The Turks who lived in Turkistan and territories lying to the north of
China arrived in the tenth century and settled down in Persia and Asia
Minor, together with some allied or subject races, such as the Tatars.
There they founded several dynasties. Out of the numerous branches
of the Turkish race we will only deal with the Ottomans, who were to
establish their rule in Asia Minor and Europe.
People too often forget the wonderful rise of the Turkish Empire,
which for nearly three centuries increased its power and enlarged its
territories; and they lay too much stress on its decline, which began
two centuries and a half ago.
The Oghouz tribe of Kaï, following the Seljuks more or less closely
in their migrations, reached the uplands of Asia Minor about the end
of the tenth century. While part of the latter retraced their steps
towards the territories from which they had started, the others settled
down and founded the Empire of Rum. The Seljukian chief, Ala Eddin
Kaï Kobad I, gave to Erthoghrul, a son of Suleiman Khan, the ancestor
of the Seljukian dynasty of Konia, the summer pasturage of Mount
Toumanitch, south of Brusa, on the boundaries of the Roman Empire of
Byzantium. Erthoghrul and his successors strengthened and enlarged
their dominions and laid the foundation of Ottoman power.
Othman, or Osman, settled at Karahissar about the end of the thirteenth
century, at the time when the Seljukian Empire of Rum was destroyed by
Mongol inroads, and he conquered several of its principalities.
Orkhan conquered the rest of Asia Minor and set foot in Europe in
1355. Amurath I took Adrianople, subjugated Macedonia and Albania, and
defeated the Serbs at the battle of Kossowo in 1389. By the victory
of Nicopolis in 1396 Bajazet I conquered Bulgaria and threatened
Constantinople, but Tamerlain’s invasion and Bajazet’s defeat in
1402 at Ancyra postponed the downfall of the Byzantine Empire. The
Turkish Empire recovered under Mohammed I and Amurath II, who made
new conquests and entirely subdued the Serbians in 1459, Mohammed II
took Constantinople in 1453, quickly subdued the Greek peninsula, and
annihilated the Byzantine Empire. He also took Carmania, the Empire
of Trebizond in 1461, Bosnia, Wallachia in 1462, and Lesser Tartary,
and even made an incursion into Italy. The Turkish Empire continued
to expand for nearly another century. In 1517 Selim I turned Syria,
Palestine, and Egypt into Ottoman provinces; he took Mecca and acquired
Algiers in 1520. Soliman II made new conquests. In Asia he added to
the Empire Aldjeziresh and parts of Armenia, Kurdistan, and Arabia; in
Europe, after capturing part of Hungary, Transylvania, Esclavonia, and
Moldavia, and taking Rhodes from the Knights, he came to the gates of
Vienna in 1529, and in 1534 added Tunis to his empire, and Tripoli in
1551. At the beginning of his reign Selim II conquered the Yemen, and
in 1571 took Cyprus from the Venetians; but next year the Turkish fleet
was utterly destroyed at the battle of Lepanto.
Turkish domination then reached its climax, and from this time began
its downfall. Internal difficulties soon showed that the Ottoman Empire
was beginning to decline. From 1595 to 1608 Turkey lost territory in
Hungary, though, on the other hand, by the battle of Choczim, she
conquered new districts in Poland. After a few perturbed years, in 1669
Mohammed IV took Candia, which Ibrahim had vainly attempted to conquer.
But henceforth the decline of the Empire was rapid, and its territories
were dislocated and dismembered. The regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and
Tripoli became practically independent. By the fall of Carlovitz, which
put an end to the 1682-1699 war, the Turks lost nearly the whole of
Hungary. By the treaty of Passarovitz, they lost Temesvar and a part
of Serbia, which was restored to them by the peace of Belgrade in
1740. The Russians, with whom they had been fighting since 1672, and
who began to get the upper hand during the 1770-74 war, took from them
Bukovina and Lesser Tartary, the independence of which was recognised
by the treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarji. After a new war from 1809 to 1812,
the treaty of Bukharest gave to Russia the provinces lying between
the Dnieper and the Danube. In 1809 Turkey lost the Ionian Islands,
which became independent under an English protectorate. The victory
of Navarino made Greece free in 1827. The Turks were obliged to cede
Turkish Armenia to Russia in 1829, and, after a new war with Russia,
Wallachia, Moldavia, and Serbia were put under Russian protection by
the treaty of Adrianople. France conquered Algeria in 1831. In 1833
the pasha of Egypt, Mehemet Ali, rebelled, captured Syria, defeated
the Turks at Konia, and threatened Constantinople. Turkey, lying at
the mercy of Russia, opened the Bosphorus to her ships and closed the
Dardanelles to the other Powers by the treaty of Hunkiar-Iskelessi in
1833.
Yet a reaction took place, and it seemed that Mehemet Ali, who helped
the Sultan to subdue the insurgent Greeks, was likely to stop the
downfall of Turkey. But his fleet was annihilated at Navarino, October
20, 1827, by the combined fleets of England, France, and Russia. He
received Candia from the Sultan as a reward for his co-operation, but,
not having been able to obtain Syria, he broke off with the Sublime
Porte. An intervention of the European Powers put an end to his
triumph. Turkey recovered the territories she had lost, and, in return
for this restitution and for giving back the Turkish fleet, he obtained
the hereditary government of Egypt under the suzerainty of the Porte.
Turkey then attempted to revive and to strengthen her condition by
organisation on European lines.
As early as 1830 a liberal movement had made itself felt in Turkey as
in many other States. The Ottoman Government realised, too, that it was
necessary to get rid of the Russian influence imposed upon her by the
treaty of Hunkiar-Iskelessi, and so was compelled to institute reforms.
As early as 1861 Midhat Pasha, first as vali of the Danubian
province, then as vali of Baghdad in 1869, and later on in Arabia,
showed much enterprise and evinced great qualities of organisation and
administration. When recalled to Constantinople, he became the leader
of the Young Turk party.
Mahmoud II and Abdul Mejid renewed the attempts already made by Selim
III at the end of the eighteenth century, with a view to putting an end
to the utter confusion of the Empire, and instituted various reforms
borrowed from Europe. In 1853 France and England helped Turkey to repel
a new Russian aggression, and the treaty of March 30, 1856, after the
Crimean war, guaranteed her independence.
But the reign of Abdul Aziz, which had begun in such a brilliant way,
proved unfortunate later on. A rising in Crete was suppressed with
great difficulty in 1867; in 1875 Herzegovina and Bosnia, urged on by
Russia, rebelled, and Serbia, who backed the rebels, was defeated in
1876. Abdul Aziz, on account of his wasteful financial administration
as well as his leaning towards Russia, which he considered the
only State to be favoured because it was an autocratic government,
unconsciously aided the Tsar’s policy against his own country, and
uselessly exhausted the resources of Turkey. Yet under his reign the
judicial system, the army, and the administration were reorganised,
the legislation was secularised, and Mussulmans and non-Mussulmans
were set on a footing of equality. These reforms, prepared by his two
predecessors, were carried out by him. He was forced to abdicate by an
insurrection in 1876, and committed suicide.
His successor, Mourad V, became mad and reigned only a few months.
He was dethroned and replaced by his brother Abdul Hamid, who, on
December 23, 1876, suspended the liberal constitution that the Grand
Vizier Midhat Pasha had promulgated. On February 5, 1877, he disgraced
Midhat Pasha, who left the country and lived abroad. Midhat Pasha was
allowed to come back to Turkey later, and ordered to reside in the Isle
of Crete. He was then appointed governor of the vilayet of Smyrna,
but was charged with the murder of Abdul Aziz, imprisoned in the
fortress of Taïf in Arabia, and assassinated on February 26, 1883.[7]
A rising of Bulgaria, which the Turks put down ruthlessly, caused
European intervention and a new war with Russia backed by Rumania and
Montenegro. The Turks, beaten in 1877, had to sign the preliminaries of
San Stefano, modified by the treaty of Berlin in 1878. Rumania, Serbia,
and Montenegro became independent States; Eastern Rumelia an autonomous
country; and Bulgaria a tributary principality. Austria occupied Bosnia
and Herzegovina, England Cyprus, and in Asia the Russians received
Kars, Ardahan, and Batum. The Berlin Conference in 1880 allowed Greece
to occupy Larissa, Metzovo, and Janina.[8]
In 1898 Turkey slightly recovered, and in seventeen days her armies
routed Greece, and the country would have ceased to exist but for the
Tsar’s intervention with the Sultan.
However, as the condition of Turkey at the end of Abdul Hamid’s reign
was growing more and more critical, the old ambitions entertained by
several Great Powers revived. At the meeting of Edward VII and Nicholas
II at Reval, the question of the extension of the European control
which already existed in Macedonia was discussed.
The revolution of July 23, 1908, which put an end to Abdul Hamid’s
autocratic rule, instituted constitutional government in Turkey.
The Great Powers were at first taken aback, but without troubling
themselves about Turkey’s chance of regeneration, they carried on their
rivalries, all trying to derive some profit from Turkey in case she
should become prosperous and powerful, and at the same time doing their
best to prevent her from reviving in order to be able to domineer over
her and exhaust her the more easily.
For a long time previously many Turks of the younger generation,
who regretted the condition of the Empire, and were acquainted with
European ideas, had realised that, if Turkey was not to die, she must
reform herself. They had tried to further this aim by literary methods
and had carried on propaganda work abroad, being unable to do so in
Turkey. The reign of Abdul Hamid, during which the old régime had
become more and more intolerable, was to bring about its overthrow,
and in this respect the revolutionary movement was the outcome of
Turkey’s corruption. Among the numerous instigators of this movement,
Enver Bey and Niazi Bey, who were then only captains garrisoned in
Macedonia, soon became the most prominent. The revolutionary elements
were chiefly recruited from the university students, especially those
of the School of Medicine and of the Mulkieh School. Officers of the
highest rank, such as Marshal Redjeb Pasha, who, when governor of
Tripoli, had plotted against Abdul Hamid, were on the committee; but
the masses, among whom the Young Turk propaganda had not penetrated,
at first stood aloof, as they did not know the views of the members of
the committee, who, before the revolution, had been obliged to carry on
their propaganda very cautiously and among few people, for fear of the
Sultan’s reprisals.
The movement started from Albania. Macedonia, the province which was
most likely to be wrested from the Empire, and Syria immediately
followed the lead, and the revolutionary movement soon met with
unanimous approval.
On April 13, 1909, a reactionary movement set in which failed only
because of Abdul Hamid’s irresolute, tottering mind. It was supported
by the garrison of Constantinople, which comprised Albanian troops,
the very men who had lent their aid to the revolution at first, but
had been brought back to the Sultan’s party by the lower clergy and
politicians whose interest it was to restore Abdul Hamid’s autocratic
rule, or whose personal ambitions had been baulked. Troops, comprising
Albanians, Bosnians, and Turkish elements, and reinforced by Greek,
Bulgarian, and Serbian volunteers, old komitadjis, were summoned to
Salonika.
The reaction of April 13 seems to have been partly due to foreign
intrigue, especially on the part of England, who, anxious at seeing
Turkey attempt to gain a new life, tried to raise internal difficulties
by working up the fanaticism of the hodjas, most of whom were paid
and lodged in seminaries, and so were interested in maintaining Abdul
Hamid’s autocratic government. These manœuvres may even have been the
original cause of the reactionary movement.
Mr. Fitzmaurice, dragoman of the English embassy, was one of the
instigators of the movement, and the chief distributor of the money
raised for that purpose. He seems to have succeeded in fomenting the
first internal difficulties of the new Turkish Government. After
the failure of the reactionary movement, the Committee of Union and
Progress demanded the dismissal of Mr. Fitzmaurice, who later on
settled at Sofia, where he continued his intrigues.
Then the government passed into the hands of the Committee of Union and
Progress which had brought on the revolution, and which practically
governed the country from 1908 till the signing of the armistice
between the Allies and Turkey.
The Committee of Union and Progress, which at the outset had shown a
liberal and enlightened spirit, soon became very powerful; but, being
the only ruling power in the country, they soon left the straight
path and began to indulge in corrupt practices. The leaders’ heads
were turned by their sudden success, and they were not sufficiently
strong-minded to resist the temptations of office in a time of crisis.
All the power was soon concentrated in the hands of a few: Talaat,
Enver, and Jemal, all three men of very humble origin, who, when still
young, had risen rapidly to the highest eminence in the State.
Enver, born on December 8, 1883, was the son of a road-surveyor. At
twenty he left the cadet school of Pancaldi, and became a prominent
figure at the time of the revolution. After Abdul Hamid’s downfall,
he was sent to Berlin, whence he returned an enthusiastic admirer of
Germany. After distinguishing himself in Tripoli, he was made War
Minister at the end of the Balkan war. He was naturally very bold; his
brilliant political career made him vain, and soon a story arose round
him. He became rich by marrying a princess of the Imperial Family, the
Sultan’s niece, but it was wrongly said that he married a daughter of
the Sultan—a mistake which is easily accounted for as in Turkey anybody
who marries a princess of the Imperial Family bears the title of
imperial son-in-law, Damad-i-Hazret-i-Shehriyari. At any rate, Enver’s
head was turned by his good fortune.
Talaat is supposed to be the son of a _pomak_—that is to say, his
ancestors were of Bulgarian descent and had embraced Islam. He was born
at Adrianople in 1870, received an elementary education at the School
of the Jewish Alliance, then became a clerk in a post-office and later
on in a telegraph-office. Owing to the liberal ideas he propounded
and the people he associated with, he was sentenced to imprisonment.
Two years after, in 1896, when he came out of prison, he was exiled
to Salonika, a centre of propaganda of the Young Turks who were then
attempting to overthrow Abdul Hamid. He had learned very little at
school, but had a quick wit and great abilities; so he soon obtained a
prominent place among the leaders of the revolutionary movement, and in
a short time became a moving spirit in the party, together with Enver,
Marniassi Zadé Refik Bey, and Javid Bey. Very strongly built, with
huge, square fists on which he always leant in a resolute attitude of
defiance, Talaat was a man of great will power. When the constitution
was granted to the Turkish people, he went to Adrianople, where he was
returned Member of Parliament. Soon after he became Vice-President of
the Chamber, then Minister of the Interior. But he always remained an
unassuming man and led a quiet life in a plain house. He was among
those who desired to turn his country into a modern State, in the
Anglo-Saxon sense of the word, with the help of Germany and by using
German methods, which was perhaps his greatest mistake. When war broke
out, Talaat was Minister of the Interior in the Cabinet in which the
Egyptian prince Said Halim was Grand Vizier. On February 4, 1917, when
this Ministry resigned, he became Grand Vizier, and on February 17, in
the course of the sitting of the Constantinople Parliament, he declared
that he intended to maintain the alliance with Germany to the end.
Jemal Pasha is of Turkish descent. He left the War Academy as Captain
of the Staff, and married the daughter of Bekir Pasha, who commanded a
division of the second army garrisoned at Adrianople. This Bekir Pasha
had risen from the ranks, and when he was still a non-commissioned
officer had throttled Midhat Pasha with his own hands. It has
been wrongly stated that his father was the public executioner at
Constantinople during the reign of Mahmoud II. Whereas Talaat’s and
Enver’s manners were distant, Jemal professed to be affable and strove
to please, though he was very cruel at heart. He was looked upon as a
friend of France when he came to Paris in 1914 to raise the Ottoman
loan. He was appointed military governor of Constantinople after Nazim
Pasha’s murder, January 10, 1913, in which he and Talaat and Enver had
a share; then he became Minister of Marine.
Talaat fully represented the Committee of Union and Progress, and
was supported by it, but Enver and Jemal, though also members, did
not make use of their connection with the party. Indeed Enver, who
disagreed with Talaat, had nothing to do with the party after he had
been appointed War Minister, and when he was called upon to resign
during the war, he retained his office with the support of Germany.
Only the difficulties which the Empire experienced could have brought
together three men who were actuated by such widely different motives;
at any rate the omnipotence of the Union and Progress Committee, which
even caused some liberals to regret the passing of the old régime, was
contrary to the constitutional system which the party had purposed to
institute in Turkey.
Though the leaders of the Unionist movement drove Turkey to the verge
of ruin, yet the movement itself to a certain extent aroused in the
Turkish people a consciousness of their rights, which they had nearly
given up under the control of foreign countries; the movements of
opinion brought about, and even the reaction that set in finally,
roused that national feeling, which found expression soon after the
events of the last war.
* * * * *
It must be acknowledged that the Capitulations, the extension of
which led to the improper interference of foreign nations in the
home affairs of the Ottoman State and gave them a paramount power
over it, formed one of the chief causes of the modern ruin of Turkey,
by weakening and disintegrating it. The extension of the economic
Capitulations was made possible by the carelessness of the Mussulmans
in commercial matters, and by their natural indolence, while the
extension of the judicial Capitulations, which originated in a Moslem
custom dating from the Middle Ages, seems to have been due to the
condescension of the Sultans.
It is a well-known fact that Mehmet II, by the treaty he signed in
1434, granted to the Republic of Venice extra-territorial privileges
consisting of commercial immunities, the benefit of which was claimed
afterwards by the Powers the Porte had then to deal with. Those
immunities, renewed with slight alterations, constituted what was later
on called the Capitulations.
In 1528 Soliman II officially ratified the privileges which French and
Catalonian merchants living in Constantinople had been enjoying for
a long time, according to an old custom. The treaty signed by this
monarch in 1535 confirmed the old state of affairs. By this treaty the
French king, Francis I, both secured the help of Turkey against his
enemies, and promised the Ottoman Empire the protection of France; at
the same time he obtained for French merchants the privilege of trading
in the Eastern seas, preferential customs duties on their goods, the
obligation for all foreigners trading in the East to sail under the
French flag, and the privilege of appointing consuls in the Levant who
had jurisdiction over their fellow-countrymen. Lastly, the treaty
not only secured to France the protectorate of the Holy Places, but
also entrusted her with the defence of all the Latin religious orders,
of whatever nationality, which were beginning at that time to found
establishments in the East.
These stipulations, renewed in 1569, 1581, 1604, and 1673, secured
to France both commercial supremacy and much prestige throughout the
Ottoman Empire, and gave a permanent character to the concessions made
by Turkey. The agreement that sealed them and seemed unchangeable soon
induced other foreign nations to claim further privileges.
By the end of the sixteenth century Turkey had to grant similar
privileges to Great Britain, and the contest between the British
representative, Sir Thomas Glover, and Jean de Gontaut-Biron, the
French ambassador, has become historical. Nevertheless France for
nearly two centuries maintained her position and influence.
So it was with Russia in 1711 and the United States in 1830. The
Ottoman Empire had even to concede almost equal advantages to Greece
and Rumania, countries which had enlarged their boundaries at her
expense.
Such privileges, which were justifiable at the outset, soon brought
on unrestricted and unjustifiable interference by foreign Powers in
Turkish affairs. The Powers attempted to justify the establishment
and maintenance of this régime by alleging they had to protect their
subjects against the delays or evil practices of the Turkish courts of
justice, though the Powers that had managed to gain great influence in
Turkey were already able, through their embassies, to defend fully the
rights and interests of their own subjects.
In virtue of the judicial privileges, all differences or misdemeanours
concerning foreigners of the same nationality were amenable to the
consuls of the country concerned, whose right of jurisdiction included
that of arrest and imprisonment; cases between foreigners of different
nationalities were heard in the court of the defendant, this applying
to both lawsuits and criminal cases; while, in lawsuits between Turkish
subjects and foreigners, the jurisdiction belonged to the Ottoman
tribunals; but, as the Consul was represented in court by an assessor
or a dragoman, the sentence depended chiefly on the latter. As a matter
of fact, these privileges only favoured the worst class of foreigners,
and merely served to make fraud easier.
Lastly, from an economic point of view, the Capitulations injured the
Turkish treasury by binding the Ottoman State and preventing it from
establishing differential duties, at a time when a war of tariffs was
being carried on between all States.
During the reign of Abdul Hamid, owing to the facilities given by this
state of things, the interference of the Powers in Turkish affairs
reached such a climax that they succeeded not only in bringing Turkey
into a condition of subjection, but in disposing of her territories,
after dividing them into regions where their respective influence was
paramount. The greediness of the Powers was only restrained by the
conflicts their rivalry threatened to raise. If one of them obtained
a concession, such as the building of a railway line in the region
assigned to it, the others at once demanded compensation, such as the
opening of harbours on the sea-fronts assigned to them. Things went so
far that Russia, though she could not compete with the Powers whose
rivalry gave itself free scope at the expense of the Ottoman Empire,
intervened to hinder Turkey from constructing a system of railways in
Eastern Asia Minor, alleging that the building of these lines would
endanger her zone of influence. The railway concessions had to be given
to her, though she never attempted to construct any of the lines.
In addition, by laying stress on the Capitulations, in which nothing
could be found that supported their demands, the Great Powers
established foreign post-offices in the ports of the Empire. These
post-offices, which enjoyed the privilege of extra-territoriality, were
only used by foreign merchants and persons of note to smuggle in small
parcels, and by native agitators to correspond safely with agitators
living abroad.
Of course Turkey, being thus brought into subjection, did not develop
so rapidly as the nations which, not being under any foreign tutelage,
enjoyed independence; and it is unfair to reproach her with keeping
behind them.
After the revolution, and owing to many requests of the Turkish
Government, some economic alterations were made in the Capitulations,
such as the paying of the tradesman’s licence tax by foreigners, and
the right of the State to establish monopolies. Austria-Hungary, when
the question of Bosnia-Herzegovina was settled, consented to give up
her privilege concerning the customs duties, on condition that other
Powers did the same. A short time after Germany promised to do so, but,
among the other Powers, some refused, and others laid down conditions
that would have brought more servitude to Turkey and would have cost
her new sacrifices.
The Unionist Government, as will be shown later, cancelled the
Capitulations during the last war.
* * * * *
After recalling the wonderful political fortune of the Turkish Empire,
we should remember that, after bringing Eastern influences to Western
countries, it had also an influence of its own which was plainly felt
in Europe. Western art drew its inspiration from Eastern subjects, and
at the end of the eighteenth century everything that was Turkish became
the fashion for a time.
This influence was the natural outcome of the close intercourse with
the Levant from the Renaissance till the eighteenth century, and of the
receptions given in honour of Eastern men of mark during their visits
to European courts. It is not intended to discuss the question of the
relation between Turkish art and Arabian art, and its repercussion on
Western art, or of Eastern influence in literature; but it will be
well to show how much attraction all Turkish and Eastern things had
for the people of the time, and how happily the imitation of the East
influenced decorative art and style, as if the widely different tastes
of societies so far apart had reached the same stage of refinement and
culture.
Records are still extant of the famous embassy sent by the Grand Turk
during the reign of Louis XIV, and the embassy sent by the Sultan of
Morocco to ask for the hand of the Princess de Conti, for in Coypel’s
painting in the Versailles Museum can be seen the ambassadors of the
Sultan of Morocco witnessing a performance of Italian comedy in Paris
in 1682. Later on the Turkish embassy of Mehemet Effendi in 1721 was
painted by Ch. Parrocel.
Lievins’ “Soliman” in the Royal Palace of Berlin, a few faces drawn
by Rembrandt, his famous portrait known as “The Turk with the Stick”
in MacK. Tomby’s collection, which is more likely to be the portrait
of an aristocratic Slav, the carpet in “Bethsabe’s Toilet after a
Bath,” bear witness to the Eastern influence. So do the Turkish
buildings of Peter Koeck d’Aelst, who was the director of a Flemish
manufactory of tapestry at Constantinople during Soliman’s reign;
the scenes of Turkish life and paintings of Melchior Lorch, who also
lived at Constantinople about the same time and drew the Sultan’s and
the Sultana’s portraits; and the pictures of J.-B. van Mour, born at
Valenciennes, who died in Constantinople, where he had been induced to
come by M. de Ferriol, the French King’s Ambassador; of A. de Favray;
and of Melling, the Sultana Hadidge’s architect, who was called the
painter of the Bosphorus.[9]
There may also be mentioned Charles Amédée van Loo’s pictures: “A
Sultana’s Toilet,” “The Sultana ordering the Odalisks some Fancy Work,”
“The Favourite Sultana with her Women attended by White and Black
Eunuchs,” “Odalisks dancing before the Sultan and Sultana,” most of
which were drawn for the king from 1775 to 1777, and were intended as
models for tapestries; and also the portrait of Madame de Pompadour
as an odalisk, “The Odalisk before her Embroidery Frame,” and “A
Negress bringing the Sultana’s Coffee,” by the same painter. To these
may be added Lancret’s Turkish sketches, the drawings and pastels of
Liotard, who left Geneva for Paris about 1762, then lived in the ports
of the Levant and Constantinople, and came back to Vienna, London,
and Holland, and whose chief pictures are: “A Frankish Lady of Pera
receiving a Visit,” “A Frankish Lady of Galata attended by her Slave”;
and also Fragonard’s “New Odalisks introduced to the Pasha,” his sepia
drawings, Marie Antoinette’s so-called Turkish furniture, etc.
In music any sharp, brisk rhythm was styled _alla turca_—that is, in
the Turkish style. We also know a Turkish roundelay by Mozart, and a
Turkish march in Beethoven’s “Ruins of Athens.”
At the end of the eighteenth century, not only did people imitate the
gorgeousness and vivid colours of Turkish costumes, but every Turkish
whim was the fashion of the day. Ingres, too, took from Turkey the
subjects of some of his best and most famous paintings: “The Odalisk
lying on her Bed,” “The Turkish Bath,” etc.
* * * * *
Lastly, the Great War should teach us, in other respects too, not
to underrate those who became our adversaries owing to the mistake
they made in joining the Central Powers. For the “Sick Man” raised
an army of nearly 1,600,000 men, about a million of whom belonged to
fighting units, and the alliance of Turkey with Germany was a heavy
blow to the Allied Powers: Russia was blockaded, the Tsar Ferdinand
was enabled to attack Serbia, the blockade of Rumania brought on the
peace of Bukharest, Turkish troops threatened Persia, owing to which
German emissaries found their way into Afghanistan, General Kress von
Kressenstein and his Ottoman troops attacked the Suez Canal, etc. All
this gave the Allies a right to enforce on Turkey heavy terms of peace,
but did not justify either the harsh treatment inflicted upon her
before the treaty was signed, or some of the provisions of that treaty.
It would be a great mistake to look upon Turkey as of no account in the
future, and to believe that the nation can no longer play an important
part in Europe.
Footnotes:
7: _Midhat Pacha, Sa vie et son œuvre_, by his son
Ali-Haydar-Midhat Bey (Paris, 1908).
8: Janina was occupied by Greece in 1912-18.
9: Cf. A. Boppe, _Les Peintres du Bosphore au dix-huitième siècle_
(Paris, 1919).