were all based on the plea that these Christian subjects were akin to them in blood and race. The claims made by Bulgar, Greek, and Serb defeat one another, and obscure the real facts. Macedonia, in the largest sense, has elements of Bulgarian, Serb, Greek, and Albanian races within it.ⁱ History has been invoked and misrepresented by all parties in the dispute. The Greeks have pointed to Byzantine dominion in Macedonia, the Bulgars have claimed Alexander the Great as a blood brother, and the Serbians have discovered the primitive elements of their race in these territories. Party politics have invaded history and blinded or confused the issue, and even the most scholarly and accurate of Balkan historians have not been able to escape from the blinding force of prejudice. History as she is written in the Balkans is a dangerous guide, for the historian must deal not only with memories but with hopes.

To an unprejudiced observer some facts in Macedonian history are self-evident. It is certain that though the Greeks retained the coastal area, autonomous Slavs settled in the interior of Macedonia. At an early date other elements were added by the infiltration of Albanians, and of that strange race—the Kutzo-Vlachs or nomadic Roumans; then Macedonia was influenced by Kosger and more permanent conquerors, Byzantine, Bulgarian, and Serbian. The long period of Byzantine rule did not turn the inhabitants into Greeks, though it made many proselytes.ⁱⁱ Bulgarian claims to Macedonia rest on some centuries of rule and on two empires; Serbian claims rest on one shortlived empire and upon two centuries of confusion, during which Serb princelets ruled West Macedonia. Yet Serbian architecture has left deeper traces on fortress, convent, and church than Bulgarian ever did, thus proving that an influence may be more enduring than a domination. It is certain that the bulk of the Macedonian population is Slav—it is by no means certain that it is Bulgar. There is much, therefore, to be said for the view that the real population is neither Bulgarian nor Serbian, but half-way between the two.ⁱⁱⁱ According to this view the autonomous Macedonian would then be neither one nor the other, but the product of those original Slav tribes which settled in these districts about the time Serbians or Bulgars settled elsewhere. This fact explains why Bulgar and Serbian can both plausibly claim the bulk of this population as their own blood-kinsmen. There is a Macedonian language and a Macedonian race, which can understand the tongue and adapt itself to the customs of either Bulgarian or Serbian, but which is in itself independent of either. Given the necessary time, money, intimidation, inducement, and educational pressure, the Macedonian can probably be assimilated to one or the other competing race. But if the history of past ages is really to have weight, Slavonic Macedonia should be autonomous and independent. On the other hand, if history is to be disregarded and expediency advanced as the principle, then the settlement depends not only on existing political conditions in Macedonia, but upon the balance of power outside it.

The history of Macedonia in the past having failed to give a decisive Bulgarian stamp to the whole population, the question remained to be solved by the politics of the present. These were decisively altered in the seventies of the nineteenth century by two events of great importance, the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate (1870-72) and the treaties of San Stefano and Berlin. Both gave a considerable impetus to Bulgarian propaganda, and a corresponding depression to that of Serbia. In earlier days Prince Michael of Serbia had exploited Bulgarian discontent and fostered Bulgarian schools in the hope of eventually ruling a united Serbo-Bulgarian people. The creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate (from 1870-72) was intended by the Turks as a blow to the Greeks, whose schools were turning the population of Macedonia into Hellenes. It was equally a blow to the Serbians. A Slavonic Exarchate was erected, which was to be independent of the Greek Patriarch at Constantinople. The Exarch was to hold ecclesiastical jurisdiction in specified districts of Macedonia and of modern Bulgaria—wherever two-thirds of the population of a district expressed a desire to come under the Exarch's sway. This Exarchate was intended by the Turks to be a centre of Slavonic influence which would arrest the Greek influence in Macedonia. But the Exarchate soon proved anti-Serb as well as anti-Greek, and became the centre of Bulgarian intrigues for independence. In 1878, as the result of the Russian War, the Turks closed the Serbian schools in Macedonia, and henceforward the Serbian pressure and penetration of Macedonia became purely external. Bulgaria became autonomous and powerful, and used the Exarchate as an instrument for Bulgarian propaganda throughout Macedonia. At the same time Greece, by means of her schools and her monks, continued the Hellenising process. Both races subsidised brigands or revolutionaries to promote their national propaganda. The Serbians, with little money and no schools for propaganda, were left behind in the struggle. All that they could do was to hold out some hopes to the brigand chiefs and bands who called themselves Serbs and to lend them unofficial support. At the same time the Turkish misgovernment combined with the propaganda of the then interested neighbours to produce great unrest, misery, and suffering throughout Macedonia. The inhabitants were exposed to blackmail from brigands, and to even worse fiscal robbery from Turks. Bands of comitadjis—Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian, or Albanian—periodically oppressed and maltreated various districts. One often saw the peasant labouring with his gun at his back even when between the stilts of his plough. Women were violated or villages exterminated at the pleasure of brigands. Plains naturally rich and fertile became deserts, and whether Turk, Greek, Serb, or Bulgar triumphed, the Macedonian always suffered.

It was possible, perhaps necessary, for the Great Powers to look on while Armenia was bleeding, but they could not disregard the sufferings of Macedonia. Too many interests were involved, too many ambitions were concentrated there. Austria-Hungary dreamed of a port at Salonica, Russia of a capital at Byzantium; Germany, reflecting longer calculations of her own, planned for a road through to Mesopotamia, a railway to the Persian Gulf. For the Great Powers Macedonia was a stepping-stone to other and higher objects, for the Balkan states it was the goal itself. Serbia dreamed of reviving the glories of Dushan, Bulgaria of the days of Czar Simeon, Greece of Byzantine emperors who had ruled Macedonia for ten centuries. During the period of the Armenian massacres the Russian Government had bitterly declared that the example of Bulgaria did not incline her towards supporting autonomy for Armenia. Yet when Macedonia was disturbed Russia could not stand idle, for disturbance in Macedonia meant the triumph of the Turk or the extension of Bulgarian influence, and to both Russian interests were opposed. This attitude was strengthened by the fact that Russia was absorbed in the Far East at the beginning of the twentieth century, and wished to settle Manchuria before she turned to Macedonia; consequently her aim was to suppress disturbance by promoting good government and by reforming administration in Macedonia.

After 1886 the real disturbing factor of the situation was the growth in the power of Bulgaria and the influence of the Bulgarian Exarchate. In 1885-86 Bulgaria almost doubled her territory by the accession of eastern Rumelia, beat Serbia in battle, obtained a new and ambitious sovereign in Ferdinand the present ruler, and defied Russia. The Bulgarians had been abandoned by Russia, but this fact did not diminish their energy or success. The people, frugal, hardy, and industrious, were good tax-payers and good soldiers, proved capable of paying their way, of constructing good roads, and of initiating some industrial development. It is safe to say that all true Bulgars had and have but one object—summed up in one word—Macedonia. For them the treaty of San Stefano was the Law and the Prophets. The limits assigned to them in the treaty of San Stefano would have given them Vrania, the Lake of Ochrida, Koritza, Kastoria, and the lower reaches of the Vardar. Though it gave them neither Salonica nor the Chalcidic Peninsula, it would have opened a path to the sea at Cavalla and given them the outlet for the rich tobacco-districts of Thrace. Since 1878 this vision of a literally promised land has been always before their eyes. A map marking the lost territory of Macedonia hung in every Bulgarian school, and every Bulgarian peasant brooded over its loss and resolved in his sullen, dogged fashion to win it back. A Macedonian party well provided with newspapers and bombs—that is, with the theory and practice of intimidation—existed to put pressure on all politicians. There were Macedonian officers in the army and Macedonian ministers in the cabinet. In the Exarchate the Bulgarian Government possessed a lever of propaganda which could be and was used with entire ruthlessness and inflexible purpose to transform the inhabitants of Macedonia into Bulgars; they met with a considerable measure of success, and by bribes, violence, and cajolery secured that the bulk of Macedonians, if not Bulgarian, should at least be Bulgarophile. If that result was really based on conviction and not on intimidation, that fact and not the dubious historical title-deeds would constitute the true Bulgar claim to Macedonia.

But though Bulgaria might plot and scheme, it was still possible for the Great Powers to check her aspirations. The first step towards reforming Macedonia was taken by a rapprochement and mutual explanation between the Russian and Austro-Hungarian Governments in 1897, which amounted to a repudiation by both parties of designs of conquest in the Balkans, and to a public avowal of their resolve to maintain the status quo. This arrangement kept the Near East quiet till the first years of the twentieth century. At length, in 1902, the combined forces of Turkish misgovernment, Balkan brigandage, and Macedonian misery threatened to produce an insurrection, and the two Great Powers chiefly concerned again made efforts to improve the state of Macedonia. This new effort resulted in an agreement between the two Governments, the substance of which was presented to the Porte on 21st February 1903, and hence became known as the "February Programme." Reforms were suggested in the districts of Salonica, of Kossovo, and of Monastir, and a Turkish Inspector-General was appointed to carry them out. But neither reforms nor Inspector-General could avert the Macedonian insurrection which burst out in the summer of 1903.

Under pressure from the British Government, Austria-Hungary and Russia again combined to settle the Macedonian problems. Sovereigns and diplomats met at a Styrian shooting-box and produced the famous Mürzsteg Programme. This agreement was said to have been influenced in the Russian sense by the carelessness of the Austrian Count Goluchowski, who was out with the guns at a time when important clauses of the programme were being drafted. The main idea of the programme was to make Austria-Hungary and Russia jointly responsible for arrangements by which the Porte would be compelled to carry out reforms. The Turkish Inspector-General was to be accompanied by a Russian and an Austro-Hungarian Civil Agent on all his visits of inspection, who could see for themselves and report on the situation to their own Governments. The Civil Agents were appointed for a period of two years. Mixed Mussulman and Christian Commissions under Russian and Austro-Hungarian surveillance were to deal with political crimes and with measures to repair the losses produced by the insurrection. A foreign general was to organise and to control a Gendarmerie force for the maintenance of order, assisted by officers drawn from among the Great Powers. The fourth clause provided for the admission of local Christians to some share in local administration and in the judicial system. So far the clauses were concerned with the Turkish Government, and it was largely responsible for the failure to carry them out.

But there was another clause, the third of the programme, which reacted on Balkan politics in a tragic manner, and whose sinister consequences brought more evil to Macedonia than all the tyranny of Abdul Hamid. This clause provided that, when the country had been pacified, the Turkish Government should be requested to modify the territorial delimitation of the existing Turkish administrative districts, in order to secure "a more regular grouping of the various Macedonian races." This clause, in appearance harmless enough, was in result most fatal. Each of the smaller Balkan peoples realised that its claims to a large enclave for its own race would depend on the vigour and extent to which it staked out its claims before pacification. Each brigand band therefore started a policy of massacre and intimidation wherever the nationality of a village or of a district differed from its own. For years a terrible series of massacres went on, in which brigands generally and bishops sometimes led armed bands to unholy conquests of the faith, which the foreign Gendarmerie could not prevent and which the Turkish Government openly encouraged. All the Balkan nations had their share of blame, but it seems to be generally admitted that the Greeks and Bulgars were the worst. Finally the Great Powers interfered, and in August 1907 the intervention of England brought Austria-Hungary and subsequently Russia to agree to the abrogation of this fatal clause, which in a very literal sense had been written in red.

For the failure of the third clause the Great Powers were not primarily responsible, but the carrying out of other parts of the programme was the task first of Russia and eventually of the Concert of Europe. Ultimately the Mürzsteg Programme was internationalised. Macedonia was divided into five spheres, over each of which one of the Great Powers presided, with the ominous exception of Germany which stood aloof.^iv Parts of the district of Monastir and most of that of Kossovo (the most disturbed area) were, however, excluded from this arrangement. The Gendarmerie was reformed, better order was kept, and excellent work done by an International Finance Commission which controlled and reformed Macedonian finance. The credit was largely due to England, which untiringly supported the work of amelioration, and was aided by Italy, then by France in April 1904, and ultimately by Russia. Finally, in November 1905, England took the lead in a naval demonstration at Mitylene, which forced the Turk to accept the financial reforms. Austria-Hungary was not by any means disinterested in the matter, and steadily opposed any attempt to internationalise the work. Had there not been a clause in the Mürzsteg agreement that the Austro-Hungarian and Russian Civil Agents were only appointed for two years, Austro-Hungarian opposition to the internationalised control, which was aided by Germany, might have been successful. German diplomacy, always tender to the Turk since the fall of Bismarck, seems to have been steadily averse from putting pressure on the Porte. Germany refused to take part in the work of Gendarmerie reform, and took over no sphere of police influence in Macedonia, though she was represented on the financial Commission. Her motives and those of Austria were probably different, for it is a mistake to suppose that their political aims were identical before 1913. Germany seems to have wished to avoid any action that would offend the Turk, Austria-Hungary to avoid any action which would avert the "Drang nach Osten" [spread to the east] by interposing a neutralised or internationalised barrier between Vienna and Salonica. Both Powers therefore, though for different reasons, preferred that Macedonia should suffer.

The consequences of German opposition and of Austro-Hungarian resistance to the internationalised control of Macedonia were very serious. Its causes have been elsewhere discussed, and are still one of the mysteries of diplomacy. It is reasonably certain, however, that Austria-Hungary, under the masterful guidance of Aehrenthal, wished to strike out a new line and push on towards the East. As she was supported by Germany, she was able to put the brake on the international machine.

In 1908-9 several efforts made by England to increase the efficacy of the measures failed, and the Powers of the Entente seem to have finally decided to abandon further interference. Their motives were probably two—fear of driving Austria into war, and belief in the efficacy of the Young Turkish movement.

In July 1908 one of the most remarkable movements of our time burst forth. At Salonica there had long been a Committee of Moslems and Jews, which had planned a Young Turkish movement, and which had established relations with the Mohammedans of Macedonia. The movement owed its strength to Jewish capital, Macedonian brigandage, and Turkish resentment of the tyranny of Abdul Hamid. Two young officers, Niazi Bey and Enver Bey, the latter afterwards destined to a sinister renown, raised the flag of rebellion and of European liberalism in Macedonia. At a tumble-down inn at Resnja, near Monastir, the Constitution was proclaimed. The movement had wonderful success and spread like a prairie-fire. Abdul Hamid acknowledged the Constitution, and the phrases of liberty were on the lips of all. Tyranny was overthrown, liberty triumphant, and a wave of lyric enthusiasm swept through Macedonia. Albanians fired off revolvers to celebrate the "Constitution"; the Greek Archbishop and the Bulgarian Committee Chairman embraced at Seres; a Bulgarian comitadju chief fraternised with the Pasha of Monastir; Christians and Mohammedans kissed one another in the streets; free Greece sent her greeting to free Turkey. " Henceforth," said Enver Bey, " we are all brothers. There are no longer Bulgars, Greeks, Roumans, Jews, Mussulmans under the same blue sky; we are all equal, we glory in being Ottoman!"

In all movements of enthusiasm, in 1908 as in 1848 and in 1789, there was the terrible power of intrigue, calculation, and design behind the lyric rhapsodies celebrating the fall of a cruel despotism. Yet it is difficult to suppose that the movement was altogether a sham even to such hardened conspirators as the Turks. Many of the revolutionists were young and unpractical, all had found the Hamidian tyranny insupportable. In the gladness of relief and in the enthusiasm of different creeds and races there was, for a moment, a hope of a new heaven and a new earth—that is, of a Macedonia at peace. The vision faded soon enough, yet it was a dazzling one. It certainly affected the diplomats, and in this dream of a free and a liberal Turkey some saw the solution of the Macedonian problem. Certain it is that from the time of the establishment of the Young Turks, Macedonian reform schemes were doomed. But though sentiment undoubtedly affected diplomacy, there were also more practical considerations. The long and steady opposition of Austria-Hungary to the reform schemes was immensely strengthened by the vision of a liberalised Turkish Empire. It had become apparent already that the path of Macedonian reforms might lead to war, and that the simplest solution was to abandon them altogether. England's last attempts in 1908-9 to revive or maintain the reform schemes were unsuccessful, and the whole question was quietly dropped. For this the responsibility undoubtedly rests on Austria-Hungary, who with German support had pushed her opposition to the reforms to the verge of war, and the events of 1908-9 proved that this was a contingency which the Entente then declined to face.

The practical effect of the situation was to close an epoch. The Great Powers had sought to reform Macedonia, and had not only failed but had abandoned the project altogether. Only two courses remained for the small Balkan Powers—either to trust in the Young Turks, or to reform Macedonia themselves. Trust in the Young Turks was speedily dispelled. The promises of Enver vanished into thin air. It soon became apparent that Young Turk and Old Tyrant were not very different in aim, however much they differed in name. Editors or opponents of the Young Turks died suddenly of mysterious diseases or from open assassination. In certain directions and in certain places, as for instance in Adrianople, some real progress and improvement was achieved. But in those parts of Turkey not under European observation a very different tale began to be told. Even the Albanians, the spoilt children of Abdul Hamid, who were for the most part co-religionists of the Young Turk, were not left in peace. Their beys were flogged and tortured, their language was suppressed, they themselves were persecuted, and Turkish armies penetrated even into the northern fastnesses of Albania. So many fugitives fled to Montenegro that old King Nicholas declared that even war would be preferable to providing for so many refugees. If the Albanian atrocities could be defended on the ground that they were measures of war, the same could not be said of the treatment of the Macedonians, with whom the Turks were professedly at peace. Life and property were less secure than ever, though the Macedonian was now disarmed, persecuted, cowed, robbed, or injured, not by brigands, but by Young Turkish soldiers or officials. The general policy may be illustrated by two incidents which came under my own notice in 1910. A Bulgarian at Ochrida refused to pay taxes and fled up to the mountains. The Turkish soldiers descended on his house, set it on fire, and drove his family out on the hillside. "So this is your liberty, this is your equality!" muttered the crowd, as they stood round the flaming house.^v Again, at Cavalla, where there is a mixed Greek and Mohammedan population, a Turk murdered a Greek in cold blood. The Greek workmen in a certain factory thereupon struck work as a protest. They were summoned before the Governor, a Muslimised Jew, who addressed them as follows: "Your conduct is treacherous. You are not Greeks but Turks. You wish to be Slavs and Greeks in secret communication with those outside the Turkish Empire. You may have secret arms as you have secret opinions. Rest assured we shall find out both! For every musket you have we have two, for every one of your bullets we have six!” This, then, was the end of brotherhood and equality, of Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars, and Turks embracing one another beneath the blue sky of heaven and glorying in the name of Ottoman.

Long before 1910 it had become evident to diplomats that the Young Turkish constitutionalism only differed from Old Turkish despotism in being more tyrannical. It was more oppressive because it was intended to be more efficient and progressive in all that concerned the science of destruction. It aimed at a centralised military despotism, armed with German science and discipline, crushing all resistance in the name of Ottoman nationality. So far from being lenient towards other needs and nationalities, it was even less tolerant than Abdul Hamid. That astute tyrant, conscious of his weakness, had played Greek off against Bulgar and Albanian against Serb. The Young Turks, confident in a new strength, seem genuinely to have believed that they could denationalise the Christians of Macedonia and absorb the Albanians. Unmistakable signs of this policy appeared: the population, Christian or Mohammedan, was forcibly disarmed; some schools were suppressed, and some military colonies of Mohammedans were planted in Christian territory. Ultimately the Albanians were attacked in force, their territory overrun, their beys arrested, and their population disarmed. These instances of tyranny were but the sketches of a larger plan of universal Osmanisation. If they were to be carried out, the hopes of the small nations of the Balkans were doomed. Considering their present and their past, it is not surprising that these tiny states resolved to have a future.

The Great Powers had withdrawn from the struggle of reforming Macedonia, and if anything was to be done the small states must act for themselves. The idea of such action had long been dormant, and had been expressed as far back as 1891 by the famous Greek statesman Trikoupis when he struck out the phrase "The Balkans for the Balkan peoples." But the real unity and the real solution of the Balkan problems necessarily depended on friendship and alliance between Serbia and Bulgaria. Such a reconciliation was rendered possible by the accession of King Peter. It had developed in the years 1905-7 on the line of economic agreements, and would undoubtedly have gone further but for the arbitrary action of Austria, which interfered with these arrangements by declaring the "pig-war." Subsequently her annexation of Bosnia threatened Serbia directly and Bulgaria indirectly, and enabled Russia, for almost the first time, to support the claims of both. The interests of both nations, which had previously at times been influenced by a pro-Turkish policy, seemed now to point to a reliance on Russia. This was the inner cause of the Balkan League, and of that diplomatic revolution which brought the Bulgarians and Serbians into the same orbit. The adhesion of Greece is easier to explain, because the success of the Bulgarian propaganda in Macedonia had already brought Greeks and Serbs into good relations and, when Serbia was reconciled to Bulgaria, there was no reason for Greece to lag behind. As for Montenegro, she was gathered in by the action of the other states. Thus the forces leading towards an alliance against the Turk were all present. Despairing of assistance from the Great Powers, dreading and hating the Turk, who stood between them and their future, the Balkan states realised at last that unity was their interest and division their destruction. It needed only firm policies and commanding personalities for these little states to produce great events. None of these elements were wanting, and the result was the Balkan League and the startling changes of 1912 and 1913.

It has been said that rebellion and discontent, after being endemic in Macedonia, at length became an epidemic which affected all surrounding peoples. This epigram contains a profound truth. The Balkan peoples could not stand idly by when their brethren were perishing, when the Turk was increasing his oppression, and when the Great Powers were unable to intervene. Serbia and Bulgaria and Greece, from being national states, were gradually drawn into a struggle which involved imperialistic ambitions for each of them. The time had gone by when an increase of power to a Balkan state could be viewed by the Great Powers with equanimity. In Europe the balance of power had been perfect and the needle had poised evenly between the two great diplomatic combinations, until Macedonia had upset the equilibrium.

In the narrowest sense a settlement of Macedonia was vital to Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece. In the larger sense it was equally vital to the Great Powers. For the valleys of the Vardar and the Maritza control the railways which lead to Salonica and Constantinople, and the power which controls Macedonia must ultimately control these two routes. Thus a Serbia leagued with Bulgaria in a peaceful control of Macedonia would have opposed an almost impregnable barrier to German and Austrian aspirations. The last would not have reached Salonica, the first would have been cut off from Constantinople and Bagdad. Serbia, Bulgaria, and Macedonia blocked the road to the Ægaean and the Euphrates.

Yet even before the Balkan League became a reality, Serbia had reached a decisive point in her national history. As in the days of old, she nurtured her strength in the lands between the Drina and the Morava before she expanded to the Vardar. As in the days of Dushan, the transition from a purely local and national policy to one of expansion in Macedonia was marked by the most serious dangers. As in those days, there was danger over the Danube as well as danger from Bulgaria and Byzantium. In one sense the world had changed, for economic forces had strengthened. These forces might have allowed Serbia to exist as an inland state with national independence in the fourteenth century, they could not allow her so to exist in the twentieth. Powerful neighbours made it clear to Serbia that, if she did not obey them, they could compass her destruction, and thus offered her the choice between dependence and extinction. There was no doubt about the choice or about the decision. If Serbian statesmen retained any illusions in 1906 they could not have preserved them after 1909. Yet with the consent of the nation they then made a choice which they knew to be irrevocable, and pursued a path which they saw to be full of peril. Serbia was bound by a chain to the heroic memories of Kara George and of Kossovo, and prized national independence above every material gain. Sooner than forget the past, she preferred to endure the present and to risk the future, and by this final decision asserted her right to be a nation.