TURKISH TRAITS
A jewel in a ten-times-barred-up chest
Is a bold spirit in a loyal breast.
SHAKESPEARE
THERE would seem to be two distinct strains of character influencing
principle and conduct in the Turks. The one is that of the Turanian, the
conquering Asiatic as typified, even before the Christian era, in a
Mithridates, and subsequently in Attila, Tamerlane, Timur, Ghingiz Khan.
The other is that of the Arab, whose code of life is contained in the
teaching of Islam, with its gospel of placability and charity. Sultan
Selim I represented the one in causing 40,000 Schiites to be
exterminated. It is related that when he proposed to convert by force or
exterminate the Christian population of his dominions, he was opposed,
as already mentioned, by the Arab element in the person of the Sheikh ul
Islam, who exhorted him to remember that Mohammed inculcated the duty of
protecting, not harming, the Christians. These antagonistic currents
were blended most harmoniously in the person of the renowned Saladin of
Crusading fame. Down to the present day the Turks have instinctively
recognized this duality and accepted it in the person of the Sultan,
whilst they themselves have adhered to the teaching of Mohammed and by
it regulated their own conduct. This explains why the Turkish people
view the irresponsible acts, the extravagances, and the severities of
their rulers so leniently as rightly appertaining to their exalted
position; whereas the Turk himself is remarkably free from such
tendencies. It explains their appreciation of the hard-working,
industrious qualities of their Sultan as these were typified in Abdul
Hamid, and their contempt for a lazy Sovereign like Abdul Aziz, though
they themselves as a people rather incline to the indolence of a
tranquil and contemplative life. Only when roused beyond endurance,
excited and perplexed, is the Turk galvanized into quick action and apt
to be resentful and cruel. Great crises find him placid and calm. The
vast mass of the Mohammedan people is deeply imbued with its own code of
ethics, and carries it into practice with a single-minded sincerity to
which it would be difficult to find a parallel. From this point of view
the Turk may be considered not so much “worldly” as “other-worldly.”
A deal of the mental acumen which with us is directed towards business
and the accumulation of wealth is devoted in the case of the Turks to
other and higher objects. While wealth and worldly position are our
aims, and failure to achieve either spells life bankruptcy, the Turk
appreciates conduct and good deeds as expounded in the Koran above
everything else. According to Guglielmo Ferrero, “the Moslem can never
pardon the unlimited materialism of Europeans.” Right conduct in all the
situations of life is impressed upon him by the law of Mohammed, and in
this respect the Moslem is more removed from European thought than in
any other, inasmuch as there is a harmony between his precepts and his
practice. He sees the stranger bowing down to rank and worldly position,
whereas with him class distinctions are scarcely more than official. In
Turkey, outside a comparatively few wealthy families—many of which are
Phanariote Greek Christians who have supplied high official servants for
generations to the Turkish State, and hold themselves somewhat aloof
from the Mohammedans—there is little superiority of caste or the
arrogance of class consciousness. The current standards are, in
conformity with the teaching of the Koran and the New Testament,
humanely democratic. Ahmed Midhat was at one time talked of as a
possible Grand Vizier, for the Sultan was convinced of his integrity as
well as of his ability. The fact that his father was a seller of cloth,
or that he himself began life as an apprentice, was so far from
constituting any disadvantage that neither he nor his friends would have
been able to understand the idea of his humble parentage being in any
way derogatory. All the less so since he was a man of magnificent
presence, one of the comparatively few in Constantinople who by their
appearance recalled the Sultans of the zenith of Ottoman power, who were
fathers at sixteen and still added to their family at the age of
seventy. So little does obscurity of birth constitute a stigma that a
Turk, after having once been a servant who took charge of the goloshes
of visitors left outside on entering a Turkish private house, became a
pasha and was given the name of Papoudji (or slipper) Pasha; this
cognomen was accepted by him and his friends rather as a compliment than
otherwise. A Turk would be despised who was ashamed of, or endeavoured
to hide, his humble antecedents, or denied his poor relations. He has no
understanding of those who, having got on in the world, neglect or cut
themselves adrift from their connexions because these have become
irksome and they are ashamed of them. When a man rises to high position
in Turkey he remembers only too readily those who belong to him, and now
and then gets himself into trouble by helping his poor relations or
those who have been friends of his obscure youth; and this often without
any other motive than the satisfaction to be derived from a kind action.
For in Turkey high position is supposed to be a reward for zeal in
service, for conduct, and is freely open to all classes. That it is
often bestowed upon the unworthy is only to say that judgment and
selection are fallible in Turkey as elsewhere; but there can be no doubt
that service rendered is in the first instance the test.
It is only among the Turks who have mixed with Europeans, particularly
in diplomacy, that you find that hauteur, that “class-selfish
arrogance,” and that degree of cynicism which have been acquired in
social intercourse in the capitals of Europe. From the ranks of these
Europeanized Turks sprang the artificial element who upset the ancient
régime, with small prospect, as we now see, of putting anything better
in its place.
But if obscurity of origin does not constitute a bar to advancement it
would be a mistake to suppose that the Turks attach no weight to an
illustrious ancestry. Izzet Pasha introduced me, as already mentioned,
to a Ulema at the Palace who, he assured me, could trace his descent not
only from Mohammed, but back to Abraham. Their conception of an
aristocracy is one of descent from men renowned for their virtues.
So great is the value which the Turks attach to conduct that, even in
their favourite authors, they do not rest satisfied with precept or with
doctrine, but look, besides, for conduct. Thus those of philosophic bent
are not attracted by Voltaire or even by Schopenhauer. They are
influenced by such thinkers as Büchner, Justus Möser, Spinoza, and
Herbert Spencer, who lived as they taught. Conduct is verily the
keystone of Mohammedan ethics, for while the Sultan is accepted as the
direct representative of Mohammed in the eye of the Faithful, the Sheikh
ul Islam, although in a sense himself a nominee of the Sultan, possesses
final authority as interpreter of the word of the Prophet. He is
invested with far more real authority than that possessed by any priest
in the world with the single exception of the Pope of Rome. The Sheikh
ul Islam may be said to be the spiritual watchman set by Mohammed to
control the conduct of his worldly successors. The most ominous feature,
as I was repeatedly assured in connexion with the later years and tragic
end of Sultan Abdul Aziz, was that he had incurred the censure of the
Sheikh ul Islam and through this had lost caste with the Sheikhs,
Mollahs, and Ulemas, and lastly had aroused the hostility of the Softas.
They accused him of neglecting his duties and leading a life of
idleness. Months before his dethronement the mosques of Constantinople
were deserted even on days of high festival.
Whatever some Turks may think of the form of government under which they
live, and more particularly of the centralization of power in the hands
of a Sultan, their appreciation of Abdul Hamid as a man could be gauged
by anybody who had the opportunity of mixing freely with them. Most
illuminating were casual comments, inasmuch as they often reflected the
ideals of the people. The Turk never talks for the sake of talking, and
scorns the rhetorical tricks of the actor. He is a sincere and a
dignified man. You never heard the Sultan extolled as a great sportsman
or a war lord, rarely as a statesman, although Abdul Hamid enjoyed a
high and probably an exaggerated reputation in this respect. But you
would often hear him praised as being good and kind. “Sa Majesté est si
bon; il est un vrai gentilhomme,” and above all, “C’est un Sultan
travailleur,” “Il travaille jour et nuit pour le bonheur de son peuple,
ses sujets,” were expressions I often heard in private conversation.
If a visitor felt that he had been slighted where he deemed he was
entitled to some attention on the part of the Sultan, the Turks would
apologize for their ruler and tell the stranger that he must not be
harsh in his judgment, as His Majesty was busy day and night working for
the good of his vast dominions. More than this, the Sultan was not above
apologizing himself to quite minor folks if they had done him good
service and he fancied that he had failed in attention towards them.
“Tell Mr. X I have been so busy with one thing and another that I have
not been able to see him and thank him as he deserves for the services
he has rendered our country.” This was by no means an unusual message
for a stranger to receive from the Sultan. Indeed, it is a question
whether the Sultan did not owe his popularity rather to his being a true
representative of some of the most marked Turkish traits of character,
such as a sense of gratitude, generosity, simple distinction, and
hospitality, than to his political abilities as a ruler.
It has been asserted that the sentiment of democratic brotherhood and
disregard for the privileges of birth and caste are responsible for the
downfall of the Turkish régime. I am inclined to think that it has been
largely the human attributes indicated above which enabled an
anachronistic system of uncontrolled autocracy to live so long.
Nobody knew the Turkish character more thoroughly than my good friend
Avellis. Never have I met a more enthusiastic champion of their virtues
or a more earnest apologist for their defects.
“Believe me,” Avellis would say, “if you find a Turk is dishonest, you
may be sure that he belongs to the gang of pashas at the Palace, or that
he has imbibed roguery from contact with Levantine Christians or
Europeans. A long residence in European capitals deprives him of his
most sterling and attractive characteristics. It robs him of his faith
and his unspoilt patriarchal virtues, with their intensely human
attributes. When he loses his faith he acquires in its place the
sceptical cynicism which distinguishes the upper classes in every
European capital.” Avellis believed that European society had a debasing
influence on the Turk, just as the European on coming to Constantinople,
unless of an exceptionally fine type, becomes vitiated by associating
with the Levantine. “There is no finer man on earth than the
uncontaminated Turk. I have often signed contracts with Turks without
understanding their contents (for I read their writing with
difficulty),” continued Avellis, “and I would not hesitate to do so
again. I know them to be incapable of falsehood or deception, unless
debased by intercourse with Europeans. The unspoilt Turk is incapable of
dishonesty. No one practises the virtues of humanity, the tenets of
faith and charity to such a degree as he. Be a Turk ever so poor, no
beggar will appeal to his hospitality in vain. Let us suppose it is the
end of the Ramadan Fast. He is just sitting down to his first frugal
meal after the prescribed fast, and one still poorer than he enters and
solicits a morsel of food. As often as not he will exclaim: ‘Boujourun
Effendem,’ meaning ‘Welcome, sir, help yourself.’ If there is not enough
for two he may even invite the stranger to partake of what he himself
was about to eat, too proud to let his guest think that he had not
already satisfied his own hunger.
“You must know the best type of Turk intimately to realize the extent of
his generosity, of his sense of gratitude, the delight he takes in
giving pleasure to others—that true test of love of our fellow-men. Then
note his freedom from envy, the petty jealousies, trickeries, and
arrogance which are such unlovable traits of my own countrymen, the
Germans, whose overbearing demeanour of late years has become more and
more objectionable in Turkey.
“Think of the patience and forbearance of the Turks in tolerating abuses
of the liberty granted to aliens. No Government in any other country of
the world would put up with the like of it. The Greeks are the most
unabashed offenders. They parade their dead through the streets of
Constantinople with the face of the corpse exposed, a morbid exhibition
which is not allowed in Greece. Look at the disgraceful orgies of
disorder among the Greek colony of Constantinople on the celebration of
the Orthodox Greek Easter Day, with men discharging firearms
promiscuously in the street from Saturday evening till Monday morning.
Every year a number of people are wounded, if not killed, by accidents
on these occasions.”[26]
Footnote 26:
During my last visit to Constantinople—it was at Easter-time—I was
invited to the house of a Levantine pasha, but the dinner had to be
put off because his Greek cook had injured his hand by firing off a
rusty old pistol in celebration of Easter Day.
During my various visits to Turkey I have had ample opportunities of
hearing the opinions held by those who have mixed with the best Turks
with respect to them. No testimony is more valuable than that of
cultured Englishmen who have lived long in the East, more particularly
such as have been engaged in a large way in commerce, or held positions
in the Turkish naval and military service. In this connexion I may
mention the well-known English family of merchant princes of which at
that time the late Sir William Whittall was the head. The very name of
Whittall has long been a passport throughout Asiatic Turkey,
guaranteeing safe conduct in remote regions where scarcely a European is
seen for years and years together. Such Englishmen are thorough-going
admirers of the Turkish character and are distinct from those who have
done so much by journalistic work to estrange England from Turkey, and
Turkey from England.
Many are the stories told of the simple-minded attachment of the Turks
to their employers, their superiors, even though these be Christians,
and thus presumably with little affinity with them. Prince Alexander of
Battenberg could not speak too highly of the fidelity of the Mohammedan
element among his Bulgarian subjects: their orderliness, their freedom
from crime, their childlike loyalty to him. After an important debate in
the Sobranje—the Bulgarian Parliament—the Mohammedan members would call
upon him privately at the Palace of an evening and seek instructions
from him how he wished them to vote.
My old friend, Admiral Sir Henry Woods Pasha, who has been more than
thirty years in the Turkish service, could never tell me enough of the
devotion of the Turkish sailors under his command. Count Szechenyi
Pasha, the Hungarian nobleman who for many years was at the head of the
Constantinople Fire Brigade, which he originally organized, after having
learned the business as an apprentice under the late Captain Shaw in
London, is another of those who hold a high opinion of the fidelity and
devotion of the Turks. Such evidence from men in whom the gentleman was
innate before they had been lifted into rank and position by the Sultan
is most valuable. They were inspired with gratitude towards their
benefactor and declined to turn against him in the hour of his
difficulties. One who had been approached with this object in view
during the Armenian crisis indignantly replied: “No, I cannot, I will
not bite the hand that has fed me.” Alas, that there were too few of
this stamp among the men Abdul Hamid distinguished by his favour.
There is probably no city, Moscow not excepted, in which so many fires
take place as in Constantinople. The flimsy woodwork of the houses in
the Turkish quarters, which the heat of a Constantinople sun turns in
course of time to tinder, partly accounts for it. Nor must the
temptation to arson among the Greeks and Armenian trading element be
lost sight of. Most of the insurance is done in English offices, for the
English insurance offices have hitherto been those which have met claims
most handsomely and with fewest awkward questions. I have repeatedly
watched the firemen as, with bare legs and chests, they rushed
breathless in a body in the wake of the fire-engine across the Galata
Bridge to some fire in the Stamboul quarter. One could not help being
impressed by their evident whole-hearted enthusiasm, though they got
little pay and no reward, and it was easy to understand how in times
gone by a rush of half-naked Turkish warriors, sword in hand, has proved
well-nigh irresistible against clumsily moving knights in armour and
awkward pikemen. This might even explain victorious inroads up to the
very walls of Vienna. The development of modern firearms and tactics,
for which the Turk by his temperament is ill-fitted, seems to account
for the modern defeats of the Turks far more than any racial decline.
Where the virtues of courage, sincerity, piety, and self-sacrifice have
admittedly remained unchanged, it would be absurd to talk of
degeneration. What can be admitted is that the character of this fine
race may be no longer fitted to cope successfully with the intricate
demands of a modern, highly systematized civilization.
------------------------------------------------------------------------