claimed her sovereignty, and Austria annexed Bosnia and Herzegovina; and when, in 1911, Italy attacked Tripoli.
Thus, the angina pectoris of Turkey has, indeed, caused wars in Europe, and this, so far, justifies the assertion that the inevitable decay of States will provoke strife in the future. Nevertheless, an important additional fact must here be brought into notice. Who have been the beneficiaries of this process of partition? Has it been wholly the "stronger" States who have "encroached," and been the legatees of the patient on the Golden Horn? Certainly, to some degree. But it is remarkable that it has been the "weaker" States who have done well, no less, in face of these overwhelming protagonists. Roumania, and Servia, and Bulgaria have carved out their independence; Montenegro has consolidated her position; Greece, when overwhelmed in 1897 by Turkey, was rescued by Europe. Viewed broadly, then, the property of the Sultan has devolved as much to sustain the weak as to enlarge the strong, so that even in Europe, and even in the southeastern part of it, force has not ruled absolutely, and weakness can live and flourish. How is it that the rays, shorn from the horns of the waning Crescent, have made an aureole for such humble brows? Who, if not democracy, has cried halt to the "Drang nach Osten" of Austria and Russia? Perhaps the Roumanian blood, at the foot of the Grivitsa redoubt, was the seed of power and
