HOME LIFE OF THE OSMANLIS IN ANATOLIA
_Truths can never be confirmed enough,_
_Though doubts did ever sleep._
SHAKESPEARE _“Pericles” V. I._
No part of Asia Minor possesses greater interest for the traveler
of a studious turn than that which borders the Anatolian Railroads.
And this, as the historian well knows, is saying much indeed. For
from time immemorial the peninsula of Asia Minor has been the great
battlefield between the Orient and the Occident. Topographically it is
like a great bridge over which, as has been well said, “the religion,
art and civilization of the East found their way into Greece; and the
civilization of Greece, under the guidance of Alexander the Macedonian,
passed back again across the same bridge to conquer the East and
revolutionize Asia as far as the heart of India. Persians, Arabs,
Mongols, Turks, have all followed the same route in the many attempts
that Asia has made to subdue the West.”[114]
It is the bridge over which passed the famed “Royal Road,” so
graphically described by Herodotus, which extended from Ephesus on
the Ægean Sea to far-off Susa in southern Persia. To make the journey
between these two cities required, according to the same historian, no
less than ninety days. And it was the bridge over which the Christian
pilgrims were wont to pass on their way from Europe to the Holy Land,
and the bridge also which was crossed by the Crusaders under Godefroy
de Bouillon, Louis VII of France, and Frederic Barbarossa when they
sought to recover Jerusalem from the Mohammedans.
The course of the Anatolian Railroad is, for the most part, the same
as that of a great military highway in Roman and Byzantine times from
Nicæa to Dorylæum. And the scenery along it, especially between Ismid
and Eski-Shehr, is often of rare beauty and grandeur. In places it is
much like that of southern Colorado and northern California. There
is the same succession of smiling landscapes--emerald valleys dotted
with modest homesteads, broad stretches of meadow land sprinkled with
sleek herds and happy flocks, noble forests of oak and pine, walnut
and sycamore. In some localities the vegetation is almost of tropical
luxuriance and the road is fringed by a wild tangle of bramble and
brushwood tapestried with clematis and ivy and woodbine in a flaming
setting of dog-rose and azalea.
As we approach Bilejik eastward of the snow-capped Mysian Olympus the
character of the scenery completely changes. The grade of the road
rapidly increases and as we pass along gorges and cañyons, through
tunnels and over bridges and describe innumerable curves we realize
that we are ascending the famed table-land of Anatolia and are nearing
Sugut, the earliest home of the Ottoman Turks.
Eski-Shehr, from which a branch of the Anatolian Railroad runs to
Angora, the ancient Ancyra, is a flourishing town and, thanks to its
finely equipped railway shops, is the home of a large number of railway
employees and their families. Before the world war an excellent school
for the benefit of the children of the employees was established here
and was well attended. It was conducted on the German system and
instruction was given in German. Among the languages taught, besides
German, were Greek, French, Turkish, and Armenian. The town is noted
for being the chief center of the world’s supply of meerschaum,
a commodity from which the Turkish Government derives a handsome
revenue. From Eski-Shehr we went to Afium-Kara-Hissar, from which
great quantities of opium are annually shipped, and thence to Konia,
anciently Iconium, which is the western terminus of the Bagdad Railway.
But more interesting far than its scenic attractions and its historic
ruins, its railroads and various industries, are the people of
Anatolia. And by the people I mean not the foreign element--the Greeks,
Armenians, Circassians, and others, so conspicuous in Smyrna and
Constantinople--but the Osmanlis. For it is not in the large cities of
Turkey, where there is always such a heterogeneous population, that the
Ottoman is found at his best but in the small towns and villages of the
interior of the country and particularly in that portion of the Ottoman
Empire which formerly constituted the emirates of Osman and Orkhan.
No people in the world, it is safe to say, have ever been more
misunderstood or more misrepresented than the Osmanlis. For generations
they have been regarded as a nation guilty of every crime and steeped
in every vice. But since the Bulgarian agitation, in 1876, when Carlyle
wrote “the unspeakable Turk should be immediately struck out of the
question, and the country left to honest European guidance,” the
Osmanlis have been treated as a nation of pariahs who had not to their
credit a single redeeming feature.
They have been denounced as cruel, bloodthirsty, treacherous,
dishonest, intolerant, and fanatical in the extreme. They have been
pilloried as a nation of gross voluptuaries totally devoid of all moral
sense and incapable of any noble sentiment and generous action. They
have been stigmatized as a cancer on the body of humanity that should
be dealt with in the most drastic manner by the Great Powers of Europe.
Gladstone expressed public opinion when, speaking on the Eastern
Question, he said, “Let the Turks now carry away their abuses in the
only possible manner, namely, by carrying away themselves.... One and
all, bag and baggage, shall, I hope, clear out from the province they
have desolated and profaned.”
But what is the truth about the Osmanlis? Are they the vile and
abominable people which Carlyle’s epithet would indicate? And are the
Christian nations of Europe justified in adopting towards them what
the English Conservatives aptly termed “Gladstone’s bag and baggage
policy”?
Let us see.
First of all it may be premised that most of the above indictments
against the Turks have been made by people who have little or no
personal knowledge of them, or by people who have been governed by
passion or prejudice or have been actuated by selfish or political
motives. And, secondly, it may be asserted as a fact that cannot be
gainsaid that those who have lived among the Turks any length of time
and have had an opportunity of becoming intimately acquainted with
them find them to be thoroughly good, gentle, brave, and loyal to the
core. And the longer one lives among them and the better one knows
them the greater is one’s admiration for them. This is especially true
of the real Turk--the Osmanli--particularly those of the peasant and
bourgeois class in Anatolia. These are as honest and upright as they
are temperate, pious, and religious.
The piety and the devotion of the Moslems, their gravity and solemnity
and reverential attitude during prayer, whether in the mosque or
elsewhere, are of such character as to make a deep impression on even
the least religious. “I have never entered a mosque,” writes Renan,
“without a deep emotion, and--shall I say it?--without a certain regret
at not being a Mussulman.”[115]
This devout character of the Mohammedans which so profoundly impressed
Renan, appealed with equal force to the poet who wrote:
_Most honor to the men of prayer,_
_Whose mosque is in them everywhere!_
_Who amid revel’s wildest din,_
_In war’s severest discipline,_
_On rolling deck, in thronged bazaar,_
_In stranger land, however far,
However different in their reach_
_Of thought, in manners, dress or speech,--_
_Will quietly their carpet spread,_
_To Mekkeh turn the humble head,_
_As if blind to all around,_
_And deaf to each resounding sound_
_In ritual language God adore,_
_In spirit to His presence soar,_
_And in the pauses of the prayer,_
_Rest, as if rapt in glory there._
Many, if not most of the erroneous notions which have been obtained
respecting the Osmanlis have had their origin, at least in the minds
of the great majority of people, in the ludicrous conceptions which
have long been current regarding the harem life of these much maligned
people. When a harem is referred to in Europe or America it is pictured
as consisting of a swarthy, fierce, and sensual pasha, seated on a
broad divan, garbed in richly embroidered robes, armed with a highly
ornate scimitar, and contentedly smoking his narghile while his
ever-youthful wives are entertaining him with music and dance and song.
Nothing could be more preposterous, or further from the reality. For
monogamy and not polygamy is the rule in the Ottoman Empire especially
in Anatolia, and always has been. The Koran does, indeed, permit
polygamy but under such restrictions that a plurality of wives is
confined to those who are able to make due provision for their support.
And even among the wealthy monogamy is daily becoming more prevalent.
Thus the late Sultan, Mohammed V, unlike some of his polygamous
predecessors, had but a single wife and to her, also unlike his
predecessors, he was legally married.
Indeed, so unpopular has polygamy become among enlightened Mussulmans
that an eminent authority on the subject declares that “if
Mohammedanism had a Pope and a Church, in a word, an authority always
living and invested with the right to modify the precepts of the
Koran, in order to adapt them to the needs of the age, it is almost
certain that polygamy would already have disappeared.”[116]
Much of the prevailing misconception concerning the harem life in
the Orient arises from the lamentable ignorance in our western lands
regarding the true meaning of the word harem. To many who should know
better it is synonymous with a place of debauchery, whereas, it is, on
the contrary, the very opposite of this. Derived from the Arabic word
_harim_, Turkish _harem_, it signifies anything forbidden
or a sacred thing or place. Thus the part of a Moslem’s home which is
assigned for the exclusive use of his wife and children, for their
female servants and friends is called the harem. It is their sanctuary
to which no males are admitted except the immediate members of the
family. It may be but the half of a Bedouin “House of hair,” or the
wing of a marble palace on the Bosphorus but it is still the harem--the
sacred abode, the _sanctum sanctorum_, of the feminine members of
the household and women visitors.[117]
In ordinary Ottoman houses the harem occupies the upper story and is
the best and most commodious part of the building. The usual term
employed to designate the wife’s apartment is _haremlik_, while
that occupied by the husband--his reception room where he receives
his male friends--is known as _selamlik_, and is generally on
the ground floor. The women’s apartment is always recognized by its
screened windows. The occupants of the _haremlik_ can thus see
everything in the immediate vicinity without being seen.
The name _harem_ applies not only to the wife’s part of the
home but also to the sections reserved for women on tram cars and
steamers, and to the women’s waiting rooms in railway stations and
women’s compartments on railway trains. The harem, thus understood,
is an institution that has very much to recommend it. It secures its
occupants a privacy which, in the estimation of Oriental women, more
than counterbalances their apparent loss of liberty.
But, contrary to what is usually thought, the harem is not a
Mohammedan institution. It long antedates Islam for, as archæological
investigations in the Orient clearly evince, there were separate
apartments for women in the buildings of ancient Persia, Assyria, and
Babylonia.[118]
Nor do the inmates of the harem consider themselves as imprisoned in
their houses like birds in a cage. Far from it. Mrs. Meer Ali, an
English lady who married a Mohammedan gentleman and resided twelve
years in Lucknow, India, clearly states the Oriental women’s view of
harem life when she writes:
To ladies accustomed from infancy to confinement, this kind
of life is by no means irksome. They have their employments
and their amusements, and though these are not exactly to our
tastes, nor suited to our mode of education, they are not the
less relished by those for whom they were invented. They,
perhaps, wonder equally at some of our modes of dissipating
time and fancy we might spend it more profitably. Be that as it
may, the Muslim ladies, with whom I have been long intimate,
appear to me always happy, contented and satisfied with the
seclusion to which they were born; they desire no other, and
I have ceased to regret that they cannot be made partakers of
that freedom of intercourse with the world we deem so essential
to our happiness, since their health suffers nothing from that
confinement by which they are preserved from a variety of snares
and temptations; besides which they would deem it disgraceful
in the highest degree to mix indiscriminately with men who are
not relations. They are educated from infancy for retirement and
they can have no wish that the custom should be changed which
keeps them apart from the society of men who are not very nearly
related to them. Female society is unlimited and they enjoy it
without restraint.[119]
What has been said of the harem may also be asserted of the
yashmak--the veil worn by most Oriental women, irrespective of
race or creed. When women appear in public,--and they have great
liberty in this respect, if properly veiled--this garb or the
_tcharchaff_, possesses many advantages which Christian as well as
Moslem women would be loath to forego. For like the latticed window
of the harem it enables them to see without being seen and like the
caliph of the story, they can freely move through a crowd without
having their identity known. Furthermore, when enveloped in her
_ferijee_--cloak--and _yashmak_, the person of the Oriental woman is
as secure as in the harem and she is thus safeguarded against all the
annoyances and insults to which her western sisters, especially those
in the larger cities, are so frequently exposed. Some of the Ottoman
suffragettes of Stamboul may envy the European women their gorgeous
Parisian hats and gowns, but I am quite convinced that many western
women would gladly exchange the creations of Worth and Redfern for
the _tcharchaff_ or for the _ferijee_ and the _yashmak_, or for the
_bash-oordoo_ and the _yeldirmee_--which serve the same purpose--and
all the immunities and privileges which these kinds of apparel secure
to the wearer.
Again much has been said about the cruel treatment which Ottoman women
have to endure from their husbands. To judge by the accounts of certain
writers who substitute fancy for fact, the average Turkish husband is
a Bluebeard who makes his wife’s life one continuous martyrdom. Such
reports are as ill-founded as all the fantastic tales that have so long
obtained credence respecting the harem and other matters pertaining to
the everyday life of the Ottoman Turk. But, as in these things it is
impossible for a man to obtain first-hand information, I shall quote
from a woman who had exceptional opportunities of becoming thoroughly
acquainted with the home life of the Osmanlis of Anatolia and whose
conclusions, therefore, are of preponderant value.
This woman is Lady Ramsay, the gifted wife of Sir W. M. Ramsay,
the distinguished archæologist of Aberdeen. Professor Ramsay whose
investigations in Anatolia extend over a period of thirty-five years
is probably the greatest living authority on the history of this part
of Asia and on the manners and customs of its inhabitants. As Lady
Ramsay frequently accompanied her husband on his expeditions which led
him to very nook and corner of the country, she had absolutely unique
opportunities for studying the home life of the Ottoman women of Asia
Minor. As a result of her observations she does not hesitate to declare
that “cases of brutality on the part of a man towards his wife are a
hundred times commoner among the lower classes of this country”--Great
Britain--“than they are in Turkey.”[120]
Such testimony coming from a witness so competent and so impartial
should be conclusive. The reports to the contrary of men who have
traveled in Anatolia are of no value whatever, for the simple reason
that these men could not possibly get information at first hand.
For the _harem_ is everywhere absolutely barred to them, and
what information they might get would necessarily be based on idle
rumor and therefore quite valueless. Women, however, even when total
strangers, are always hospitably received by their Ottoman sisters.
And if they are able to speak the language of the country, they
have little difficulty in becoming quite familiar with the everyday
life of the people. But men, no matter how extensive their travels
in Anatolia, will all be forced to confess with a noted English
traveler--“throughout our journey, the female sex may be said not to
have existed for us at all.”[121]
Much has been said about the divorce evil in Turkey. No doubt this
does constitute a foul blot on the social system of Islam but it is not
so bad as it is usually represented. The Koran safeguards the rights of
the wife in many ways and public opinion is daily becoming more opposed
to a man’s arbitrary repudiation of his wife. In spite, however, of
the present facile dissolution of the marriage bond the frequency of
divorce in Anatolia is far less than in many parts of the United States.
The Turkish wife [writes another English traveler who had spent
many years in the Ottoman Empire] has been called a slave
and a chattel. She is neither. Indeed her legal status is
preferable to that of the majority of the wives in Europe and,
until enactments of a comparatively recent date, the English
was far more of a chattel than the Turkish wife who has always
had absolute control of her property. The law allows her the
free use and disposal of anything she may possess at the time
of her marriage, or that she may inherit afterwards. She may
distribute it during her life, or she may bequeath it to whom
she chooses. In the eyes of the law she is a free agent. She may
act independently of her husband, may sue in the courts or may
be proceeded against without regard to him.[122]
The same author, in referring to the attachment of husband and wife for
each other, declares that among the Turkish peasantry “one meets with
Darby and Joan as frequently as in England.”[123]
“How far removed are we then,” asks an Ottoman gentleman, “from the
seductive odalisques whose pictures, in the East, are only to be seen
on biscuit tins.”[124]
But a stranger error than any yet referred to is that which asserts
that the Ottomans and Mohammedans generally deny to women the
possession of a soul as well as a future existence. How such an opinion
originated or gained such wide acceptance is impossible to say. I have
never known an Ottoman to hold such a view, and there is certainly no
warrant for it in the Koran. And yet in an article on “Woman’s Place in
the World,” written but a few years ago by a noted duchess in England,
it is explicitly stated that Mohammedanism “consigns woman, as far as
psychic qualities are concerned, to the level of beasts, forbidding her
forever the hope of salvation.”[125]
A few quotations from the Koran will suffice to show how groundless is
this statement. In the twentieth sura--chapter--we read:
O my servants--enter ye into Paradise, ye and your wives, with
great joy.
Again the Koran declares:
But he who doeth good works--be it male or female--and believes,
they shall enter into Paradise.
In the thirty-third sura it is written:
Verily the Moslems of either sex, and the true believers of
either sex, and the devout men and the devout women, and the men
of veracity and the women of veracity, and the patient men and
the patient women, and the humble men and the humble women, and
the almsgivers of either sex, and the men who fast and women
who fast, and the chaste men and the chaste women, and those
of either sex who remember God frequently, for them hath God
prepared forgiveness and a great reward.
According to the teaching of Mohammed, all true Moslems are enjoined
to pray for the dead--for the women as well as for the men. This, of
itself, is sufficient evidence of Islamic belief in the future life for
all mankind, irrespective of sex. There are, doubtless, in Turkey as
elsewhere, men who deny immortality to women, but these are confined
to that class of Moslems “who, having made shipwreck of their faith,”
prefer to class themselves with the beasts of the field by denying that
they themselves have souls.
Surprising as it may seem to some, no more beautiful tributes to
women can be found than those given in the Koran, or in the Hadith
which contains the traditional teachings of Mohammed. In one place
the Prophet declares “the world and all things in it are valuable but
more valuable than all is a virtuous woman”; in another he asserts
that “women are the twin-halves of men.” Again, he tells his followers
that “the son gains Paradise at the feet of the mother”; and yet again
we have his truly remarkable statement that “Paradise is beneath the
ground on which mothers walk.” Are not these amazing words to proceed
from the lips of a seventh century Arabian?
One need spend but little time in Anatolia to find that the men among
the Osmanlis are a most lovable people. What first impresses one is
their good manners. Whether they live in a palace or a hovel they are
always self-respecting, courteous, and dignified. In this respect
they continually remind one of the people of Spain where courtesy is a
national heritage. It was this striking characteristic of the Osmanli
that led Bismarck to declare:
In the Orient the only gentleman is the Turk.[126]
Another national characteristic of the Osmanlis is cleanliness.
Their homes, however humble, are as scrupulously swept and scrubbed
as a Dutch dwelling place.[127] And the same may be said of their
coffeehouses and restaurants. In this respect they are in marked
contrast with those of the Greeks and Arabs.
Many writers have endeavored to account for the exceptional courtesy
and cleanliness of the Osmanlis, but the reasons usually advanced
are far from satisfactory. “Their religion,” writes Sir Edwin Pears,
“inculcates cleanliness and sobriety; ... it has helped to diffuse
courtesy and self-respect among its adherents.”[128]
If this were true it should hold good for the Moslems of Egypt and
Morocco which, as all travelers in these countries know, is very often
far from the case. When we shall be able to assign a reason for the
matchless courtesy of the Castilian hidalgo or for the Dutch hausfrau’s
singular love of cleanliness, we shall probably find an acceptable
explanation of the seemingly innate courtesy and cleanliness of the
Osmanlis of Anatolia.
And contrary to almost universal belief, the Osmanlis, both men and
women are a people of very industrious habits. This is particularly
true of those who make their living by tilling the soil and by tending
their flocks and herds. So far as the men are concerned the traveler
has ample evidence of their toilsome lives from the time he leaves
the swift-flowing Bosphorus until he arrives at the foothills of the
picturesque Taurus. As to the women they are, according to those who
know them best, as laborious as the men. A competent witness, one who
is himself an Ottoman, who was born and bred in Anatolia and whose
testimony regarding the domestic life of his countrymen bears the
clearest impress of truth, is the clever and entertaining Halil Halid
who, having spent many years in England, writes English as a native.
Speaking of his countrywomen he declares:
No qualities are so much sought after in average marriageable
women as the domestic ones. In the provinces the peasant women,
besides managing their humble domestic affairs, have to work in
the fields, more especially when their brothers and husbands
are away discharging their compulsory military service. The
daughters of well-to-do people, besides attending to the
business of their households, are indefatigable with their
needles and are always busy with needle work or embroidery.[129]
It will be understood from the details I have given [he
continues], that the popular notion prevailing in this country
of the harem and the life of the harem is much mistaken. Women
in Turkish harems do not really pass their time in lying on
sofas or couches eating sweetmeats and smoking water-pipes all
the day long. Of course, they are as fond of sweet-stuffs as
most ladies of this country. But to lie down on a couch in the
presence of others is considered by Turkish women vulgarity of
the most disgraceful kind.
The representations of harem life given in books and on the
stage or shown in exhibitions, is either the work of Turkey’s
detractors or simply the work of imaginative persons who know
nothing about it and whose object is to attract the curiosity of
English people by exhibiting grotesque sights and thus to make
money.
Many Europeans [writes the same author] who pay a flying
visit to the Levant and hasten to sit down and write a book
about their experiences, derive all their information from
their cicerones and interpreters [worthless and unscrupulous
fellows whom our author justly denounces as ignorant and
shameless cheats] who are, as a class, of the worst products
of non-Mussulman natives of the Levant. Probably it is on
account of this that a countryman of mine once remarked: “When
we read such books, especially those written in English, about
ourselves, we always learn something from them which we never
knew or heard of before.”[130]
“But,” it will be asked, “what about the morality of the Turks”?
This is a question that is continually asked and about which as many
erroneous notions prevail as about the harem. One might answer by
saying that, where passion is given free rein, poor human nature is
about the same in all parts of the world. I shall, however, reply in
the words of the witty and vivacious Lady Mary Montague who, writing
from Constantinople where her husband was ambassador, to a friend in
England, declares:
As to their morality or good conduct, I can say, like Harlequin,
that it is just as it is with you; and the Turkish ladies don’t
commit one sin the less for not being Christians. Now that I am
a little acquainted with their ways, I cannot forbear admiring,
either the exemplary discretion, or extreme stupidity of all the
writers that have given accounts of them.[131]
As to “the infamous vices” of which the Mussulman Orient is said to
be the chief theater, it will be sufficient for our present purpose
to quote the words of one who has spent many years among the Moslems
and who has, probably, as thorough a knowledge of them as any recent
writer. “Is it, then, true,” demands the distinguished Count Henri de
Castries, “that these vices are more numerous in the Orient than in the
Occident? This reputation given to Islam is the result of superficial
generalizations without which travelers would have scarcely anything
to write. These vices of mature age are, unfortunately, common to all
countries. More of them are indulged in Paris, London, and Berlin than
in the entire Orient.”
It would be difficult to find people who are more distinguished for
natural virtues than are the Osmanlis who have not been debased by
oppression or corrupted by power. Their love of the simple life is
remarkable. Often their only fare is bread and water. To this they may
add a little cheese and fruit and some vegetables. The majority are
vegetarians. Of those who are not, their meat diet consists chiefly of
mutton and fowl which is usually prepared with rice or with vegetables.
Beef they rarely eat and pork never, for its use as an article of food
is strictly proscribed by the Koran.
And yet, notwithstanding their frugal fare, they are noted for their
health and strength. “As strong as a Turk” has long been a proverb. And
when one sees the amazing burdens which the _hamals_ of Stamboul
frequently carry, one is ready to admit that the proverb is more than
justified.
The chief beverage of the Osmanlis is water, for the Koran absolutely
forbids the use of intoxicating drinks of any kind whatsoever. For the
Osmanli, therefore, the dramshop does not exist. He does, however, love
his little cup of black coffee. Although the Moslem doctors of the
law originally interdicted its use as the invention of the devil, the
drinking of coffee in Mohammedan countries is now universal.
I know of only one prettier picture of contentment than an Osmanli
peasant taking his cup of coffee before going to work in the morning
or after the labors of the day, and that is when he indulges in
his favorite pastime of Kaif--which is perhaps best expressed by
the Italian phrase, _dolce far niente_. Garbed in his brown
shalvar--baggy trousers--blue jacket, red sash, and white stockings,
and sitting before his home under a tentlike plane tree, quietly
smoking his narghile, with drooped eyelids and rapt countenance, he
is the personification of comfort and happiness. Tranquil, immobile,
absorbed in an enchanting reverie, how far is he not removed from the
unbridled desires and malignant envy of the restless populace of our
large cities of the West!
_Ah! qu’il est doux de ne rien faire_
_Quand tout s’agite autour de nous!_
What a subject for the brush of a Villegas or a Fortuny![132]
And then the honesty of this quiet peasant of simple tastes and
harmless pleasures. He would never cheat you. Even if he be but a poor
fruit seller, gaining but a pittance for a day’s labor, he will always
add something to the amount called for, for fear of having made a
mistake in the amount due the purchaser. If you should be his guest,
you may sleep in his home with open doors. Nobody will molest you and
your belongings will be as safe as if under lock and key. So great,
indeed, is the reputation of the Osmanli for probity and sterling
honesty that:
Among men, who do not concern themselves with politics, but
whose fortune and interests are bound up in the country, the
vast majority prefer the Turk to any other denizen of the land
for his integrity and trustworthiness.
The proof of it is that it is to him they confide the care of
their property. There are English families that have existed in
Turkey for generations, and generations of Turks have served
them in positions of trust. These are invariably Turks of the
old school, good Mussulmans and simple in their thoughts and
lives. A finer type of men no land can show, and happily they
are not yet rare.[133]
Nor does one find elsewhere such humane treatment of dumb animals.
“Fear God with regard to animals,” enjoined Mohammed, “ride them when
they are fit to be ridden and get off when they are tired. Verily
there are rewards for our doing good to dumb animals and giving them
water to drink.” No Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
is needed among the Osmanlis for so strong a sympathy exists between
this gentle and tender-hearted people and all domestic animals that
anything like cruel treatment would be impossible. Even the dog, which
is considered as an unclean animal, is always treated with kindness.
An Osmanli will gather together the folds of his garments to prevent
his coming in contact with the impure brute but will at the same time
gladly divide with it his last morsel of food.
There are few writers who are more familiar with the real Ottomans than
the distinguished Academician, Pierre Loti. And this is what he says of
them:
Nowhere, so much as among the Turks--the real Turks--does one
find solicitude for the poor, the helpless, the aged and for
children; such respect for parents, such tender veneration for
the _mother_. If a man, even of mature years, should be
seated in one of those innocent little cafés, where alcohol has
always been unknown, and his father should unexpectedly enter,
he rises, lowers his voice, extinguishes his cigarette, and
humbly takes a seat behind him.[134]
Elsewhere the same sympathetic and magnanimous author writes:
Their little towns located in the interior, their villages,
their country homes, are the last refuges not only of the calm
but also of the patriarchal virtues which are more and more
disappearing from our modern world: loyalty and honesty without
blemish; veneration of children for parents of a kind that is
not longer known to us; inexhaustible hospitality and chivalrous
respect for guests; moral elegance and native delicacy, even
among the most humble; kindness towards all--even towards
animals; unbounded religious tolerance for whomsoever is not
their enemy; serene faith and prayer. When arriving among them
after leaving our Occident of doubt and cynicism, of noise and
scrap-iron, one feels as if suffused with peace and confidence
and believes he has remounted the course of time towards some
indeterminate epoch, near, perhaps, to the Golden Age.[135]
In Anatolia particularly are applicable the words of the English
traveler, Walpole, who, when speaking of the hospitability of the
people of Turkey, tells us that “in the East alone now do we find in
the Oda Nessafer of the village the guest-chamber of Plato. A sum
is set apart by the government for supplying these; though usually
the more wealthy traveler repays what he receives, adding a small
gratuity.”[136]
In hospitality the Osmanlis of to-day are heirs of the best traditions
of the Greeks of old who, as Homer informs us, were wont to say:
_For Jove unfolds our hospitable door:_
_’Tis Jove that sends the stranger and the poor._[137]
One of the most striking instances of Osmanli hospitality of which I
have recently heard is an experience of my good Franciscan friend,
the Reverend Paschal Robinson, Professor of History in the Catholic
University of America in Washington, D. C. Some years ago he had
occasion to travel through the greater part of Asia Minor. During the
seven months of his journey he was always the guest of the Turks, who
were all Moslems. And yet, although he was an entire stranger among
them, the generous and courteous Osmanlis everywhere received him with
the most cordial hospitality. Not only did they supply him gratis with
food and shelter, but they also provided him with the necessary means
of transportation from one place to another. And never would they
accept the slightest compensation for their services.
My actual traveling expenses during these seven months [Father
Paschal assures me] were the equivalent of only seven American
dollars. And, although the passport requirements in Turkey have
always been exceedingly strict, I never carried a passport and
nobody ever asked me for one. My habit which I always wore in
Anatolia was my passport.
But for members of his order, Father Paschal’s case is not exceptional.
In Moslem lands the Sons of St. Francis are always shown similar
kindness and consideration and have been ever since the famous
interview of the Poverello of Assisi with the Sultan of Egypt at
Damietta eight hundred years ago. Can greater hospitality be found in
other lands?
By the hammering reiteration of a tradition which, for most part, had
its origin in the reports of imaginative travelers and which has, in
recent years, been greatly fostered by a subsidized press bent on
forcing the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire, the Osmanlis have
been pictured as monsters of cruelty. To judge by certain propaganda
articles and brochures which, within recent years, have been given
world-wide currency, the average Ottoman is like the viceroy described
in Don Quixote, who “every day hanged a slave; impaled one; cut off the
ears of another; and this upon so little animus, or so entirely without
cause, that the Turks would own he did it merely for the sake of doing
it, and because it was his nature.”[138] People who have lived among
the Osmanlis and have learned to admire their gentleness and sense of
justice would denounce such a characterization as absurd.
“During the two years I have traversed the country,” writes a French
Colonel from Asia Minor, “I have never heard of a murder or a theft.”
This is not the evidence of a solitary witness. Innumerable foreigners
who have resided in Anatolia could give similar testimony.[139]
Nor does it apply only to the Osmanlis of the present time. History
abounds in like testimony regarding them in every century of their
history.
It is surprising [writes the historian Finlay] how well the
Ottoman government preserved tranquillity in its extensive
dominions, and established a greater degree of security for
property among the middle classes, than generally prevailed in
European states during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
This end was obtained by a regular police, and by the prompt
execution of a rude species of justice in cases of flagrant
abuses and crimes. In the populous cities of the Ottoman Empire,
and particularly in Constantinople, which contained more
inhabitants than any three Christian capitals, the order which
reigned in the midst of a great social corruption, caused by
extreme wealth, the conflux of many different nations, and the
bigotry of several hostile religions, excited the wonder and
admiration of every observant stranger. Perfect self-reliance,
imperturbable equanimity, superiority to the vicissitudes of
fortune, and a calm temper, compensated among the Ottomans for
laws which were notoriously defective and tribunals which were
infamously venal.
Knolles says, “You seldom see a murder or a theft committed by any
Turk.” European gentlemen accustomed to the barbarous custom of wearing
swords on all occasions, were surprised to see Turks of the highest
rank, distinguished for their valor and military exploits, walking
about even in provincial towns, unarmed, secure in the power of public
order and the protection of the executive authority in the State.[140]
But, it is asked, do not the reported atrocities of the Turks in
Armenia and the Balkans prove that their reputation for the most
frightful deeds of savagery is established beyond peradventure? An
adequate answer to this question would lead us too far afield, for
the Osmanlis, unlike their enemies, have few champions or political
knights-errant, and our information, therefore, respecting the
atrocities in question is almost entirely one-sided. To those, however,
who are desirous of reading the Ottoman side of the question I would
recommend the thoroughly documented work of Pierre Loti entitled
_Turquie Agonisante_.[141] A careful perusal of this work will
convince any impartial reader that in this, as in every other question,
“the unspeakable Turk” is far from being “the homicide of all human
kind” he is so frequently pictured to be.
I would not, however, have it inferred from the foregoing pages that I
ignore the corruption and organized bribery and the extent to which the
government is made to subserve the interests of those who govern rather
than those who are governed. This condition has existed in Turkey from
time immemorial, not only in the administration of governmental affairs
but in the administration of justice as well. But it is, unfortunately,
a condition that exists in all parts of the Orient from Constantinople
to Peking.[142]
Nor am I blind to the incalculable miseries to which the peasantry
of Anatolia are exposed by the ravenous tax-gatherers who rob them
of their little savings and keep many of them in constant penury.
The exactions and cruelties of these soulless agents of Turkish
misrule are almost incredible. It is these oppressive measures of
Turkish maladministration, coupled with the opening of the Suez Canal,
which have done much to close the overland trade routes to which
Anatolia owed much of its former prosperity. It is to be hoped that
the reorganized Ottoman government will succeed in eliminating the
crying evils here indicated, but they are of so long standing that
statesmanship of the highest order will be required to deal with a
situation which is now almost desperate.
In marked contrast to the administrative bribery and corruption which
have so long been the bane of Turkey, as well as of so many Eastern
countries, is the remarkable spirit of tolerance which distinguishes
the Ottoman government. Thus when the members of religious
orders--priests and nuns--were cruelly driven from France they were
cordially welcomed by Turkey--the reputed home of intolerance and
fanaticism--where they were guaranteed full liberty to continue their
apostolate of education and charity.[143]
The opposition raised a few years ago by an uncontrollable mob to the
passing of a procession in honor of the Blessed Sacrament through
the streets of London is still fresh in the memory of all. Contrast
this with the attitude of the people of Constantinople to a similar
ceremony. The following account of the procession is translated from
the Turkish newspaper, the _Stamboul_:
On Sunday last took place the _annual_ procession--I
underscore the word annual--of Corpus Christi. The brilliance
of the fête was heightened by the presence of Monsignor Nardi,
and all the Catholic colony of the neighborhood assembled in
the pretty church to see and hear its first pastor. Towards
five o’clock the procession emerged amid a vast concourse
of spectators who lined the way on either hand, the sacred
_cortège_ marching to the music of liturgical chants and
the band of the Salesian Fathers. In front walked the school
children, after them the faithful, then the clergy and notables
of Makri Keui, while in the rear Monsignor Nardi, surrounded
by the clergy, bore the Blessed Sacrament. Perfect order was
maintained by the police with a degree of tact which did honor
to the force. And for the space of an hour the procession
traversed the gayly decorated streets of the quarter, which
had been newly graveled for the occasion by the orders of
the worthy and ever-courteous president of the municipality,
Sherif Effendi. Such ceremonies leave a pleasant impression in
a country like Turkey where everyone is free to practice his
religion according to the dictates of his conscience.[144]
The same freedom of worship, notwithstanding reports to the contrary,
is enjoyed by the Armenians. They are, besides, left perfectly free
to have their own schools and to retain their own language. They have
not had such liberty in Russia. “For six hundred years the Armenians
were contented under the dominion of the Turks,” declared one of their
bishops a few years ago, and they would, doubtless, be still living in
peace with their old masters were it not for the machination of Russian
propagandists and Armenian revolutionists. The proof of this is that
“the highroad from Trebizond to Erzeroum ... is dotted with Christian
monasteries and churches unmolested for centuries.”[145]
Napoleon I was wont to say that a lie, given twenty-four hours’ start,
becomes immortal. But, when lies about the Turks have been repeated for
generations in spite of the official denials of the Ottoman government
and in spite of the contradictions of men who have long lived among
these much misunderstood and greatly misrepresented people, what hope,
one may ask, can there be for the final triumph of truth? What can be
done to counteract shameless calumnies and official _dementis_
when the greater part of the press is either muzzled or avowedly
hostile and when public opinion has been so utterly poisoned by long
and constant reiteration of all kinds of vilification and slander that
the unfortunate victims are everywhere prejudiced and denied the right
of a hearing which the law--not to speak of Christian charity--of all
civilized nations accords to even the worst of criminals?
“Professional scribblers,” writes Pierre Loti, “who have never set
foot in Turkey, expectorate ‘great historical romances’ on the ‘Tigers
of the Bosphorus’ and the ‘Monsters of Stamboul.’”[146] “And they go
so far even as to confound the true Turks with that aggregation of
sharpers from all the Balkan and Levantine races who put on a fez in
order to live among the Anatolians as gnawing parasites, parasites to
the bone, whose depredations and usury, ruining entire villages, would
almost excuse the worst vengeance of the rude and upright laborers of
Anatolia who finally revolted.”[147]
Sidney Whitman, the distinguished English author who knows Turkey so
well, is at one with the illustrious Academician when he writes:
In the course of my many visits to Constantinople I have
repeatedly been made acquainted with instances of questionable
newspaper correspondents who came to the Palace with the
scarcely veiled intimation that it was to be a case of pay or
slander. During the Armenian disturbances in 1896 a French
female journalist went up to the Palace and openly declared that
she intended to be paid or write up “atrocities.”[148]
But, notwithstanding the lurid tales that have so long been circulated
about the Osmanlis, they have, nevertheless, loyal friends where one
would least expect to find them. I have adduced in their favor the
testimony of those who from long association among them have learned
to know them and admire them for their splendid human qualities. Among
these witnesses to the virtues of the Osmanlis are French, English, and
American men whose competence is as incontrovertible as their authority
is unimpeachable. It were easy to add to the number and among them we
should find French, Italian, and German priests and bishops, Sisters of
Charity and _religieuses_ of the various teaching orders who have
spent long years among the Osmanlis in all parts of the Ottoman Empire
and their testimony would confirm that already introduced.
It may, however, be urged that the testimony in question is that of
friends and sympathizers. It affords me, therefore, special pleasure to
reproduce here the generous appreciation of “The Terrible Turk” which
has recently appeared in the _Pall Mall Gazette_[149] from the pen
of a Serbian gentleman who has had an opportunity of knowing him in war
as well as in peace. It fully corroborates all that has been stated
in the preceding pages and is as great an evidence of the writer’s
nobility of soul, as it is a splendid tribute to the character of a
whilom foe:
We Serbians are fighting against the Turks with all our might,
but we do not wish to be unjust to them. I am perfectly
certain that every Serbian soldier, marching now victoriously
through Macedonia and Albania, and every wounded Serbian lying
somewhere in a hospital, and every Serbian mother, sister,
wife, sweetheart, who has lost her son, or her brother, or her
husband, or her lover, on one of the many bloody battlefields,
would applaud my effort to do justice to our enemy. And,
therefore, I do not hesitate to say a good word for the Turk. I
do homage not to the Turk, but to truth.
An average Turk--or shall I perhaps call him a normal Turk?--is
an excellent man. He believes in God, and prays to God more
earnestly and more intensely than an average or normal Christian
does. And he persistently and honestly tries to conform his
everyday life to the commandments of his great Prophet. He is
charitable, honest, trustworthy; he is modest, yet dignified;
he is proud, but not vain; he is brave, but not boastful; he
is sober, clean, polite; he is generally poor, but always
hospitable; and he is patriotic, ready to starve and suffer
and die, without a murmur, for his faith and the honor of his
country. But this excellent, virtuous, and God-fearing brave man
is heavy, slow and somewhat stupid, and in the electrical and
aeroplanic twentieth century cannot stand against scientific
organizations and quick-firing guns of the clever, sharp-witted
Greeks, Serbians, and Bulgars.
The Turk was master of the Balkan nations for nearly five
centuries. During all those centuries he consistently refrained
from interfering with our national churches and with our village
municipal life. From the liberty which the Turk left to our
Church and our municipal life in the country, our political
liberty was re-born. But, notwithstanding his religious
tolerance and his non-interference with our village life, we
hated him as long as, and just because he was our master. But
now, when our victories have deprived him of his position as
master of our countries, we will be pleased to have him for our
friend, because--although he is not exactly a “jolly”--he is
certainly a good fellow.
How different is this portrait of “The Unspeakable Turk,” painted by
one who knew him by life-long association from that of the atrabilious
author of _Sartor Resartus_, whose delineation of him was based on
fancy and prejudice, if not on pathetic ignorance!
The great trouble in Asia Minor to-day is an economic one. This is the
verdict of those who are most competent to judge--of those who have
lived among the Osmanlis for years and have only words of praise for
their many natural virtues and their abounding goodness of heart. It
is the verdict of men and women to whom the brotherhood of man and
the fatherhood of God are not empty words, of those who believe that
the precepts of Christian charity are as obligatory for nations as for
individuals, and that it behooves the Great Powers to assist in its
economic stress at least this part of the Ottoman Empire and to help
it to develop its marvelous natural resources. Were they to do this,
Anatolia would again blossom as the rose and flourish once more as
it did in the heyday of Greek and Roman splendor. But such altruism
is quite alien to the self-seeking policy of the dominant nations
of Europe. Acting on the theory that might makes right they coolly
proceed to the dismemberment of the empire and endeavor to justify
it by alleging, in French diplomatic phrase, the requirements of the
_action civilisatrice_ of Western as against Eastern civilization
while every one who thinks knows that the real reason is the lust of
conquest.
Although I do not hold a brief for the Osmanlis, I would make a plea
for more tolerance for a people who have so long exhibited such
tolerance toward others. Having myself been among the number of those
who unconsciously did grave injustice to them before I came to know
them as they are, I feel that I am fully warranted in urging a change
of attitude towards them. Equitable statesmanship, as well as Christian
charity, demands such a change. We can never hope to remove the barrier
between the East and the West, between Islam and Christianity, so long
as the age-long misunderstandings and misrepresentations above referred
to continue to separate peoples who should live in union and harmony.