On the whole the volume stands as the best interpretation of the Latin-American democracies. It is a book, which as President Poincaré says in his introduction," should be read and digested by everyone interested in the future of the Latin genius." Although it is designed for the general reader, its merit would have been enhanced by the inclusion of a selected bibliography. Chapters on the advance in education and on the status of public opinion are needed to complete the survey of intellectual progress.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.

ROSCOE R. HILL.

Social France at the Time of Philip Augustus. By ACHILLE LUCHAIRE. Authorized translation of the second French edition by E. B. KREHBIEL. New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1912.viii, 441 pp.

This is the best picture we have of society in France in the Middle Ages, and all students and teachers of medieval history must be grateful that it is now accessible in a well-edited translation. No historian has ever made this period so much his own as did Luchaire. The author of the greatest manual upon the early institutions of the French monarchy was also the historian of Innocent III and a master of the sources of feudalism. But one would hardly have looked for so entertaining and so freshly human an outlook as is exhibited in this volume from the specialist in research whose seminars might spend a whole term upon the analysis of a few pages of chronicle. Luchaire, however, had something of that versatile gift which characterized the work of Gabriel Monod, a trace of the "old master," which one misses in the highly trained men of the younger school in France.

The present volume is composed of a number of separate studies, each complete in itself. There is a general chapter upon the material and spiritual condition of the people-dark enough to end any lingering sentimental romanticism; one on parishes and priests, also rather severe in its judgments; and then follow in turn chapters dealing with the student, the canon, the bishop, monks and the nobility, and a lengthy consideration of chivalry. After a survey of " Courtesy and the Lettered Nobility" the book closes with a treatment of peasant and burgher, and a glimpse of the origins out of which the third estate was to rise.

As one might expect, there is little of the Everything is described in terms of real events.

vague in this book. If the author wishes

to indicate the insecurity of the times, he does so by a narrative of definite raids and pillagings. If he is dealing with the church or the university he fits into the story extracts from the vital documents. The effect is an exceedingly graphic story. To take a homely instance, a monastery complains of the castellan of Roussillon that "he broke down our fence and seized eleven cows. One night he entered our property at Verney and cut down and bound two of our servants in the woods and took three sous and six deniers away from them. The same day he took the tunic, stockings and shoes of Bernard of Mosset on our farm at Egat. Another time he killed two cows. . . . So the account runs on. A few such examples tell us more of feudal warfare than would pages of rhetoric. The deft way in which these extracts are woven in is a source of continual delight.

The original work, of course, needs no commendation now. The translation is thoroughly well done, and the book is a credit to the editor.

J. T. SHOTWELL.

Britain Across the Seas: America. A History and Description of the British Empire in America. By ARTHUR GRANVILLE BRADLEY. London, National Society's Depository, 1912.-xv, 454 pp.

The first third of Mr. Bradley's volume on America, in the "Britain Across the Seas" series, contains the story, familiar to every American, of the founding of the American colonies, the Seven-Years War and the conquest of Canada and, very briefly indeed, the breaking away of the thirteen colonies. The author's point of view is more English than is that of the histories still used in many American schools, but he does not try to make any better case for the British government than has been made recently by many historical students in the United States.

Chapters vi to xiii, inclusive, give a rapid and not too scholarly account of Canadian development. Mr. Bradley brings out well the close connection between the British settlement of Canada and the illtreatment of the Tories by the individual states after the close of the Revolutionary War. He also shows that the injustices then perpetrated brought their nemesis at the time of the War of 1812. It is his opinion that it was the persecution by the Americans of the men who afterwards became the United Empire Loyalists of Canada that prevented the union of Canada with the United States at the time of the later war with Great Britain. One thing that is not well brought out in this

history is the extent to which the development of Canada was retarded by the extremely conservative elements in the Canadian population of the first half of the nineteenth century-conservative elements that included the United Empire Loyalists and their immediate descendants as well as the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic church supported by the ignorant habitants of Quebec. Mr. Bradley follows a tradition for which there is little foundation in giving the chief credit for confederation in 1867 to Sir John A. Macdonald. Although Macdonald was the man who profited most from confederation, it was only slowly and hesitatingly that he took up a policy for which Mr. George Brown and Sir Etienne Cartier had sustained the brunt of the fighting.

The final section of the book is devoted to the West Indies. While the history of these islands is not nearly so good nor so complete as that by Messrs. Lucas and Atchley in the series on the "Historical Geography of the British Colonies," it has the merit of being brief and readable. In his effort to make his book acceptable for popular reading, Mr. Bradley avoids foot-notes. Consequently he gives no authorities for any of his statements, even in cases where he contravenes commonly held opinions. Neither does he add any bibliography or list of authorities. The book is profusely illustrated and contains a number of useful maps. The style has no distinction, and it might be hinted to Mr. Bradley that he overworks the little word "but." In one short paragraph five sentences begin with " but," and of the remaining four, one begins with "yet" and another with "although." The sentences in general tend to be short and jerky, and do not flow easily for reading aloud-a test of style too little used nowadays.

HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT.

A. G. PORRITT.

RECORD OF POLITICAL EVENTS

[From May 1 to November 4, 1913]

I. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

THE BALKAN WAR.-Hostilities between Turkey and the Balkan allies were suspended late in April. On the nineteenth, Bulgaria, Greece and Servia signed the armistice of Bulair (see last RECORD, p. 351); and the capture of Scutari by the Montenegrins on the twenty-third made the truce general. For a while it was feared that negotiations among the late belligerents looking toward a definite peace would be complicated by serious differences among the powers concerning the fate of Scutari. Although the European Concert had already declared that Scutari should be incorporated in an autonomous Albania, the unexpected triumph of the Montenegrins aroused a storm of pan-Slavic sentiment in Russia. It was only the determined attitude of Austria-Hungary and the loyal support of her allies that forced King Nicholas to evacuate Scutari. On May 14 the city was occupied by an international military force in the name of the new principality of Albania.-As soon as Montenegro had submitted to the powers, delegates of the Balkan allies and of Turkey opened the Second London Conference for the discussion of the terms of a general peace. Warned by Sir Edward Grey that the powers would not tolerate protracted deliberations, such as had wrecked the First London Conference (see last RECORD, p. 350), the Balkan diplomats came to an agreement late in May. By this Treaty of London, signed on May 30, it was stipulated that Turkey should surrender to the allies Crete and all territory on the European mainland west of the Enos-Midia line; that the delimitation of the Albanian frontiers and the disposition of the Ægean islands should be left to the adjudication of the powers; and that financial questions incident to the readjustments should be submitted for decision to an International Commission at Paris. -Thus, within eight months, the Ottoman Empire had been shorn of all her European possessions except Constantinople and a small tract of adjacent land east of the Maritza River. But the surprising rapidity and ease with which this result had been achieved only whetted the ambition of each of the Balkan states to secure the bulk of the spoils. On one hand, Bulgaria claimed the greater part of Macedonia, including Salonica and Monastir. On the other hand, Servia demanded a greater share of Macedonia than had been allotted to her in the Serbo-Bulgarian treaty of March 13, 1912, and Greece was insistent upon retaining both Salonica and Kavala, which her troops had occupied. Rumania, too, had long been clamoring (see last RECORD, p. 351) for a "strategic frontier" and for compensation from Bulgaria in return for her own neutrality during the Balkan War. In

this emergency, the tsar offered his services as mediator, but was petulantly refused. Inspired with a false confidence in the prowess of their army and possibly encouraged by Austro-Hungarian machinations, the Bulgarian government drifted rapidly into a second war, this time with their former allies and with Rumania and Turkey as well. Bulgarian troops took the offensive against the Greeks in the Panghaion district and engaged the Servians in a three-days battle at Slatovo. The new war, thus begun on June 30, was not formally recognized until July 5-6, when Bulgaria completed the diplomatic rupture with Greece and Servia, and Montenegro declared war against Bulgaria. On the tenth, Rumania proclaimed hostilities, and almost simultaneously the Turks took advantage of the discord among their enemies and the withdrawal of the Bulgarian army from Tchataldja to advance in force on Adrianople. Against such overwhelming odds the Bulgarian armies contended in vain. On the north the Rumanians quickly occupied Turtukai and Baltchik and despatched a column to threaten Sofia. On the south, Adrianople was retaken with ease by the Turks on July 22. The advance of the Greeks from the southwest was more stubbornly resisted, but by the end of the month the armies of King Constantine had possessed themselves of all the important towns along the railway between Doiran and Dédéagatch and were advancing up the Struma River toward the Bulgarian boundary and the city of Sofia. Mean. while on the west, the Servians, with Montenegrin aid, had repulsed Bulgarian attacks and closed in upon Kotchana and were preparing to descend through the Osogovska Pass upon the Bulgarian town of Kustendil and thence converge with their other allies upon Sofia. Anxious to avoid further calamities, King Ferdinand sued for peace. After a week's conference at the Rumanian capital of the representatives of all the Balkan states, except Turkey, the Treaty of Bucharest was signed on August 10. Rumania of course secured an extension of her southeastern frontier as far as the Turtukai-Baltchik line. Bulgaria was obliged to abandon Kotchana and Radovisht to Servia, and Salonica, Doiran, Demir-Hissar, Seres, Drama and Kavala to Greece. In making this cession, Bulgaria retained the town of Strumnitza in Macedonia and some sixty miles of sea-coast on the Ægean between the mouths of the Mesta and Maritza. The Serbo-Greek boundary was so determined by the Treaty of Bucharest that Monastir became Servian, and Vodena and Florina fell to Greece. Subsequently, Montenegro received from Servia, as compensation for assistance in the two wars, approximately a half of the sanjak of Novibazar, including Plevlye, Byelopolye, Ipek and Djakova. For a brief period it was believed that the Treaty of Bucharest, concluded without much regard to the nationalities of the peoples in the distributed territories, would be revised by Russia or by Austria-Hungary. The new arrangement, however, was upheld by France and Germany, and the Dual Monarchy could hardly demand a change after the German Emperor had congratulated Rumania and Greece upon the settlement.-It still remained for Bulgaria once more to settle with the