be given to the work. I have therefore done nothing more than adapt the last map in the South-Eastern series to the latest arrangements of 1880-1881. It shows how unstable a thing political geography is that changes of this kind have already been needed, both in the map and in the text. And I may perhaps be forgiven if I hope that my work in this way may not yet be over.

SOMERLEAZE, WELLS:

September 20, 1881.

PREFACE

то

THE FIRST EDITION.

Ir is now several years since this book was begun. It has been delayed by a crowd of causes, by a temporary loss of strength, by enforced absence from England, by other occupations and interruptions of various kinds. I mention this only because of the effect which I fear it has had on the book itself. It has been impossible to make it, what a book should, if possible, be, the result of one continuous effort. The mere fact that the kindness of the publishers allowed the early part to be printed some years back has, I fear, led to some repetition and even contradiction. A certain change of plan was found unavoidable. It proved impossible to go through the whole volume according to the method of the earlier chapters. Instead of treating Europe as a whole, I found it needful to divide it into several large geographical groups. The result is that each of the later chapters has had to go over again some small amount of ground which had been already gone

over in the earlier chapters. In some cases later lights have led to some changes of view or expression. I have marked these, as far as I could, in the Additions and Corrections. If in any case I have failed to do so, the later statement is the one which should be relied on.

I hope that I have made the object of the work clear in the Introductory Chapter. It is really a very humble one. It aims at little more than tracing out the extent of various states at different times, and at attempting to place the various changes in their due relation to one another and to their causes. I am not, strictly speaking, writing history. I have little to do with the internal affairs of any country. I have looked at events mainly with reference to their effect on the European map. This has led to a reversal of what to many will seem the natural order of things. In a constitutional history of Europe, our own island would claim the very first place. In my strictly geographical point of view, I believe I am right in giving it the last.

I of course assume in the reader a certain elementary knowledge of European history, at least as much as may be learned from my own General Sketch. Names and things which have been explained there I have not thought it needful to explain again. I need hardly say that I found myself far more competent to deal with some parts of the work than with

others. No one can take an equal interest in, or have an equal knowledge of, all branches of so wide a subject. Some parts of the book will represent real original research; others must be dealt with in a far less thorough way, and will represent only knowledge got up for the occasion. In such cases the reader will doubtless find out the difference for himself. But I have felt my own deficiencies most keenly in the German part. No part of European history is to me more attractive than the early history of the German kingdom as such. No part is to me less attractive than the endless family divisions and unions of the smaller German states.

In the Slavonic part I have found great difficulty in following any uniform system of spelling. I consulted several Slavonic scholars. Each gave me advice, and each supported his own advice by arguments which I should have thought unanswerable, if I had not seen the arguments in support of the wholly different advice given me by the others. When the teachers differ so widely, the learner will, I hope, be forgiven, if the result is sometimes a little chaotic. I have tried to write Slavonic names so as to give some approach to the sound, as far as I know it. But I fear that I have succeeded very imperfectly.

In such a crowd of names, dates, and the like, there must be many small inaccuracies. In the case of the smaller dates, those which do not mark the

great epochs of history, nothing is easier than to get wrong by a year or so. Sometimes there is an actual difference of statement in different authorities. Sometimes there is a difference in the reckoning of the year. For instance, In what year was Calais lost to England? We should say 1558. A writer at the time would say 1557. Then again there is no slip of either pen or press so easy as putting a wrong figure, and, except in the case of great and obvious dates, or again when the mistake is very far wrong indeed, there is no slip of pen or press so likely to be passed by in revision. And again there is often room for question as to the date which should be marked. In recording a transfer of territory from one power to another, what should be the date given ? The actual military occupation and the formal diplomatic cession are often several years apart. Which of these dates should be chosen? I have found it hard to follow any fixed rule in such matters. Sometimes the military occupation seems the most important point, sometimes the diplomatic cession. I believe that in each case where a question of this sort might arise, I could give a reason for the date which has been chosen; but here there has been no room to enter into discussions. I can only say that I shall be deeply thankful to any one who will point out to me any mistakes or seeming mistakes in these or any other matters.