Comments

¹ Sugar's, Peter F.Industrialization of Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1878–1918 (Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press, 1963) deals with one special aspect of the problem, but the author points the way for a number of promising investigations. On recent Yugoslav scholarship, see Tadić, Jorjo (ed.), Historiographie Yougoslave, 1955–1965 (Belgrade: Fédération des sociétés historiques de Yougoslavie, 1965), pp. 366–377. Yugoslav scholars have focused largely on diplomatic aspects, the uprisings, and the working class movements in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and have paid relatively little attention to other, more delicate, aspects. While this may be understandable, it is nonetheless regrettable.

² Black, Cyril E., “Eastern Europe in Historical Perspective,” in Black, Cyril E. (ed.), Challenge in Eastern Europe (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers University Press, 1954), p. 15. On general concepts of modernization, see Black, Cyril E., The Dynamics of Modernization: a Study in Comparative History (New York: Harper and Row, 1966); Weiner, Myron (ed.), Modernization: the Dynamics of Growth (New York, 1966); Levy, Marion J. Jr., Modernization and the Structure of Societies (2 vols., Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1966); and Apter, D. E., The Politics of Modernization (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1965).

³ See his The Idea of Nationalism (New York: Macmillan, 1961), p. 10. See also Doob, Leonard W., Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1964), particularly chapters 1–2, 9–10, and 13; and the works of Karl W. Deutsch, Carleton J. H. Hayes, Frederick O. Hertz, and Boyd C. Shafer.

⁴ It is significant that in the past decade increasing energies have been invested in exploring the relationship of history to the content, methods, and concepts of other disciplines, and vice versa. While, perforce, conclusions about this relationship are uncertain, by now a fairly rich body of literature exists on the subject. It is far too large for extensive presentation here, but attention may be drawn to a few of the relevant works: The Social Sciences in Historical Study (New York: Social Science Research Council, 1954); Hughes, H. Stuart, “The Historian and the Social Scientist,” in Riasanovsky, Alexander V. and Riznik, Barnes, Generalizations in Historical Writing (Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963), pp. 18–59; Cahnman, Werner J. and Boskoff, Alvin (eds.), Sociology and History (New York: The Free Press, 1964); Hsu, Francis L. K. (ed.) Psychological Anthropology: Approaches to Culture and Personality (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1961); and Deutsch, Karl W. and Foltz, William J. (eds.), Nation-Building (New York: Atherton Press, 1963). For the problem of quantitative approaches to comparative study, see especially Russett, Bruce M. et al. , World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1964); and the most enlightening discussion of it in Grew, Raymond and Thrupp, Sylvia L., “Horizontal History in Search of Vertical Dimensions,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. VIII, No. 2 (01, 1966), pp. 258–264. As for the subject of national character, reassurance and enrichment may be gained by reading Potter, David M., People of Plenty—Economic Abundance and the American Character (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1954); and much useful information on bibliography and methodology in Duijker, H. C. J. and Frijda, N. H., National Character and National Stereotypes (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Co., 1960).

⁵ Thus, for example, in looking at Nikola Pašić's formative period some years ago I found evidence of unexpectedly firm views on Catholicism and the “Croatian character.” These views doubtless influenced his policies and South Slav affairs in general. This type of material, not only on Pašić but on many leading Serbian, Croatian, and Slovene leaders, still lies fallow in archives and other repositories. Textbooks, particularly at the primary and secondary levels, are also veritable reservoirs of important information of which little use has thus far been made. Schools were meant to mold and they did. Is it not of some interest to find in a fourth grade textbook published in 1905 a brief article entitled “Croatia” in “Part II: Serbian Lands”? See Protić, Ljubomir M. and Stojanović, Vladimir D., Srpska Čitanka, treća knjiga za IV razred osnovnih škala u Kraljevini Srbiji [Serbian Reader. Third Book for the Fourth Grade, Elementary Schools of the Kingdom of Serbia] (7th rev'd. ed., Belgrade: Državna Štamparija, 1905), pp. 218–220. To be sure, examination of Croatian and Slovene materials is no less instructive than the particular example I have elected to cite.