as grandduke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well. But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in 1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect, was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture which has thoroughly well served its ends."-E. A. Freeman, Preface to Leger's History of Austro-Hungary.-"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place of both rights and forces. . . . Austria may be regarded as representing the more ancient form of right. . . . The middle ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year 1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian, were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a profound influence with politicians. . . . The house of Austria. . . lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the superstructure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had raised upon it."-W. Stubbs, Seventeen lectures on the study of medieval and modern history, Pp. 209-215.

Geography.-Danube valley.-"The Danube plays a most important part in European history, greater even than the Rhine. . . . Heterogeneous as it is in the races and languages it includes [in 1907], and still more in constitutional machinery, the Austro-Hungarian monarchy is by no means an anomaly on the map. It comprises all the Danube region except the immediate upper basin of the great river itself, which after all is more clearly divided from the Inn than from the Main, down to where the Danube turns eastwards parallel to the Balkans. It includes Bohemia, which is as it were the converse of Bavaria, historically but not technically belonging to the Danube region. In two places only, if we ignore details, does it pass beyond its natural boundaries: it possesses the strip of Adriatic coast beyond the mountains an acquisition vital to Austria and not tenable by any other power-and Galicia beyond the Carpathians, which is a real anomaly and source of weakness. That there are various and mutually jealous races within the monarchy is a misfortune: that some of them have kindred outside the frontiers may prove a worse evil eventually. Meanwhile, Austria affords one more illustration of the readiness with which peoples may overpass rational dividing features that are not barriers.

"The military history of the Danube region corresponds, as is natural, with the geographical con

ditions. The great river flows through it from west and east, and most of the aggressive movements, both migrations of peoples and organized invasions, are from the eastwards, or are driven back in the opposite direction. Moreover, the Danube down to Presburg runs near to the northern boundary, leaving a comparatively wide space on the south, traversed by a series of tributaries, being in this respect the exact converse of the Po. Accordingly, the great battle which checked the onward progress of the Hungarians was fought on the Lech: the less conspicuous but equally significant encounter which terminated the Mongol inroad of the thirteenth century took place near the eastern frontier of Austria proper. After the Hungarians have become Christian, they are inevitably the foremost defence of Christendom against the Ottoman Turks. On the Hungarian plain, usually within no great distance of the Danube, were fought the battles which brought Ottoman conquests up to the gates of Vienna, and drove them ultimately back to the Balkan peninsula. When the conditions have changed entirely, and aggression in central Europe comes habitually from France, the first conflict is naturally for access to the head of the Danube valley. . . . Accordingly, campaigns which concerned the Danube region began by the French forcing their way through the Black Forest hills."-H. B. George, Relations of geography and history, pp. 251, 257-259.

Name. "The name of Austria, Oesterreich-Ostrich as our forefathers wrote it-is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia. But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."-E. A. Freeman, Historical geography of Europe, v. 1, ch. 8, p. 305.

Birthplace. "On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict, were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube, beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so many invaders from the Orient. . . . The cradle of Prussia was the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in the region of the exterminated Slavs."-E. Lavisse, General view of the political history of Europe, ch. 3, sect. 13.

Races of Austria.-"The Austrian problem, then, is, at bottom, a problem of nationalities. Roughly speaking, they are comprised in five grand divisions, the German, the Magyar, the Slav, the Roumanian and the Italian. Of Slavs there are numerous subdivisions, Czechs, Poles, Ruthenians, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. But the fundamental characteristics of them all are the same, and for introductory purposes we may group them together.... They settled mainly in the upper basin of the Danube along the north and west borders of Bohemia. There is also a little island of Teutondom in western Hungary formed from the descendants of sturdy German settlers sent during the Middle Ages to hold this region against the Slav, but today lost in the surrounding sea of

AUSTRIA, 805-1246

Hungarians and Roumanians. . . . If you travel by the Danube steamer from Vienna to Budapest you pass, about half way, the citadel of Pressburg. This old frontier fortress of the Hungarian kingdom may be taken as the boundary where one passes from the land of the Germans into that of the Magyars. From that point on this race inhabits the great Hungarian plain, until, in its western part, it gives way to the Roumanian. From the two ruling nationalities, German and Magyar, we pass to the ruled nationalities, the Slav, the Roumanian and the Italian. To link together the Slavs as one nationality involves a certain stretching of the term, for, even yet, it is doubtful if the Czechs of Bohemia feel their kinship with the Croats or Serbs in Hungary, and in at least one case, that of the Poles and Ruthenians, the feeling is still decidedly antagonistic. . . . History tells us but little, for they pushed into Europe unheralded and unsung in the centuries immediately following the fall of Rome. They were evidently of a low grade of civilization, hunters and fishermen, wanderers on the face of the earth, with few if any political bonds to confine them, individualists by choice. They always seem to have lacked, to some extent, the ability to organize, although it may be said that this defect has been somewhat exaggerated by those who write concerning this race. .. Geographically the Slavs form a fringe along the northern and southern borders of the empire, although they have pushed many outposts into the central position as well. Numerically they are the leading race in the empire, having a larger population than the two ruling races, German and Magyar, taken together. The majority are Roman Catholics. The eastern part of Hungary is occupied, in the main, by Roumanians. They seeped in across the Carpathians some time during the later Middle Ages, and ever since the thirteenth century seem to have made up the peasant class in this district, 'first as serfs, later as political helots' to quote the characterization of Mr. Seton Watson. They claim to be the descendants of the Latin colonists left by Trajan in the Roman province of Dacia; actually they are probably a mixed race from many origins and their Roman antecedents are much more certain as to their language than their blood. . . . Last among the nationalities come the Italians, who are almost entirely found in the coast cities along the northern and eastern shores of the Adriatic. Originally they came as colonists, sometimes under the control of Venice, sometimes independent, in order to trade with the people of the back country, and they brought with them an Italian culture that has never died out, even though the Italians today are a minority among the population. Traders and culture-bearers they are still, these lost children of Italy, living, for the most part, in the Icities which are little Italian fortresses in the surrounding hosts of Slavdom."-W. S. Davis, Roots of the war, pp. 291-295.

805-1246.-Rise of the margraviate, and the creation of the duchy, under the Babenbergs.Changing relations to Bavaria.-End of the Babenberg dynasty.-"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the first time in 996, in a document signed by the emperor Otto III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to which it is there applied was created a march after the destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the

AUSTRIA, 805-1246

Drave, Carinthia, Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia-the sea-coast having been ceded to the Eastern emperor; the eastern margraviate comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called The Ostmark included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. . . . The early history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar and the Chekh [Czech-Bohemian]. They form but a portion of the German kingdom, and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with its varying frontier, had not. even a geographical unity. In 876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince, in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted to the margrave Burkhard, the brotherin-law of Henry of Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau, in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now [1879] forms part of the kingdom of Bavaria. . . . Though not of right an hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial interest of one family. . . . The marriages of the Babenbergs were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELLINES] whose representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion His uncle Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the margraviate of Austria by his brother. Henry II." Henry II endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward, Austria. which had been largely increased by the addition of the greater part of the lands lying between the