'Journals (Die Gartenlaube, Die Grenzboten, a n d Westermann's J a h r b u c h ) which the

a u t h o r consulted for t h e period 1860 to 1880. After an initial discussion o f the journals
a n d their main c o n t r i b u t o r s , there is a careful description o f their views on the Slavs,
on Pan Slavism, o n Russia a n d Russian history, on German-Russian relations, and on
o t h e r peoples o f Eastern E u r o p e , n o t a b l y Poles, Czechs, a n d Hungarians.
The result is w h a t t h e a u t h o r calls a case s t u d y in t h e "escalation of misunderstand-
ings" a b o u t Eastern E u r o p e , a n d especially Russia, on t h e part o f literate Germans.
The usual cliches were p e r p e t u a t e d : Slavic " t y p e s " were politically a n d culturally in-
capable o f accomplishing very m u c h ; Pan Slav nationalism was a t h r e a t to civilized
Europe; the Russian government was a colossus a n d a danger; t h e Slavs belonged to Asia,
m o r e t h a n to Europe. But in addition there was a d y n a m i c shift over t i m e t h a t cor-
responded to Bismarck's unification o f G e r m a n y u n d e r Prussia: t h e reforms of Tsar
Alexander II a n d t h e Polish uprising o f 1863 generated new fears o f a Russo-Austrian
alliance; t h e Russo-Turkish War o f 1877-78 raised new suspicions a b o u t Slav aggression
in t h e Balkans. The conclusion is t h a t G e r m a n unification elicited an even m o r e negative
view o f an inferior, b u t dangerous, Eastern E u r o p e t h a n h a d existed previously.
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , public opinion appears here mainly as a c o m p e n d i u m o f p r i n t e d state-
m e n t s in three journals. There is n o e x t e n d e d discussion o f the shifting role o f the
political press during t h e period, o f the vegement R u s s o p h o b i a o f Baltic G e r m a n emigres
a n d o t h e r intrest groups, or o f t h e interplay b e t w e e n the press a n d Bismarck's govern-
ment. As a result, t h e a u t h o r has convincingly d e m o n s t r a t e d a growing press hostility
t o w a r d Eastern E u r o p e in G e r m a n y , b u t has n o t fully explained its causes or its mech-
anism.

R o b e r t C. Williams Washington University

Peter F. Sugar. Southeastern Europe Under Ottoman Rule, 1354-1804. Seattle: Univer-
sity of Washington Press, 1977. xviii, 365 pp. $16.95.

C o n f r o n t i n g negative stereotypes is an occupational hazard all historians o f the Otto-

m a n era m u s t accept. Two o f the most persistent and i m p o r t a n t o f these historical cliches
deal with the i m p a c t o f the Turkish c o n q u e s t a n d subsequent decline u p o n the popula-
tions o f southeastern Europe. With great effort O t t o m a n historians have managed to con-
vince t h e e d u c a t e d public t h a t the Turkish c o n q u e s t o f the Balkans represented some-
thing more substantial t h a n a b o o t y raid by primitive Asiatic tribesman. This same
g r o u p o f scholars has b e e n less successful with the second m y t h afflicting Otto-
m a n history: the Turko-Muslim rulers so mismanaged their huge empire during the cen-
turies o f decline t h a t Balkan p o p u l a t i o n s accepted nationalism in t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y
as a c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e anarchy and disorder o f t h e t w o preceding centuries.
Peter Sugar wrestled with b o t h o f these stereotypes when he set a b o u t organizing the
history o f Southeastern E u r o p e from the t i m e o f t h e O t t o m a n conquests to t h e o u t b r e a k
o f the S e r b i a n r e v o l t i n 1804. Parts I a n d II o f his b o o k contain a description o f t h e origin
o f t h e O t t o m a n s , t h e invasion o f t h e Balkans, a n d the i n t r o d u c t i o n o f O t t o m a n institu-
tions into w h a t Sugar calls the core regions o f O t t o m a n Europe: those provinces t h a t
were administered directly by imperial bureaucrats. In Part III t h e a u t h o r reverses his
Istanbul-centered perspective o f imperial events to examine t h e history o f t h e b o r d e r
provinces o f Moldavia, Wallachia, Transylvania, a n d Dubrovnik from the high water m a r k
o f the Turkish advance t h r o u g h the era o f decline. Part IV takes up t h e story o f decline
in the core provinces, following the chain o f events d o w n t o the final " d i s i n t e g r a t i o n " o f
t h e O t t o m a n provincial system on t h e eve o f t h e n i n e t e e n t h century. In the concluding
section, Sugar discusses t h e cultural life o f t h e Greeks, Slavs, a n d Jews u n d e r t h e T u r k s -
 O t t o m a n cultural activity in the Balkans is dismissed as m e a g e r - a n d t h e n offers some
final observations a b o u t the O t t o m a n legacy in t h e Balkans.
Although t h e a u t h o r claims to be presenting a picture o f Balkan life u n d e r the Turks,
he has in fact set o u t to write a b o u t the rise a n d fall o f Ottomans p o w e r in one o f the
most i m p o r t a n t regions o f the empire. It is, therefore, o f interest t o see h o w Sugar han-
dles the history o f t h e Turko-Muslim conquest. A hint o f h o w t r o u b l e s o m e an issue this
will be occurs w h e n we are i n f o r m e d in Part I t h a t the reason t h e Turks converted to a
simple form o f Islam is because t h e y were " n o t yet ready to cope with the theological
difficulties a n d complications of either Judaism or Christianity" (p. 4). What t h e n follows
is a pastiche o f early O t t o m a n history based mainly on Shaw, Inalcik a n d Vryonis. None
o f those historians would wish, however, to be linked with Sugar's n u m e r o u s errors: the
timar was n o t a grant of land (p. 37-38); t h e Mongol empire h a d declined by the fifteenth
c e n t u r y (p. 57); Islam is n o t against the acquisition o f wealth (p. 81), etc. Nor would
they wish to be associated with the oversimplifications Sugar introduces: forced conver-
sion was a typically O t t o m a n practice (p. 31-32); the Turkish conquest was m a d e possi-
ble by the millet system (p. 47). This is n o t to say t h a t Sugar fails t o present some provo-
cative ideas a b o u t the c o n q u e s t ' s i m p a c t u p o n Balkan society. His observation a b o u t t h e
relation b e t w e e n folk Islam, p o p u l a r Christian beliefs, and conversion t o Islam is probably
correct. But this crucial issue, as is the case with m a n y o t h e r o f t h e a u t h o r ' s ideas, does
n o t rest u p o n any d o c u m e n t a t i o n .
This freewheeling speculation a b o u t the O t t o m a n "golden age" reaches a climax at
t h e e n d o f Part II w h e n the a u t h o r concludes t h a t m o s t o f the difficulties the Balkan
Population suffered in t h e centuries o f decline were due to an O t t o m a n overadministra-
tion o f Balkan society during the time o f expansion. This is truly a revolutionary conclu-
sion; for m o s t historians o f O t t o m a n decline p o i n t t o the weakness o f the central admin-
istration as o n e o f t h e main reasons for the increasing m a l t r e a t m e n t o f the subjects. Is
Sugar's conclusion a daring historical hypothesis? I t h i n k not. Since the end o f World
War II the progressive exploitation o f O t t o m a n archival resources has convinced histor-
ians that t h e m o s t influential act the O t t o m a n s p e r f o r m e d in Southeastern E u r o p e was
to impose their administration. What we have here, therefore, is a n e w casting o f the old
negative stereotype. This time it is n o t t h e Turko-Muslim warrior who is the culprit b u t
the O t t o m a n bureaucrat.
If the O t t o m a n s alienated the populations o f t h e Balkans through overadministration
during the golden age, the opposite practice, according to Sugar, is what dominates t h e
two centuries o f decline. Not only did the O t t o m a n administration descend to an "all-
time l o w " by the eighteenth century, b u t also the bureaucracy, army, a n d ruling class
became c o r r u p t . Collapse at the center p r o d u c e d chaos in the provinces where rapacious
local factions c o n t r i b u t e d to t h e growing misery o f the p o p u l a t i o n . After t w o centuries
o f such disorder the Christian p o p u l a t i o n o f Southeastern Europe easily m a d e the tran-
sition from " b a n d i t r y " to national liberation forces on t h e p a t t e r n established by t h e
Serbian revolt o f 1801-04.
This is a very familiar view o f O t t o m a n decline. Long ago challenged, the c a t a s t r o p h e
t h e o r y o f decline has given way to a greater appreciation o f h o w resilient O t t o m a n insti-
stutions were during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. As the work o f I t z k o w i t z ,
Inalcik, and m a n y o t h e r historians who have concerned themselves with local history
have established, the imperial administration was able to shift t o a form o f decentralized
rule which fit well within the framework o f O t t o m a n institutions. As Sugar notes, Phan-
ariot rule in the Danubian Principalities intensified the a t t a c h m e n t o f the region to pat-
terns of politics, culture, and administration that were O t t o m a n and n o t national.
If one wishes to u n d e r s t a n d the m o d e r n course o f events in Southeastern Europe, the
history of the O t t o m a n Empire m u s t first be grasped on its o w n terms. In this b o o k Sugar
has n o t m a d e t h a t effort. His understanding o f imperial institutions and objectives is de-