AMERICANS IN TURKEY, THEIR WORK AND INFLUENCE.
The American missionaries in the Turkish Empire are brought into the
discussion of almost every question that arises in that land.
Especially is this true at present, in connection with the Armenian
problem. So many wild and contradictory statements are made in regard
to them, and the Protestant communities which are the direct results
of their labors, that the mind of the public is more or less confused
on the subject. The missionaries, and the many thousands who have
gladly followed their leadership in intellectual, moral, and religious
reform, _are_ an important, though not a noisy or conspicuous element.
For this reason, as well as on account of popular ignorance and
hostile misrepresentation, they cannot be overlooked in any fair and
adequate survey of the situation. The writer has long been familiar
with this phase of the subject, and has a large mass of evidence and
statistics at his command. _But he is not connected with any of the
various missionary societies involved, and is alone responsible for
the statements made in this or any other part of the volume._
It is very important to note that charges against the missionaries, of
disloyalty to the Sultan, have never been sustained for a moment, and
that investigation has shown them to be obedient to the laws, and
opposed to revolutionary sentiments upon the part of any of the subjects
of the Empire. The highest officials have repeatedly borne public
testimony to the valuable services of the Americans in educational,
literary, medical and philanthropic lines. Even H. I. M. Sultan
Abd-ul-Hamid has graciously given expression to his confidence in
Americans as being free from any political designs, such as all
Europeans are supposed to entertain.
Many are not aware of the great work already accomplished by American
missionaries during the past seventy years in the Ottoman Empire, nor of
the vast influence they have exerted, both directly and indirectly. They
have been in many departments the pioneers of civilization. They have
stuck to their posts, obscure or prominent, in peace or in war, in
famine, plague and persecution. Pashas and diplomats and generals have
sought their aid without fear of being misled or betrayed. But the
messengers of the Cross have never been swerved from what they consider
a “higher calling”—to instruct the ignorant, young and old, to counsel
and reclaim the erring, to attend the sick and imprisoned, and to
comfort the broken-hearted. To support these general statements, the
reader must pardon a few statistics compiled from the latest official
tables, showing the _direct results_ of American missionary effort in
Turkey.
STATISTICS OF AMERICAN MISSIONS IN TURKEY.[70]
The following figures, with the exception of the Press statistics,
represent the work of the American Board (Congregational) and of the
Presbyterian Board taken together.
The Congregational proportion constitutes about three fourths and the
Presbyterian one fourth in all these figures, the work of the latter
society being confined to Syria and Mosul.
THE FORCE.
_Laborers._
Foreign missionaries 223
Native pastors, preachers, teachers, etc. 1,094
———————————
Total force of laborers 1,317
American missionaries to Turkey since 1821 550
_Plant._
Value of property held by Americans, exclusive of
churches, schools, etc., erected in the names of
native subjects, with foreign aid, for which
statistics are not available $2,500,000
_Annual Expenditure._
Appropriations from America $225,000
From native sources 60,000
———————————
Total expenditure annually $285,000
Total American expenditure from the first, at least $10,000,000
THE RESULTS.
_Religious._
Churches organized 155
Other stated preaching places 281
——————
Total number of preaching places 436
Communicants (received on confession of faith) 13,528
Members of Protestant civil communities (adherents) 60,000
Average Sunday congregations 40,000
Sunday-school membership 35,000
_Educational._
Colleges well equipped, for both sexes 5 students
Theological seminaries 6 „ 4,085
High-schools for boys 80 „
Boarding-schools for girls „ „
Common schools for both sexes 530 „ 23,315
——— ——————
Total schools of all grades 621 Students 27,400
There are six American institutions in Turkey incorporated under the
laws of the United States, and controlled by trustees in that land.
_Medical._
There is a well equipped American Medical College and Hospital at
Beirut, and American missionary physicians treat, yearly, many thousands
of patients of all classes and races throughout the land, both in their
dispensaries and in private practice, at a nominal sum and very often
gratuitously.
_Publishing._
Both weekly and monthly newspapers are published by the American
missionaries at Constantinople, in the Armenian, Turkish, Greek, and
Bulgarian languages, and an Arabic weekly is published at Beirut.
The catalogue of editions of the Scriptures and of religious,
educational, and miscellaneous books and tracts in various languages,
which may be obtained at the American Bible House, Constantinople,
contains separate titles to the number of about 1000. The publications
in the catalogue of the Presbyterian Press at Beirut, mostly in Arabic,
number 507. The number of copies of the Scriptures (entire or in part)
put in circulation by the Levant Agency of the American Bible Society
alone, 1847 to 1893, is 1,378,715. The number of copies of the
Scriptures (entire or in part) _in languages and type available for
Mohammedans_, put in circulation by the same Agency in 1893, was
Osmanli-Turkish (Arabic type), 5,392; Arabic language (Arabic type),
34,077; total, 39,469.
The number of copies of Scriptures (entire or in part) circulated in
Turkey since 1820 amounts to about 3,000,000. The number of copies of
other books and tracts for the same period is about 4,000,000. The total
number of copies of the Scriptures and of miscellaneous literature
circulated is therefore about 7,000,000.
[Illustration:
ARMENIAN FAMILY, BITLIS.
]
Even these large figures by no means measure the extent and significance
of Protestant influence in Turkey. The idea and spirit of Protestantism
has a breadth which cannot be measured or portrayed by figures. As a
matter of convenience and political necessity, and also to destroy unity
of feeling and action among the subject peoples, all non-Moslem races
were classified by Mohammed II., after the capture of Constantinople in
1453, according to their religious belief. These lines of division have
always been strictly observed by the government in all its dealings with
non-Moslems. Even many of the taxes are collected through ecclesiastical
organizations. This policy of the government, together with the bitter
persecution of Protestants by the older churches, led to the formation
of a Protestant civil community in 1850, contrary to the original desire
and instruction of the missionaries, and in spite of the protests of
many evangelicals who preferred to retain connection with their
ancestral church, but who were thrust out with violence and anathema.
The Protestant communities which then sprang up all over the Empire,
were not ruled, as are the other Oriental churches, by hierarchical
bodies. The missionaries, who are mostly Congregational or Presbyterian,
while ready to advise and guide, have never exercised ecclesiastical
control over their converts. The Protestants, in accordance with their
inherent spirit and beliefs, have naturally organized their religious
and civil communities on a simple representative basis, which has
gradually developed independence of thought and character, and desire
for progress.
We come now to the _indirect results_ of missionary effort, namely, the
stimulus of evangelical example and success upon the Gregorian and other
communities including even the Mohammedans. The homes, schools, and
churches of the missionaries have been open to all comers; their varied
literature has gone everywhere; their aid in sickness, distress, and
famine has always ignored race or creed. Many thousands of Armenians,
Greeks, Syrians, Jacobites and others—Moslems being prevented by their
rulers except in rare instances—have received education in Protestant
schools, without changing their church relations. But, nevertheless, a
deep impression has been made on these pupils by contact no less than by
teaching, and this, together with a natural and worthy loyalty to their
own institutions, has stirred up all the other races to higher ideals
and efforts.[71]
The existence of a marked desire for progress by all classes is now
clear, and that this is largely due to foreign missionaries is admitted
by all[72]—gratefully by the Armenians and Christians generally, but
often with chagrin by the Turks, who find themselves being rapidly left
behind in the forward march which they have been too stupid or too proud
to fall in with. It is, however, very gratifying to see that the
Mohammedan leaders in both Church and State are at length becoming aware
of the marked intellectual awakening and substantial progress that
education has quietly brought about among the Christian races. Robert
College on the Bosphorus stands at the head of the many well equipped
American institutions in Turkey which have largely contributed to these
results.
We gladly recognize the wisdom and energy of His Majesty the present
Sultan, in trying to establish Moslem schools throughout his empire,
some of which are already quite large, creditable, and popular with the
Turks. It cannot be doubted that these schools will lead ultimately to
an awakening and a desire for reform and progress among Moslems which
will make them no less restive under present conditions than are the
non-Moslems to-day, and thus hasten the necessary reforms. While most
hearty praise is due His Majesty for fostering and even forcing
education among his Moslem subjects, it is greatly to be regretted that
there is another side to this policy as carried out by his agents,
namely, an equal zeal in curtailing and even closing, as far as
possible, Christian schools.
The hostility of the Sublime Porte has been growing, just in proportion
as the excellent results of American institutions, already enumerated,
have appeared. Does the Turkish Government desire that its hostility be
considered the most convincing proof of the success of disinterested
efforts to benefit its subjects of all classes? And does it propose to
continue to cripple and suppress such efforts? If so, it is not the two
hundred and fifty American missionaries in her borders who will suffer,
but the many schools and churches which they have planted and the many
thousands of peaceable and hitherto loyal subjects, who have been taught
in them to serve God as well as honor the king.
APPENDIX A.
A BIT OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN TURKEY.
THE CASE.
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1884, pp. 538–539.[73])
(Inclosure in No. 317.)
_Mr. Wallace to Aarifi Pasha._
Note Verbale.
LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
_Constantinople, January 24, 1884_.
The legation of the United States of America has the honor to invite the
attention of his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, to the
matters following:
By note No. 167, June 13, 1883, the legation informed his highness that
two American citizens, traveling in the vilayet of Bitlis, had been set
upon by Kurds, robbed, and left to die, and that the governor-general of
the vilayet had manifested the most singular indifference about the
affair, and might be fairly charged with responsibility for the escape
of the malefactors. The suggestion was then made that his highness would
serve the cause of humanity and justice by ordering the most energetic
measures to be taken for the apprehension of the robbers.
By a communication, No. 71235, June 13, 1883, his highness was good
enough to answer the note of the legation, and give the pleasing
intelligence that the governor-general had succeeded in discovering the
goods taken from the two gentlemen, and that the robbers had been
arrested and delivered up to justice. This information his highness
reported as derived from the governor-general.
This report the legation found it necessary to correct; and for that
purpose it addressed a second note to his highness, the minister of
foreign affairs, No. 179, dated September 10, 1883, declaring that the
robbers had not been arrested, and that the goods and money taken from
Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds had been returned to them, but in small
parts. Under impression that it was yet possible to obtain the powerful
assistance of the Sublime Porte in bringing the thieves and assassins to
justice, the legation in the same note proceeded to give the full
particulars of the affair, both those connected with the assault and
those descriptive of the action of the governor-general. Of the assault,
it remarked that Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, accepting the assurance of
the governor-general that the roads were perfectly safe, set out on
their journey without a guard of zaptiehs. They put up for a night at a
house where there was present Moussa Bey, son of Meza Bey, an
influential Kurdish chief. When they took their coffee they failed to
send a cup of it to the said Moussa, who feeling himself insulted by the
inattention, took four assistants and next day waylaid the gentlemen,
one of whom, Mr. Knapp, they beat with clubs until they supposed him
dead. Moussa Bey, with his own hand, cut down Dr. Reynolds, giving him
ten cuts with a sword. The two were then bound and dragged into the
bushes and there left to die. That there might be no excuse, such as
that the murderers were unknown, the legation gave his highness the
names of the subordinate assassins and their places of abode, Sherif
Oglon Osman and Iskan Oglon Hassan, both of the village of Movnok. A
third one was pointed out as the servant of Moussa Bey, living in the
village of Kabiaa. Of the action of the governor-general the legation
said further that when the affair was reported to him he made a show of
action by sending zaptiehs to arrest the robbers, but, singular to
remark, he selected Meza Bey, the father of Moussa, to take charge of
the party. Going to the village of Auzont, Meza Bey pointed out four
Kurds of another tribe as the guilty men, took them into custody and
carried them for identification to Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, who said
they were not the assailants.
During the night, in Aozou, a bundle was thrown through a window into a
room occupied by the police, which on examination proved to contain a
portion of the stolen goods. With this the governor-general rested from
his efforts and dispatched to his highness the minister of foreign
affairs, that the stolen goods were recovered and returned, and the
felons captured and punished. This report, the legation took the liberty
of informing his highness, was not true, also that the chief of the
assassins, Moussa Bey, was still at large; and to emphasize its
statement, the legation further said to his highness, that the details
it communicated were current through all the region of Bitlis, having
been first given out by Moussa himself. The legation then, in the same
note, exposed the maladministration of the governor-general in language
plain as respect for his highness, the minister, and for the Sublime
Porte would permit, and suggested as the only means of accomplishing
anything like redress that a brave impartial officer be sent to Bitlis
to investigate the conduct of the governor and take the affair in his
own hands. “Such a step,” it was added, “might serve to save the lives
of many Christians,” and it was further represented that “could the
assassins be brought to just sentence it would unquestionably lessen the
demand for indemnity which otherwise it would be the duty of the
legation to present against the Imperial Government in this connection.”
On November 7, 1883, the legation of the United States, by a third note,
No. 184, communicated to his highness, the minister of foreign affairs,
that the governor-general of Bitlis had confronted four persons with Mr.
Knapp for identification, and that that gentleman had recognized Moussa
Bey as one of those who had robbed and wounded him. The legation of the
United States then expressed a hope that the minister of foreign affairs
would give proper orders for bringing Moussa Bey and his companions in
crime before the tribunals for trial.
Still later, on November 12, 1883, the legation of the United States
addressed a fourth note, No. 185, to his highness, the minister of
foreign affairs, detailing again the circumstances of the attempted
murder of Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, and representing the
untrustworthiness of the governor-general by charging that Moussa Bey
had already obtained from him assurances of immunity in the event of a
trial and conviction.
His highness, the minister, was then requested that, if it was decided
to maintain the governor-general at his post, orders be given for the
transfer of the criminals to Constantinople for trial.
The three notes last named of the legation of the United States have not
been answered by his highness, the minister of foreign affairs, except
in a note, dated December 8, 1883, in which he is pleased to renew
assurances based upon telegrams from the governor-general, which are
utterly unreliable.
Wherefore, abandoning hope of justice through the governor-general of
Bitlis, and the judicial tribunals of the empire, the legation of the
United States finds itself compelled to change its form of application
for redress, and demand of the Sublime Porte indemnity in behalf of
Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, for the former £1,500, and for the latter,
because of the more serious nature of his injuries, £2,000.
THE POSITION TAKEN IN WASHINGTON.
(Foreign Relations of the United States, 1884, p. 544.)
No. 419.
_Mr. Frelinghuysen to Mr. Wallace._
(No. 153.)
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
_Washington, February 13, 1884_.
SIR: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 317, of the 25th
ultimo, relative to the case of the Rev. Mr. Knapp and Dr. Reynolds,
murderously attacked by Kurds near Bitlis, and to say that, after a
careful consideration of all the facts before the Department, the
inaction of the governor of Bitlis and the failure of the supreme
Government to force him to undertake such measures as the case evidently
demanded, must be regarded as a denial of justice. While this Government
is always averse to making money demands for indemnity in countries
whose administration of justice may differ from our own, the Department
feels compelled to resort to this remedy under circumstances which
manifestly make the local officers and the Government of the Porte
responsible for the failure to do justice in this case.
The action reported in your dispatch is, consequently, approved.
I am, &c.,
FRED’K T. FRELINGHUYSEN.
THE POSITION TAKEN IN CONSTANTINOPLE.
General Lew Wallace is understood to have been emphatically a _persona
grata_ as U. S. Minister to Turkey, in fact to have enjoyed, to a very
exceptional degree, the personal confidence and friendship of His
Majesty the present Sultan. The following quotation will show what
treatment even he received in the discharge of his official duties in
the case under consideration:
_From the Regular Correspondent of the Tribune._
CONSTANTINOPLE, March 1, 1884.
The Porte, in deciding how far it is safe to affront foreign
Governments, has even ranked the United States below some of the
European States. The Porte during the past year has treated General
Wallace as if he were the representative of a Danubian Principality.
Remonstrance after remonstrance against fresh violations of the treaties
it has left unanswered, and it has repeatedly omitted the courtesy of a
bare acknowledgment of their receipt. In fact, Turkey has been relying
upon the distance of the United States. Perhaps its officials even
suppose that the American navy is afraid to risk adventures so far from
home as the coasts of the Levant.
General Wallace found it necessary, for the sake of the safety of
American citizens in Turkey, to press for some definition of the
situation. During nearly five weeks he had been refused a personal
interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs on the ground of
“indisposition.” During all that time the representative of that
Minister declined to enter upon any discussion of the important
questions at issue. Four times the Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States had been turned away from the door of the Sublime Porte by
the refusal of the Grand Vizier to see him. Each time plausible reasons
were assigned which seemed to render any insistance on the part of the
General uncourteous. Yet it became daily more evident that all these
plausible excuses for declining negotiation on the injuries done by
Turkey to American commerce and to American citizens were part of a
settled purpose not to redress the wrongs.—_New York Semi-Weekly
Tribune_, March 28, 1884.
THE RESULT.
The ten years that have elapsed since the above was written clearly show
that what seemed then to be a “settled purpose” has become the settled
policy of the Ottoman Government in regard to Americans and their rights
in Turkey.
In regard to the outcome of the case of Messrs. Knapp and Reynolds, the
humiliating fact must be recorded that not one cent of the indemnity
demanded by the United States of America has to this day been obtained.
The monster, Moussa Bey, was allowed by the Turkish Government to
continue his outrages on the Armenian villages of the great Moosh plain,
until his record became so appalling, that under European pressure the
Porte summoned him to Constantinople, where he was entertained as the
Sultan’s guest. He was whitewashed by the courts, but the Sultan was
prevailed upon to invite him to make a pilgrimage to Medina at his
expense, and there spend the remainder of his days in religious
exercises.
APPENDIX B.
U. S. CONSULATES IN EASTERN TURKEY.
The following petition was recently presented to the Hon. Walter Q.
Gresham, Secretary of State, and to the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America, for the establishment
of U. S. Consulates at Erzerum and Harpoot. The necessary legislation
has been promptly enacted, for which the thanks of all Americans in
Turkey is due to His Excellency the President, to the Secretary of State
and to members of both Houses of Congress.
WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 3, 1895.
Apropos to the recent massacre of five thousand Armenians in Turkey, it
is clearly inexpedient for the United States to mix up in the Eastern
Question. But it is equally clear that _the duty of protecting a large
body of native-born American citizens constantly subjected to danger,
injury and insult in that land is not complicated by any Monroe
Doctrine_. In their interests, attention is called to this brief
statement of facts, and to a practical request for consular protection.
1. NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS AND INTERESTS INVOLVED.
Distributed in thirty of the principal cities of Asiatic Turkey alone,
there is a permanent body of _two hundred and fifty Americans_, not
including their children, who hold _over two million dollars_ of
American property for residence and the use of their educational,
medical, publishing and religious enterprises.
These figures do not cover the large commercial interests of Americans
in Turkey, for which statistics are not at hand.
2. NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE DANGER TO WHICH THEY ARE EXPOSED.
There are two sources of danger: first, the _lawlessness_ of numerous
highwaymen who infest the country, and of the fanatical Moslem
population of the cities; and second, the _hostility_ of Turkish
officials, who have repeatedly failed to restrain, and in some cases
have even encouraged attacks upon the lives and property of American
citizens.
3. EVIDENCE OF THIS DANGEROUS CONDITION.
So far back as June 29th, 1881, Secretary Blaine, in official
instructions to Minister Wallace at Constantinople, wrote:
“Your attention will doubtless be prominently and painfully drawn to the
insecurity of the lives and property of foreign travelers in Turkey, and
the failures of the authorities to prevent or repress outrages upon
American citizens by wayside robbers and murderers, or even to execute
its own laws in the rare instances of the perpetrators of such outrages
being brought to justice. I cannot take a better text on which to base
this instruction, than the accompanying copy of a letter addressed to
the President by a number of American residents in Turkey. Its
statements are known to be entirely within the truth, and can be
verified abundantly from the files of your legation. They show in simple
yet forcible language, the insecurity of traveling in that country, and
_the instances to the number of eight, within the past two years, when
American citizens have been robbed and beaten by lawless marauders_. On
these occasions the lives of the assailed have been at the mercy of the
robbers and, in one instance at least, the taking of life preceded the
robbery.”—_Foreign Relations of the United States 1881._
The above extract refers to outrages in Western Asia Minor and the
vicinity of Constantinople, but it is well known that in the Eastern and
interior part of Turkey, where many of us live, _the insecurity is
greater and has steadily increased, during the thirteen years that have
elapsed since the above facts were admitted by the State Department_.
The murderous attack by a Kurdish chief in person, which nearly cost Dr.
G. C. Reynolds, of Van his life, and for which _no indemnity was ever
obtained_, though the assailant was positively identified in court, is
reported in full in _Foreign Relations of the United States_, 1883,
1884, and 1890.
The arrest and indignities inflicted upon Mr. Richardson of Erzerum, by
the Governor-General, for which _no apology even was ever secured_, are
related in _Foreign Relations of the United States_ 1891.
The burning of Marsovan College by an unrestrained Turkish mob and the
_danger to the lives of many American residents_ is found in _Foreign
Relations of the United States_ 1893.
More cases of injury and insult, may be found in the same official
records. But in many other instances it has been felt to be useless and
inexpedient to even report them. _The absence of any American
representative to substantiate and vindicate our rights on the ground,
and the hopelessness of securing anything but further injury by trying
to press our claims, often drives us to the humiliating necessity of
suffering injustice with scarcely a protest._
THE REQUEST.
We feel that the condition shown by the above evidence, not to add more,
abundantly justifies a renewed request for _some Consular protection in
the Eastern part of Turkey, for the American citizens permanently
residing there in the prosecution of lawful pursuits_. Our present
exposed and helpless condition is clearly set forth in a communication
from the United States Legation at Constantinople, to the State
Department: “It may not be doubted that the absence of an American
Consul at Erzroom leaves our citizens there singularly destitute of
means to vindicate their rights and protect their interests; this is the
more regrettable as Erzroom is a missionary station of considerable
importance, and situated in a province where official protection is most
frequently and urgently needed. _The British Consul there is instructed
to act ‘unofficially’ for our citizens, but his right to represent them
is not recognized by the Ottoman authorities; the obvious consequence
is, that when his good offices are most needed, they are of least
avail._” _Foreign Relations of the United States_ 1891.
We are thus seen to be cut off from Consular protection of any kind. The
nearest U. S. Consul, Mr. Jewett of Sivas, an excellent man, is
unavailable for us for three reasons: first, the delay and difficulty in
communicating with him on account of our isolation, and the very
circuitous post-routes, in case the local authorities were kind enough
not to intercept our letters, as they have repeatedly, even the official
correspondence of the United States Minister (_Foreign Relations of the
U. S._ 1893); second, the distance and methods of travel are such that
probably from one to two months would elapse after any outrage, before
the Sivas Consul could be notified and arrive; third, the Consul at
Sivas could not leave his post without neglecting the large American
interests in Asia Minor.
Aside from being needed when special difficulties do occur, it is
obvious that the mere presence of a United States Consul on the ground
would have a marked effect in _deterring_ both the lawless and fanatical
elements, and the officials, who have never seen the stars and stripes,
from repeating acts which have caused much injury to the interests of
American citizens, and have been _the occasion of tedious and unpleasant
diplomatic correspondence between the two countries_. The expense of
living in Turkey is unusually low.
In view of all the foregoing facts, it is urgently requested that
American Consuls be located at Erzerum and Harpoot. These cities are
large centres of population and of American interests, and the seats of
Provincial Governors. They have large commercial and strategic
importance, and as good facilities for communication by post, telegraph,
or private messenger as the country affords. From Erzerum, Bitlis and
Van could also be cared for, while Mardin and Mosul would naturally be
under Harpoot, and thus the Americans of that whole territory would be
brought within two or three week’s journey of Consular protection.
We are from seven hundred to one thousand miles from Constantinople,
which means a journey of three to six weeks. The fact that at least
_5,000 men, women and children in our midst have been massacred, and
this fact kept nearly three months from the civilized world, is a
significant hint as to our isolation and danger_. The articles in the
last _Harper’s Weekly_, Dec. 29, and in the _Review of Reviews_, Jan.
1895, give much light on the situation.
APPENDIX C.
DR. HAMLIN’S EXPLANATION.
(_New York Herald, December 20, 1894._)
_To the Editor of the Herald_:
A cutting from the _Herald_ has been sent to me to-day containing a
letter of His Excellency, Mavroyeni, on the Armenian atrocities. I must
strongly object to the use he makes of a letter of mine in the Boston
_Congregationalist_ of last year (December 23, 1893).
The object of that letter was to show the absurdity of the revolutionary
plotters. The Armenians are a noble race, but few in number, scattered
and unarmed. The Turkish Government has never had the least fear of any
such movement. It knows well that there is no place in the Empire where
one thousand or even one hundred Armenians could assemble with hostile
intent. And besides they have no arms, and they are not accustomed to
their use. They would be lambs in the midst of wolves. Every one knows
this who knows anything of Turkey outside of Constantinople.
It is to be greatly regretted that the Ottoman Ambassador should attempt
to cover up the path of these horrid atrocities which have agitated the
whole Christian world and for which Turkey must give account. It were
far better to deplore the fact and work for justice and judgment. It may
be the time has passed when such deeds of blood and torture, committed
upon unarmed men, women and children, can be condoned by the civilized
world.
The plots of the revolutionists were harmless as to any effective force,
but were very pernicious in arousing fanaticism. The fact that a few
hair-brained young men in foreign lands had plotted a revolution was a
sufficient reason in the view of Moslem fanaticism for devoting the
whole race to destruction. It was this which I feared and it is this
which has happened.
Another object of the letter, from which His Excellency has quoted, was
to draw attention to the fact that this revolutionary movement is a game
which Russia is playing in her own interests. And she has played it
well. She has again caught Turkey in her trap. The whole civilized world
will now approve of her marching in with force to stop the slaughter of
an industrious, peaceful, unarmed peasantry. If Russia enters, it will
be with professions of great kindness toward the Sultan. It will be to
aid him in his well known benevolent intentions in the government of his
Christian subjects! But she will call the Armenians to her standard and
will arm and train them and they will prove a brave and valiant
soldiery. Some of the ablest generals of the Russian army have been
Armenians. Thus armed and trained, with the aid of their Russian allies,
they will defend their own homes in the Sassoun or any other district.
Turkey has brought this upon herself. His Excellency is a Greek
gentleman, and has a natural sympathy with Russia. His influence has
been to magnify the revolutionary plots instead of showing, as my letter
did, their insignificance and their Russian character, and has led his
government to give to them an importance which seems absurd. The Turkish
Government has had sufficient opportunity to study and understand Russia
since the Treaty of 1829, and again of 1833. Have her trusted advisers
been true to her, or have they betrayed her interests?
The civilized and Christian world awaits with profound and fixed
attention the solution of the question whether bloody, fanatical
violence or law shall reign over the Eastern regions of the Turkish
Empire.
CYRUS HAMLIN.
Lexington, Mass., December 18, 1894.
APPENDIX D.
THE CENSORSHIP OF THE PRESS.
With what intelligence and religious toleration the censorship of
the press is conducted may be judged from examples found in an
official document:
“The quotation, in religious books, of the words of Scripture for
proof or illustration, has been subjected to the will of the censor;
and even the printing of religious books has been objected to on the
ground that since Christians are graciously allowed to use the Holy
Bible, they need no other books of religion. Appeal from the
decisions of the censors is practically unavailing. This censor
insists that the Scriptural phrase ‘Kingdom of Christ’ may not be
used by Christians....
“The index list of the Bible lessons for 1893 is simply a table of
contents prepared by the British Sunday School Union. The censors
have refused to permit the publication of this index list, unless
some fifty titles are erased, or modified into a form at variance
with the matter of the lessons, or expanded to a degree impossible
in a brief table of contents, for example: St. Luke iv., 14–21,
‘Gospel liberty.’ The word ‘liberty’ must be erased. Jeremiah
xxxiii., 7–16, ‘Sorrow turned to joy.’ This title must be
suppressed. Haggai ii., 1–9, ‘Encouraging the people.’ This title,
which refers to the Divine encouragement given to the people in the
work of rebuilding the temple in the days of Zerubbabel, must be
erased.
“Psalm xxxiii., 10–22, ‘Wicked devices frustrated.’ This title must
be stricken out.
“Esther iv., 1–9, ‘Sorrow in the palace.’ This title must be
suppressed.
“Romans iv., 1–8, ‘Saved by grace.’ This title must be modified to
read ‘Saved from sin by grace.’
“Psalm xxxviii., 8–15, ‘Hope in distress.’ This title must be
suppressed.
“Joshua i., 1–9, ‘Fear not.’ This title can not be allowed.
“Romans viii., 31–39, ‘Rejoicing in persecution.’ This title must be
erased.
“Romans xv., 25–33, ‘A benevolent object.’ This title cannot be
allowed to stand unless the object is stated.”—_Foreign Relations of
the United States_, 1893.
We learn that four months after the complaint was made the particular
points specified above were arranged. But as soon as foreign pressure
was relaxed the activity of the Censor revived, and is now more
intolerable than ever. A gentleman of long experience and intimate
knowledge writing from behind the scenes within a month, states: “The
Censorship of the Press is so severe as to amount almost to a
prohibition. At Constantinople a most reckless and destructive
mutilation of books goes on; and, contrary to the expressed utterances
of the Porte guaranteeing religious liberty, Christian doctrines are
expunged or changed, so as, at times, to become ridiculous and false.
The men appointed as Censors of the Press seem to be utterly ignorant of
all Christian literature and history and their object is to make all
books conform to the doctrines of Islam.
“The religious weekly of the American Mission in Syria, which had been
published for thirty years, was suppressed for a whole year, no reason
being given; and when the permit was finally secured, it was accompanied
by puerile and humiliating conditions.”
Some special departments of literature, such as history and poetry, are
forbidden, wholesale, by the Censor. Many of the Censor’s decisions and
the grounds on which they are based would be most laughable, but for the
fact that they are part of an attempt to throttle and starve the hungry
and growing minds of millions.
APPENDIX E.
PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE SUBJECT.
HISTORICAL.
NORMAN, _Armenia and the Campaign of 1877_. London, 1878.
MILNER, _The Turkish Empire_. London: Religious Tract Society.
CLARK, _The Arabs and the Turks_. New York: Dodd & Mead.
TOZER, _The Church and the Eastern Empire_. New York: Randolph. London:
Longmans.
LATIMER, _Russia and Turkey in the XIX. Century_. Chicago: McClurg &
Co., 1894.
MORFILL, _Russia_. New York: Putnams. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893.
LANE POOLE, _Turkey_. New York: Putnams. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893.
CHURCHILL, _Druzes and Maronites_. London: Quaritch, 1862.
Viscount STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, _The Eastern Question_. London: John
Murray, 1881.
LATHAM, _Russian and Turk_. London: Allen, 1878.
LAYARD, _Nineveh and its Remains_. London: Murray.
RAWLINSON, _The Five Great Monarchies_. Murray.
RAWLINSON, _The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy_. Longmans.
RAWLINSON, _The Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy_. Longmans.
TRAVEL.
SMITH and DWIGHT, _Researches in Armenia_. 2 vols. Boston: Crocker &
Brewster, 1833.
STEPHENS, _Greece, Turkey, Russia, and Poland_. 2 vols. New York:
Harpers, 1839.
SOUTHGATE, _A Tour through Armenia, Persia, and Mesopotamia_. 2 vols.
New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1840.
VAN LENNEP, _Travels in Asia Minor_. 2 vols. New York: Van Lennep, 1870.
VAN LENNEP, _Bible Lands: Their Modern Customs and Manners_. New York:
Harpers, 1875.
THEILMANN, _Journey in the Caucasus, Persia, and Turkey_. 2 vols.
London: 1875.
CREAGH, _Armenians, Koords, and Turks_. London: 1880.
TOZER, _Turkish Armenia and Eastern Asia Minor_. London: 1881.
BISHOP, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_. 2 vols. New York: Putnams.
London: John Murray, 1891.
MOHAMMEDANISM.
SALE’S, _The Koran_. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Wardle, 1833.
SMITH, R. Bosworth, _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_. London: John Murray.
New York: Harpers, 1875.
WASHBURN, _The Points of Contact and Contrast between Christianity and
Mohammedanism_. Chicago: The Parliament Publishing Company, 1893.
BURTON, _Pilgrimage to El Medinah and Mecca_. New York: Putnams.
Belfast: Mullan.
MUIR, _Life of Mahomet_. London.
SPRENGER, _Life of Mohammed_. Allahabad, 1851.
IRVING, _Life of Mahomet_. Putnams.
STOBART, _Islam and its Founder_. Christian Knowledge Soc.
PFANDER, _Mezan el Hoc_. London: Church Missionary Society.
HUGHES, _Notes on Muhammadanism_. London: Allen, 1877.
OSBORN, _Islam under the Arabs_. London: Longmans, Green.
MUIR, _The Coran_. London: Christian Knowledge Society.
KOELLE, _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_. London: Rivington’s, 1889.
ARNOLD, _Islam and Christianity_. London: Longmans.
AMEER ALI, _The Spirit of Islam_.
AMEER ALI, _Life and Teachings of Mohammed_. London: Williams.
MISSIONS.
_The Missionary Herald, 1820–1894._ Boston: The American Board.
DWIGHT, _Christianity Revived in the East_. New York: Baker & Scribner,
1850.
ANDERSON, _Missions to the Oriental Churches_. 2 vols. Boston:
Congregational Publishing Society, 1872.
WHEELER, _Letters from Eden_. Boston: American Tract Society, 1868.
WHEELER, _Ten Years on the Euphrates_. Boston: American Tract Society,
1860.
WHEELER, _Daughters of Armenia_. New York: American Board, 1891.
PRIME, _Forty Years in the Turkish Empire_, or Memoirs of Rev. William
Goodell, D.D., Boston: American Tract Society, 1877.
LAURIE, _Missions and Science_. Boston: American Board, 1885.
LAURIE, _Dr. Grant and the Mountain Nestorians_. Boston: Gould &
Lincoln, 1853.
JESSUP, _The Mohammedan Missionary Problem_. Philadelphia: Presbyterian
Board of Publication, 1879.
SCHAUFFLER, _Autobiography_. New York: Randolph, 1888.
HAMLIN, _Among the Turks_. New York: Robt. Carter & Bro.
HAMLIN, _My Life and Times_. Boston: Congregational S. S. and Pub. Soc.
ARMENIAN HISTORY.
MOSES CHORENENSIS, _Armenian History_, Arm. and Lat. London: William and
George Whiston, 1736.
LANGLOIS, VICTOR, _Collection des Historiens anciens et modernes de
l’Arménie_, en Français. Vol. i. Historiens grecs et syriens traduits
anciennement en Arménien. Vol. II. Historiens arméniens de 5^e siècle.
8º. Paris, 1867.
DULAURIER, _Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Documents Arméniens_.
Paris, 1869. Folio with facsimile reproductions. Pp. 855. Arm. and
French.
DULAURIER, _Étude sur l’Organisation Politique, Religieuse et
Administrative du Royaume de la Petite-Arménie à l’époque des
Croisades_. Paris, 1862.
LENORMANT, _Sur l’Ethnographie et l’Histoire de l’Arménie, avant les
Achéménides_. In Lettres Assyriologiques. 1871.
_Inscriptions d’un Reliquaire Arménien._ With plates. Paris, 1883.
NEUMANN, _The History of Vartan by Elisaeus_. Translated from the
Armenian. London, 1830.
MALAN, _The Life and Times of St. Gregory the Illuminator_. Translated
from Armenian. London, 1868.
CHAMICH, _History of Armenia_. Translated from Armenian into English by
Avdall. Calcutta, 1827.
STUBBS, WILLIAM, _The Mediæval Kingdoms of Cyprus and Armenia_. In
Seventeen Lectures, etc. 1886.
_Genealogical Catalogue of the Kings of Armenia._ Oriental Translation
Fund. Vol. ii. London, 1834.
GABRIELIAN, _The Armenians or People of Ararat_. Philadelphia: Allen,
Lane & Scott, 1892.
ARMENIAN LITERATURE.
NÈVE, FÉLIX, _L’Arménie Chrétienne et sa Littérature_. Louvain, 1886.
_Catalogue des anciennes traductions Arméniennes, siècles iv.-xiii._ 8º
pp. 783. Venezia, 1889.
DWIGHT, _Catalogue of all Works known to exist in the Armenian Language
earlier than the Seventeenth Century_. American Oriental Society. Vol.
iii. 1853.
FORTESCUE, _The Armenian Church, History, Literature, Doctrine_. London,
1872.
ISSAVERDENZ, _The Divine Ordinances according to the Catholic Armenian
Ritual_. Venice, 1867.
ALISHAN, _Armenian Popular Songs_. Armenian and English. Venice, 1867.
LORD BYRON’S _Armenian Exercises and Poetry_. Armenian and English.
Venice, 1870.
GENERAL INDEX.
A
ABERDEEN, Lord, 72
AGHTAMAR, 141, 145
ALEXANDER, 53, 133
AMERICANS
Position, 67, 148
Number, 149
Work, 141, 148–151
Influence, 152–154
Interests, 147–166
ANGLO-ARMENIAN ASSOC., 69
ANGLO-TURKISH CONVENTION
See England
ARMENIA
_Land_
Name, 44, 46
Extent, 45
Aspects, 44–46
Inhabitants, 45, 46
Condition, 9, 15, 32, 35, 39, 42, 46, 62–65
Autonomy, 69, 81
_Race_
Origin, 132
Number, 45, 142
Distribution, 44
Characteristics, 52, 140
Condition, chap. i., ii., iii., iv.
“Revolution,” Preface, Chap. i., 69, 81, 167
Progress, 79, 117, 154
_History_
Biblical, 132, 133
Classical, 134, 135
Armenian Sources, 144
In General, 53
_Church_
Apostolic Tradition, 136
Founder, 136
Doctrine, 137
Form, 137, 144
Heroic Struggle, 53
Decline, 139
Reform, 140, 143, 154
Catholicos, 137, 138
Political Significance, 138
Future, 138
_Literature_
Language, 132, 143
Pre-Christian, 143
Golden Age, 144
Second Period, 144
Modern Revival, 146
General Character, 144
_Massacre_
See Massacres
ARNAUT, 98
AUSTRIA, Preface, 104
AUTHOR, Purpose, Preface, 147
B
BAGDAD, 48
BAIBOURT, 46
BASHI-BAZOUK, 98, 102
BASHKALLA, 16, 49
BERLIN TREATY. See Treaties
BIBLIOGRAPHY, Appendix E
BILOTTI, Consul, 113
BISHOP, Mrs., 62, 67, 131, 154
BISMARCK, Preface, 78
BITLIS, 12, 16, 37, 43
BLUE-BOOKS. See England
BLOWITZ, M. de, 83
BOSNIA, 83, 84
BRITANNICA, Encyc., 48, 49
BRYCE, Hon. James, Preface, 69
BULGARIA, 73, 83, 96, 101, 126
BYRON, Lord, 154
BYZANTINE EMPIRE, 53, 134
C
CAIRO UNIVERSITY, 75
CASTLE, Kurdish, 49
CATHOLICOS. See Armenia
CENSORSHIP, 73, Append. C
CHERMSIDE, Consul, 113
CHIOS, 97
CHOSROES, 137
CHRISTIANITY, Toleration. See Mohammedanism
CHURCHILL, 96, 100
CIRCASSIANS, 73
CODE NAPOLEON, 89
COMMISSION of Inquiry. See Massacres
CONSULAR REPORTS.
British. See England
United States, 66
COUNCIL of Chalcedon, 157
COURTS. See Turkey
CRETE. See Massacres
CRIMEAN War, 72
CRISIS, 33, 35, 82, 84, Preface
CYPRUS Convention, 72, 76
D
DIARBEKIR, 48
DIPLOMACY
American, Preface, Append. A, B
European, Preface, Chap. v.
Turkish, 70, 77, 93
E
EASTERN QUESTION, Preface, 68, 85
EDUCATION, 87, 140, 143, 150, 155
EGYPT, 83
ENGLAND
Attitude, Preface
Responsibility, 69, 73, 76, 79, 103, 128. See Treaties
Efforts, 76–79, 123
Consular Reports, Preface, 48, 66, 68, 74, 77, 78, 112
ERZERUM, 46, 62, 66, 113
ERZINGAN, 21, 23, 46
EVERETT, Consul, 113
F
FANATICISM. See Mohammedanism
FRANCE, Preface, 78, 104, 107, 138, 140, 149
FREEMAN, 79, 85, 88, 117
G
GENGHIS KHAN, 136
GERMANY, Preface, 78, 104
GLADSTONE, on
Consular Reports, Preface
Sassoun Massacre, 121–125
Turkish Rule, 126–130
GOSCHEN, 78
GRANVILLE, 77
GREECE, 83, 89, 97, 127, 133, 154
GREGORY, The Illuminator. See Armenian Church
H
HALLWARD, Consul, 16
HAMLIN, Cyrus, 81, 167
HANNIBAL, 134
HARPOOT, 48
HATTI HUMAYOUN, 72
HATTI SHERIF, 71
HERODOTUS, 133
HERZEGOVINA, 83
HUGHES, 89
HUMANITY, Preface, 1, 33, 123, 127, 129
I
IBRAHIM PASHA, 71
IDENTICAL NOTE, 76
“ILLUMINATOR,” 53, 137, 138. See Armenian Church
IMPERIAL RESCRIPT, 71
INDEPENDENT, The, 54, 95, 101
INFORMATION
Channels, 66
Danger of, Preface, 1, 15, 16, 54, 62
Sultan’s, 13, 89, 92, 93
ISLAM. See Mohammedanism
ITALY, Preface, 104
J
JACOBITE, 54, 89
JESSUP, 75
JESUIT, 137
JEWS, 68, 89
K
KALLAY, M. de, 84
KERMANSHAH, 46
KHRIMIAN, Catholicos, 138
Motto on Title-page
KHOSHAB, Castle, 50
KNAPP, Attack on, 157
KORAN. See Mohammedanism
KURDISTAN
Country, 46
Kurds, 48–52
“Hamediéh” Troops, 1–30, 126
Outrages, 54–69, 157–164
L
LATHAM, 96
LAYARD, 96, 99
LEBANON, 93
LEON VI., 136
LLOYD, Consul-Gen., 66
M
MACCOLL, Canon, 72
MACGAHAN, 96, 103
MALATIAH, 46
MAMELUKES, 136
MARONITES, 99
MASSACRES in Turkey
_Greek_ (1822), 96–98
_Nestorian_ (1850), 96, 99
_Syrian_ (1860), 96, 99
_Cretan_ (1867), 104
_Bulgarian_ (1876), 96, 101
_Armenian_ (1877), 105–107
_Yezidi_ (1892), 108
_Armenian_ (1894), Chap. I.
Victims, Dedication
Evidence, 1–42
Uncalled for, 21, 23, 26, 36
Premeditated, 17, 18
Ordered, 7, 12, 14, 20, 28–30
Long Duration, 21, 31
Number Slain, 11, 15, 24
Manner, 20–23, 26, 31
Violation of Women, 15, 22, 27, 28, 39, 41
Denials, 12, 25, 27
Concealment, 11–15, 29–34, 40
Commission of Inquiry, Preface, 103
Gladstone’s Opinion, 121–125
MIDHAT PASHA, 86
MISSIONS. See Americans
Other Missions, 149
MOHAMMEDANISM
Founder, 110, 125
Koran, 89, 99, 111, 115
Exclusive, 115, 116
Spirit, 22, 74, 89, 110, 167
Rationalistic Types, 116
“Tolerance,” 42, 71, 74, 84, 107, 114, 127, 169
Converts from, 68, 114
Union with State, 111, 119
MOOSH, 43
MORFILL, 69
MOSUL, 48, 58
N
NEBUCHADNEZZAR, 53
NESTORIANS, 54, 89. See Massacres
NORMAN, 52, 85, 104
O
ORDOO, 72
OTTOMAN. See Turkey
P
PAGRATIDÆ, 134
PARRY, 107
PARTHIANS, 53, 134
PERSIA, 6, 43, 48, 53
PHIL-ARMENIC, 69
POPE, 88
PORTE, SUBLIME. See Sultan of Turkey
POWERS, EUROPEAN
Attitude, Preface, 67, 76, 81, 99, 104
Responsibility, 33, 41, 69, 88, 119, 122
PROTESTANTS
Origin, 153
Number, 150
Success, 147–154
Hostility to, 58, 71, 155
R
REYNOLDS, Attack on, 157, 163
REGISTER, The Christian, 127
RELIGION
Classification by, 152
Freedom of, 70–75, 110–120, 169
See Mohammedanism, Turkey
REVIEW OF REVIEWS, Preface
ROBERT COLLEGE, 115, 149, 155
ROLIN-JAEQUEMYNS, 78, 112
ROMANS, 53
RUPENIAN Dynasty, 136, 144
RUSSIA
Attitude, 53, 68, 104, 168
Feeling toward, 45, 52, 68, 73, 81
S
SALADIN, 48
SARACEN, 53
SASSANIDÆ, 134
SCHUYLER, EUGENE, 96, 101
SELJOUK, 53, 136
SELEUCIDÆ, 133
SHAH, 48
SHAW, DR. ALBERT, 7
SIOUFFI, 107
SMITH, R. BOSWORTH, 111
STAMBOUL, 70
STEIN, ROBERT, 96
STEVENSON, Preface, 121
STILLMAN, 104
STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE, Lord, 69, 109
STRONG, DR. JOSIAH, Introduction
SUBLIME PORTE, 90–94, 155
SULTAN
_Mohammed II._, 87, 152
_Selim I._, 88
_Mahmoud_, 97
_Medjid_, 71, 72
_Abd-ul-Hamid_, Preface
Sincerity, 13, 87, 91, 155
Helplessness, 88
Isolation, 124
Absolutism, 90–94
SYRIAN, 89, 96, 100
See Massacres
T
TACITUS, 134
TAMERLANE, 136
TIGRANES II., 134
TIMES, THE LONDON, 104, 127
TOZER, 136
TREATIES, Chapter iv.
Adrianople, 70
Berlin, 69, 73, 76–81, 112
Cyprus, Preface, 73, 76
Paris, 72
TREBIZOND, 12, 43, 113
TURKEY
Americans in. See Americans, United States
Antecedents, 117–120, 124, 127
Attitude, Preface, 81
Future, 108–109, 120, 127–130
_Government_
Administration, 11, 35, 46, 74, 109, 123, 128, 153
Courts, 41, 65, 74, 112
Divided, 92
Favors Kurds, 17, 20, 30, 62
Hostile to Christians, 10–41, 53, 66, 89, 100, 110–120, 153
Reports, 48, 67
Union with Islam, 111
Massacres. See Massacres
Moslem Races, 86, 90
Reform, 10, 70–75, 83, 88, 94, 109, 117–120, 129
Treaties. See Treaties
Taxation, 16, 27, 34, 49, 59–62
Travel, 43, 131
Turks, 46, 86
U
UNITED STATES
Attitude, Introduction, Preface
Consulates, 66, 163
Diplomacy, 157
Armenians in, 45
V
VAN, 37, 43, 49
Governor of, 19, 64
VIOLATION OF WOMEN, 15, 22, 27, 28, 39, 41, 98, 101, 105–107, 129
W
WALLACE, GEN. LEWIS, 157–162
WASHBURN, PREST. GEORGE, 115
WILSON, CONSUL-GEN., 73, 112, 114
X
XENOPHON, 133
XERXES, 53
Y
YEZIDI Massacre, 106
YURUK, 98
Z
ZEIBEK, 83, 98
ZEKKI PASHA, 21
ZOROASTRIANS, 134
-----
Footnote 1:
“I am at a loss to know why the Reports of Consuls ceased to be
furnished in or about the year 1881. Consuls are supposed to keep
their eyes open and to report facts regarding the people among whom
they live, and it is altogether a new idea that their Reports are to
be regarded as confidential documents. If they are to be so, that is
simply condemning the Consuls’ Reports to perpetual barrenness and
absolute inutility. Why are not consular reports to be made, and being
made, why are they not to be printed? If in this respect I am
personally, or anyone associated with me, is open to censure, let the
facts be brought out; but do not let a particular act at a particular
time be confounded with the adoption of the principle of eternal
silence about the horrors that prevail in Armenia.”—Speech by the Rt.
Hon. W. E. Gladstone, in House of Commons, May 28, 1889.
Footnote 2:
_The Speaker_, London, January 12, 1895.
Footnote 3:
“A good deal of misapprehension exists with respect to the
constitution of the Commission of Inquiry. It is not an international
but a Turkish Commission, and, to judge by past experience, Turkish
Commissions are instruments by which truth is suppressed and issues
are obscured. It is satisfactory that representatives of Great
Britain, France, and Russia will have the opportunity of examining the
_procès-verbaux_, besides being present at the sittings of the
Commission; and credit is due to the British Foreign Office for having
taken the initiative in securing this concession; but it must be
remembered that the powers of the international representatives will
be strictly limited, and that they will not be able to guarantee the
security of the witnesses.”—F. S. Stevenson, M.P., “Armenia,” in _The
Contemporary Review_, February, 1895.
Footnote 4:
See APPENDIX B on the establishment of new U. S. Consulates in Eastern
Turkey. Also APPENDIX A on American Diplomacy.
Footnote 5:
Brother and predecessor of the present Consul Jewett, at Sivas.
Footnote 6:
_Encyc. Britannica_, “Kurdistan.”
Footnote 7:
_Encyc. Britannica_, “Kurdistan.”
Footnote 8:
_Armenia and the Campaign of 1877._
Footnote 9:
A piastre is a Turkish coin of about five cents, or two pence-half
penny. In this region the pay of a day laborer is from two to five
piastres.
Footnote 10:
Often called Nestorian.
Footnote 11:
Mrs. Isabella Bird Bishop, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_, vol.
ii., p. 374, 375.
Footnote 12:
_The Contemporary Review_, May and June, 1891.
Footnote 13:
_The Case for the Armenians._ London: Anglo-Armenian Association.
Footnote 14:
_An Appeal to the Christians of America by the Christians of Armenia._
New York: Phil-Armenic Society.
Footnote 15:
Morfill’s _Russia_, p. 287. Putnam.
Footnote 16:
Rev. H. O. Dwight, _The Independent_, New York, January 17, 1895.
Footnote 17:
At the time of the Crimean War Lord Aberdeen said:
“Notwithstanding the favorable opinion entertained by many, it is
difficult to believe in the improvement of the Turks. It is true that,
under the pressure of the moment, benevolent decrees may be issued;
but these, except under the eye of some Foreign Minister, are entirely
neglected. Their whole system is radically vicious and inhuman. I do
not refer to fables which may be invented at St. Petersburg or Vienna,
but to numerous dispatches of Lord Stratford (de Redcliffe) himself,
and of our own consuls, who describe a frightful picture of lawless
oppression and cruelty.” (Sir Theodore Martin’s _Life of the Prince
Consort_, vol. ii., p. 528.) Quoted by Canon MacColl, _The
Contemporary Review_, January, 1895.
Footnote 18:
Judge.
Footnote 19:
Local districts.
Footnote 20:
Report of Mr. Wilson, _Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 8 (1881), page 57, No.
48.
Footnote 21:
_The Mohammedan Missionary Problem_, p. 31. Jessup. Philadelphia,
Presb. Pub. Soc.
Footnote 22:
_Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 6, 1881, reports of Wilson, Bennett,
Chermside, Trotter, Stewart, Clayton, Everett, and Bilotti.
Footnote 23:
_Blue-Book_, Turkey, 1881, p. 242.
Footnote 24:
Published by John Heywood, London, 1891, pp. 82–89.
Footnote 25:
Freeman, _The Turks in Europe_.
Footnote 26:
“Diplomatist,” “The Armenian Question” in _The New Review_, January,
1895.
Footnote 27:
Pp. 158–9. London: Cassell, Petter, & Galpin.
Footnote 28:
Speech in St. James’s Hall, December, 1876.
Footnote 29:
_The Nineteenth Century_, January, 1878.
Footnote 30:
From a descendant of Dahir Billah, the thirty-fifth caliph of Bagdad,
Sultan Selim I. “procured the cession of his claims, and obtained the
right to deem himself the shadow of God upon earth. Since then the
Ottoman padishah has been held to inherit the rights of Omar and
Haroun, and to be the legitimate commander of the faithful, and, as
such, possessed of plenary temporal and spiritual authority over the
followers of Mohammed.”[31] The Persians and Moors, however, reject
this claim, and at the close of the Russian War not a few of the Arab
muftis declared that the caliphate had been forfeited by the
inglorious defeat of the Turks, and should now return to the Arab
family of Koreish.
Footnote 31:
Freeman, _The Saracens_, p. 158. Quoted by Jessup, _The Mohammedan
Missionary Problem_, p. 21. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of
Publication, 1879.
Footnote 32:
Hughes, _Notes on Muhammadanism_, pp. 209, 210.
Footnote 33:
Hughes, _Notes on Muhammadanism_, p. 10.
Footnote 34:
Parts of this chapter are taken from an article, “Notes on the
Armenian Massacre,” in _The Independent_, New York, January 31, 1895,
by a high authority, who is compelled to sign himself “A Student of
Modern History.”
Footnote 35:
Latham, _Russian and Turk_, p. 417. London: W. H. Allen, 1878.
Footnote 36:
Layard’s _Nineveh_.
Footnote 37:
Colonel Churchill, _Druzes and Maronites_, p. 219. London: Quaritch,
1862.
Footnote 38:
Eugene Schuyler and Correspondent MacGahan, quoted in _The
Independent_, January 10, 1895.
Footnote 39:
Chapter I. of this book.
Footnote 40:
M. Gaston Deschamps: “En Turquie—L’Ile de Chio,” _Revue des Deux
Mondes_, p. 167, January 1, 1893.
Footnote 41:
Layard’s _Nineveh_, pp. 24–201.
Footnote 42:
Article by Mr. Savage, _The Independent_, January 10, 1894.
Footnote 43:
U. S. Consul Stillman’s _The Cretan Insurrection of 1866–7–8_. Henry
Holt & Co., 1874.
Footnote 44:
C. B. Norman, _Armenia and the Campaign of 1877_, pp. 293–298. London:
Cassell, Petter, & Galpin, 1879.
Footnote 45:
_The Independent_, January 17, 1895.
Footnote 46:
_Ibid._, January 31, 1895.
Footnote 47:
_The Eastern Question._
Footnote 48:
_New Review_ for January, 1895.
Footnote 49:
These extracts are from _Blue-Book_, Turkey, No. 8 (1881), pp. 57–110,
as quoted by the high authority, M. Rolin-Jaequemyns, in his _Armenia,
the Armenians, and the Treaties_, pp. 74–76. London: John Heywood,
1891.
Footnote 50:
The _Hakim_, who is a member of the religious body of _Ulemas_,
presides over the lower court (Bidayet), which is to be found in every
_caza_ (hundred), and also over the _Sandjak_ or district court.
Footnote 51:
_The Turks in Europe._
Footnote 52:
_The London Times_, Weekly Edition Jan. 14, 1895.
Footnote 53:
Reprinted from _The Christian Register_, Boston, Dec. 1, 1894.
Footnote 54:
And yet England by the Cyprus Convention pledged all her resources to
_keep the door open_, and the repetition thus made possible has
occurred. Author.
Footnote 55:
“Kurdistan abounds in antiquities of the most varied and interesting
character.... It may indeed be asserted that there is no region of the
East at the present day which deserves a more careful scrutiny and
promises a richer harvest to the antiquarian explorer than the lands
inhabited by the Kurds from Erzeroum to Kirmanshahan.”—Major-General
H. C. Rawlinson, _Encyc. Britannica_, article on “Kurdistan.”
Footnote 56:
Mrs. Isabella Bird Bishop, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_, 2 vols.
New York: Putnam’s, 1891. London: John Murray.
Footnote 57:
Gen. x., 2, 3.
Footnote 58:
Moses of Khorene, _History_, Bk. i., chap. 12.
Footnote 59:
Gen. viii., 4.
Footnote 60:
Heb. Ararat, 2 Kings xix., 37; Isa. xxxvii., 38.
Footnote 61:
Ezek. xxvii., 14; also xxxviii., 6.
Footnote 62:
Jer. li., 27–29; also l., 9, 41, 42.
Footnote 63:
Christian Lassen, _Die altpersischen Keil-Inschriften von Persepolis_,
Bonn, 1836, pp. 86, 87.
Footnote 64:
_History_, Bk. iii., chap. 93.
Footnote 65:
_Anabasis_, Bk. iv.
Footnote 66:
_Annales_, Bk. ii., ch. 56.
Footnote 67:
Tozer, _The Church and the Eastern Empire_, pp. 22, 86.
Footnote 68:
Krikor “Loosavoritch,” from which title the Armenian Gregorian church
calls itself Loosavortchagan.
Footnote 69:
Mrs. Bishop, _Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_, vol. ii., p. 336.
Footnote 70:
By far the largest part of foreign missionary work in Turkey has
always been in the hands of Americans, although, of course, they
neither claim nor have any monopoly in this respect. As a matter of
fact there are many other large and successful missionary, benevolent,
and educational enterprises conducted in that land by other foreign
societies as well as individuals. The various Roman Catholic orders
are strongly established in many parts, and are generally of French
connections and introduce that language in their work as the Americans
do English. The following is a partial list of other societies at work
in Turkey: The British and Foreign Bible Society, the Church
Missionary Society, the Bible Lands Missions Aid Society, the British
Syrian Mission Schools and Bible Work, the Church of Scotland Mission
to the Jews, the Society of Friends (both English and American), the
Irish Presbyterian Mission, the Reformed Presbyterian Mission, and the
German Deaconesses. In addition to all these agencies, there are many
private and local schools and institutions that are doing excellent
work, but of which only this general mention can here be made.
The statistics of Robert College, Constantinople, are not included in
these tables, as that institution, though a child of American
Missions, is independent of them.
Footnote 71:
“The creation of churches, strict in their discipline, and protesting
against the mass of superstitions which smother all spiritual life in
the National Armenian Church, is undoubtedly having a very salutary
effect far beyond the limited membership, and is tending to force
reform upon an ancient church which contains within herself the
elements of resurrection.”—Mrs. Bishop, _Journeys in Persia and
Kurdistan_, vol. ii., p. 336.
Footnote 72:
Unhappily there are some who can see nothing but bigotry and mistakes
in what the missionaries have done. Such characters are to be found
among all races, as the following extract shows:
“It might be thought that here, [Missilonghi] on the spot where he
[Byron] breathed his last, malignity would have held her accursed
tongue; but it was not so. He had committed the fault, unpardonable in
the eyes of political opponents, of attaching himself to one of the
great parties that then divided Greece; and though he had given her
all that man could give, in his own dying words, ‘his time, his means,
his health, and, lastly, his life,’ the Greeks spoke of him with all
the rancour and bitterness of party spirit. Even death had not won
oblivion for his political offences; and I heard those who saw him die
in her cause affirm that Byron was no friend to Greece.”—Stephens,
_Greece, Turkey, Russia, and Poland_, New York: Harper and Brothers,
1839.
Footnote 73:
This is an exact copy of the official documents as published by the
State Department, capitalization included.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
1. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.
2. Archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings retained as printed.
3. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.