CONCLUSION
Truths can never be confirmed enough,
Though doubts did ever sleep.
SHAKESPEARE
ENGLISHMEN who are old enough to remember the Crimean war might well rub
their eyes on coming to Constantinople to-day, where the stranger, after
being shown the public fountain in Stamboul dedicated by the German
Emperor to the Sultan, is taken over the water to Scutari, where, in the
most picturesque cemetery in the world, England’s dead warriors sleep
under the cool shade of the cypress-tree. Gone are the days when
Englishmen and Turks fought as Allies, when the Sultan Abdul Medjid
visited the British Embassy as the guest of his trusted friend, Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe, when English capitalists supported Turkey’s
credit, and English merchant princes first introduced railways into
Turkey and dominated the sea-borne commerce as well as the passenger
traffic of the Levant. In those times the Englishman embodied in the
eyes of the Mohammedan Turk all that was estimable and reliable among
the “Franks.”
Since those comparatively recent days many changes have been wrought.
Foreign bankers, powerful international syndicates have encroached upon
English financial influence, and nearly all the Turkish railways and
most of the shipping have gone into other than English hands. The finest
passenger steamers that come to Constantinople are German, Austrian,
Italian, and Russian. The dead alone sleep on as before, under the shady
groves of Scutari.
Whatever may be the causes which have brought about these changes, it is
permissible for an Englishman to deplore them, not only on economic
grounds, but also as a matter of sentiment and of sympathy with the
Turks, who have been the greatest losers thereby.
Alas that the supreme ordainment of things in the life of nations, even
of whole races and creeds, takes small account of the ups and downs, the
sufferings of whole generations of human beings, whatever be their
virtues. The Albigenses represented a far higher level of culture,
conduct, and principle than those who took up arms against them and
brought about their extermination. So also with regard to the Turks in
our day, their good qualities are not those which are imperative in
order to enable a community to hold its own in times of strenuous
commercialism and of unscrupulous political rivalry and intrigue.
For many years the traveller entering Turkish territory at the railway
station of Mustapha Pasha saw the Custom House officers in ragged
uniforms, on the look-out for baksheesh, since their small salary, if
ever paid, was certainly in arrear. How could he come to any other
conclusion than that conditions prevailed here which are no longer
tolerable in Europe? For even in Asiatic Russia, with all its
backwardness, they do not exist. This impression of the anachronism of a
Turkey in Europe is likely to be applied to Asia as well by those who
have traversed that part of the world, unless some drastic
administrative and financial reforms are put into force at once.
Calling one day in the summer of 1896 at the British Embassy, at
Therapia, the late Sir Michael Herbert, who was in charge during Sir
Philip Currie’s absence, told me that about a hundred years ago the
Ambassador of the French Republic at Constantinople, in writing home to
his Government, wound up his letter by declaring that the prospects of
Turkey looked so desperate that he would not be surprised if the Turkish
Empire had ceased to exist before the arrival of his letter.
During a visit I paid to Constantinople in January 1907 something
occurred which impressed me forcibly with the conviction that the
Hamidian régime, the desire of one man, however well-intentioned and
industrious, to do single-handed all the directing work of an empire,
was doomed to failure; and this in spite of the many evidences I had
had, both in Europe and in Asia, of the personal popularity of the
Sultan. It was the talk of Pera that the Chief of the Secret Police,
Fehim Pasha, had been guilty of some extraordinary pranks; among them
the instigation of sham conspiracies which he pretended to nip in the
bud in order to give proof of his devotion to the Sultan. All attempts
to draw the Sultan’s attention to this man’s misdeeds had apparently
failed, owing, it was said, to His Majesty’s indulgence towards one who
was the son of his own foster-brother. Emboldened by success, Fehim
Pasha had extended his sphere of black-mailing operations to members of
the European colony, while several murders were put to his account as
having been their instigator. Still he managed to elude the arm of
justice. At last he took upon himself to lay an embargo on a ship,
either belonging to a German or in the cargo of which some German firm
was interested. Here, however, he came into conflict with the German
Ambassador, the late Baron Marschall von Bieberstein, who promptly took
the part of his countrymen, saw that the embargo on the ship in question
was removed, and, distrustful of the dilatoriness of the officials at
the Sublime Porte, lodged a strongly worded complaint direct at the
Palace. This ultimately resulted in Fehim Pasha being banished to Asia
Minor, where he was subsequently assassinated by a mob in the street.
This tragic development, however, only took place after I had left
Constantinople.
The German Ambassador, who was always very friendly and frank with me,
one day discussed the situation created by Fehim Pasha’s delinquencies.
He convinced me that the man was a scoundrel, and that he himself had
done no more than what he was perfectly entitled to do in endeavouring
to bring one to book who was neither more nor less than a criminal
miscreant, fully deserving to be given over to the public hangman.
I happened to call at the Palace next day, and went up as usual into the
private room of Izzet Pasha, where, quite unexpectedly, I met my old
friend Ahmed Midhat Effendi. It was one of the very few times I had ever
known him to pay a visit to the Palace. Fehim Pasha’s crimes and the
energetic measures of the German Ambassador formed the subject of
conversation in the room. Izzet Pasha warmly expressed his indignation
at an Ambassador presuming to interfere in what he considered to be a
purely internal incident. “Qu’est ce qu’il s’imagine, ce Monsieur de
Marschall?” Knowing what I did of the affair on such good authority, I
was taken by surprise, the more so as Ahmed Midhat Effendi joined in
upholding the innocence of the incriminated pasha. I could scarcely
credit the culpable ignorance thus revealed to me by those to whom it
should have been a first care not to lead their master astray on an
issue of such vital importance. I said it was hopeless for the
well-wishers of Turkey to attempt to say a good word for their
Government as long as such things were possible; that the German
Ambassador had had the training of a State Prosecutor, and certainly was
not one to be misled by unreliable evidence, or to be moved from his
point once he had decided upon it; and that English newspapers, which
were not usually over-favourably disposed to German interests, had
strongly supported the Ambassador in this particular matter. But it was
all to no purpose. I failed to shake their belief in Fehim Pasha’s
innocence. They even asserted that he was quite a good fellow. The most
they would admit was that he had been somewhat hasty and headstrong
owing to his youth, “un peu étourdi.” It is only fair to state, however,
that those present did not show any ill-feeling at my being so
plain-spoken; but this was only in accordance with what I have so often
experienced in the Turkish character. Still I left the Palace with a
pessimistic feeling.
Sirry Bey, who had been the chief of our expedition in Armenia, called
on me at the Pera Palace Hotel one evening and said: “I come to you on
behalf of His Majesty. He feels his dignity trespassed upon by the
interference of the German Ambassador in this Fehim Pasha business,
which he holds to be one of an internal nature not concerning a foreign
Ambassador, and he would like to see you.” I mentioned to Sirry Bey what
I had heard from the Ambassador, and told him that it seemed to me to be
a black business, and he would do well to convey this opinion to the
Sultan. In due course I received a message to come up to the Palace
immediately as the Sultan wanted to see me.
On my arrival I was taken in to His Majesty, and he at once began to
discuss the Fehim Pasha incident, and to complain of the conduct of the
German Ambassador. As the editor of the _Daily Mail_ had asked me to
send him a report in case I should have an opportunity of interviewing
the Sultan, I asked His Majesty whether he would wish me to give his
version of the affair to that paper, at the same time repeating to him
what I had heard about Fehim Pasha’s delinquencies. Whether the Sultan
attached any importance to what I told the interpreter I am unable to
say, but in reference to my suggestion he held up his hands in a
deprecatory manner, and uttered the words, “Yok! yok!” (“No! no!”) twice
in succession.
“It is nothing more than my plain duty to see justice done,” the Sultan
said to me. And as if it were monstrous that a doubt could exist with
regard to so self-evident a truism, he added: “Even if it were one of my
own sons, I would see justice done.”
Of course, I respected his wishes, and did not refer at all to the
German Ambassador in my interview with His Majesty, a report of which
appeared in the _Daily Mail_ of March 8, 1907. There would also have
been no point in my doing so, as I was convinced of the hopelessness of
the Sultan’s case, whatever might have been the uncompromising attitude
the German Ambassador had taken up. Since such outrages were possible
under the very eyes of the diplomatic representatives of the Great
Powers in the capital in broad day, was it not within the range of
probability that many crimes which had been imputed to the Sultan had
indeed been committed, though without his knowledge? I left
Constantinople with the conviction that nothing, not even the support of
the German Empire, could long sustain a régime in which such things were
allowed to happen.
The rivalry of the different European nationalities forms too important
a feature in the eyes of the foreign visitor, at least those of a
political turn, not to call for comment. Nowhere are Goethe’s
words—written nearly a hundred years ago—more applicable than to this
subject:
Und wer franzet oder brittet,
Italienert oder teutschet
Einer will nur wie der Andere
Was die Eigenliebe heischet.
_West-Oestlicher Divan_
The idea conveyed is that whether a man speaks in the name of France,
Britain, Italy, or Germany, the burden of his contention is invariably
self-interest, self-love.
The question of German influence in Turkey has become such a prominent
feature in the public eye that it seems to warrant more than a passing
reference from one who has had many opportunities of following its
development. Our attention has been drawn so much of late to this
influence that we are apt to lose sight of what is likely to be a more
lasting, as it is certainly a more valuable, feature, namely, its effect
as a practical civilizing force. Indeed, this advent of the German, and
with him of the Belgian, the Swiss, the Italian, and the Hungarian, as
financial and industrial pioneers, as erectors of railways, schools,
hospitals, and other useful institutions, may be said to mark a new
beneficial era in the East. Nor should it be forgotten that the Germans
and their partners have now and then shown a commendable spirit in
inviting the co-operation of others whom they to some extent have
superseded. For although the Anatolian Railway is essentially a German
undertaking, M. Huguenin, a French Swiss, has been elected its chairman.
The Mersina-Adana Railway, originally an English enterprise, has also
been taken over by the Germans, but they have re-elected the former
chairman, an Englishman, resident in Constantinople, to preside over the
board of directors. Nor need there be any reason why, under normal
conditions, a similar friendly co-operation should not exist in all
directions, not merely in commercial and financial matters, but also in
the domain of politics. It is therefore to be regretted that the
flamboyant circumstances under which the Sultan’s Iradè for the
concession of the Bagdad Railway was obtained, and suddenly communicated
to the world by the usual telegram, were calculated to arouse an
uneasiness in the public mind which a less sensational departure would
have avoided. The onerous financial guarantees imposed upon the Turkish
Government by the German concessionnaires have not tended to increase
the popularity of the German element among thoughtful Turks or the broad
strata of the Turkish people who are called upon to make sacrifices for
an undertaking the political and economic importance of which they have
not the knowledge to appreciate. To such as these the German
concessionnaire appears somewhat in the light of the usurer, who is now
in addition credited with political aims which Germany long persistently
repudiated. But however this may be, there can be little doubt that she
has lost rather than gained in her hold on the sympathies of the Turks,
since, in addition to the scalpel of the surgeon, the text-book of the
schoolmaster, and the staff of Mercury, she has added the sword of the
soldier and the Field-Marshal’s baton to the emblems of her activities
in the Ottoman Empire, and increased the jealousy of the other Great
Powers. Promises of political support to Turkey were undoubtedly given.
The Sultan was encouraged to favour the reactionary military element in
making appointments. Soldiers were asked for as Ambassadors in
preference to diplomatists of Phanariote families, although the latter
had supplied for generations past the most able Turkish diplomatists. By
Imperial desire a Mohammedan Turkish cavalry officer, Tewfik Pasha, a
charming companion, but one completely ignorant of politics, was
appointed Turkish Ambassador in Berlin, and remained there until the
Turkish revolution in 1908. It is not for non-Germans to decide whether
it was to the advantage of the more solid German interests in Turkey and
of Turkey herself that the Sultan’s favourites were loaded with Prussian
decorations. The last Grand Vizier of Abdul Hamid, Ferid Pasha, an
Albanian, only a few days before his dismissal received the Grand Cross
of the Black Eagle, a distinction supposed to be on a level with our
Order of the Garter. There are things a Government can do which would be
reprehensible if done by a private individual, but there are also things
which are permissible to an individual but which a Government cannot do
without imperilling those unweighable assets the correct estimation and
cherishing of which was one of Bismarck’s strongest points. He would
never have stooped to such little manœuvres; neither have the English
nor the Russians nor even the French condescended to curry favour with
the Turks by such questionable means.
For years past the German official world has made a business of
flattering the Turks, instead of warning them and, as true friends,
insisting on the execution of the reforms upon which the public opinion
of Europe insisted. This has been more particularly the case since the
Græco-Turkish war of 1897, which was the moment when Germany might have
been able to at least postpone the evil day of reckoning which has come
in our time on the blood-stained fields of Thrace and Macedonia.
Turkey’s German friends, with all the privileged insight they were
allowed into her affairs, appear to have been blind to the black
political outlook of the Turkish Empire which politically gifted
Italians such as Mazzini and Crispi foresaw and confidently foretold
half a century ago. Germany’s policy in Turkey encouraged the Turks to
procrastinate and assume a truculent attitude. Hence the collapse of
Turkey has been a moral blow to military Germany which might have been
avoided, and which no sophistry can hide.
The Turkish officers who have served in the German army may have become
imbued with the militant atmosphere of the officers’ mess of the Potsdam
Guards; but this does not mean that they have assimilated the better
qualities of the German army. And even if they had, they could not
possibly hope to engraft these upon the Mohammedan Turk, who is in every
way their antithesis. The Turks are very different from the imitative,
assimilative Japanese, with whom German military instructors are said to
have been so successful. Thus, contrary to current surmise, I venture to
hold the heretical opinion that the expectations founded in some
quarters on a successful Germanization of the Turkish army are doomed to
disappointment. The best type of English or French officers would be
more likely to suit as instructors of the Asiatic Turks, as they have
both proved their capacity in this respect in their dealings with
Asiatics in the past. But an even more pressing question may possibly
present itself, namely, the growing political aspirations of Germany in
Turkey, which her policy since Bismarck’s retirement, hand in hand with
the optimistic publications of many German military writers, has done so
much to encourage. These elements also find a support to-day in the
headstrong aggressiveness of the Turkish officers above referred to.
According to a recent interview with the King of Roumania, that
far-sighted monarch characterized them as the one danger still
threatening peace in the East.
The English, whatever their mistakes may have been, have played a more
dignified and, as I venture to believe, a more far-sighted part—one
which thoughtful Turks now recognize was well meant to Turkey.
The general policy of England is graphically laid down in the following
letter which the late British Ambassador at Constantinople, Sir Nicholas
O’Conor, favoured me with a few months before his death:
“I have no hesitation in saying that I think the strong point in our
English policy is the fact that we have invariably based our
representations to the Ottoman Government on the undoubted interests of
both the Christian and Moslem subjects of the Sultan; that we have
upheld justice to all the people; and that we have fought for an honest
administration and political freedom, without compromising either the
interest of the State or its Sovereign.
“We have kept aloof from the many selfish and ruinous commercial
concessions which have been so disastrous in their consequences, and we
have abstained from any demands which were not in the interests of
Turkey as well as of England. We alone have built, organized, and
developed a railway without a penny guarantee from the Turkish
Government, and by capable and honest administration we have made it a
commercial success. I refer, of course, to the Smyrna-Aidin Railway.
“This attitude on our part has been appreciated by Turkey and more
especially by the Moslems.
“The several demands which England has put forward as conditions to her
consent to the 3 per cent. increased Customs duty are as much in the
interests of Turkish as of foreign trade, and our resolute insistence on
these points has been an object-lesson all round.
“We have impressed upon Turkey the advantages of developing her enormous
internal resources, and we have succeeded in obtaining such alterations
of the old Mining Law as will now permit British as well as foreign
capital to be embarked in Turkey without more risks than usually attend
such enterprises.”
My own experience fully corroborates the above statement of the British
Ambassador that the Mohammedans have indeed appreciated the rectitude of
English policy and its freedom from all shady transactions. Also as
regards the best class of Englishmen (for these alone come into
consideration)—once they have rid themselves of their prejudices—their
self-restraint, reserve, and, above all, their reliability and fair
dealing in personal intercourse generally cause them to be trusted, if
not liked, by the Mohammedan, who instinctively distrusts effusiveness,
voluble protestations, and more particularly the obtrusiveness
associated with the pushing commis-voyageur. This explains why many
Turks, even in the hour of their humiliation, prefer the English to
others in spite of many advantages they may have reaped from the latter.
That Germany may retain and even increase the commercial hold which she
has already gained in Turkey seems more than likely unless others are
prepared to compete successfully with her in financial enterprise and
industrial efficiency. Her geographical position places her in easy
connexion with the Turkish Empire for commercial purposes not only
through Roumania and the Black Sea but also by the Danube and by rail
through Servia and Bulgaria. All this is decidedly in her favour. But
whether in the long run she will be able to use these assets to gain a
permanent political ascendancy extending over Asia Minor, as openly
advocated by the pan-German party, may well be open to question. Certain
idiosyncrasies of the German character erect between the races a barrier
which does not exist when the Turk comes into contact with the English,
the Italians, the French, and the Greeks. Apart from all this the
geographical position of Germany seems to set fixed limits to her
political ambitions. For if there is a country the situation of which
might well entitle her to look forward to political possibilities in
Turkey, it is surely Austria-Hungary, whose frontiers for centuries past
along the Danube have been co-terminating with those of Turkey. The
character of the Austro-Hungarians also shows many points of affinity
with that of the Turks. The German language is another stumbling-block
in the way of extending German ideas beyond certain limits,[29] and it
encounters a powerful competitor in the French language. French has been
recognized in Turkey as the foremost tongue of the “Franks” for nearly
three hundred years. There are close upon six hundred schools in Turkey
in which French forms part of the regular curriculum. French is spoken
more or less by nearly every Turkish official above a certain rank;
German by scarcely any. This difficulty of the German language competing
with the French has already been felt by the German authorities engaged
in the working of the Anatolian Railway. It will also be found a
hindrance in case serious efforts should be made to start German
colonies along the track of the railway, a plan few people who have
visited these regions think likely to succeed, at least yet awhile,
although many Germans will recall the strange story of the Saxon colony
in Transylvania, and fondly imagine that this unique phenomenon is
likely to repeat itself in Asia Minor. Germany’s geographical position,
which is in her favour where commercial facilities are concerned, is
decidedly against her once political influences come to the fore.
Several instances in point have arisen of late years in which she has
been unable to convert her Turkish sympathies into effective action in
favour of Turkey against the opposition of Russia, France, and England.
This was notably the case in the naval demonstration against Turkish
rule in Crete in 1898 and also in a lesser degree in the Græco-Turkish
war of 1897, when, Russia objecting to the German military instructors
taking part in that campaign, Turkey was prevailed upon to recall those
who had already started for the front. An even more recent case in which
Germany failed to support Turkish interests successfully arose in
connexion with English action on the Egyptian frontier, and this is
still in public memory. But by far the most potent cause which is likely
to prevent German political influence getting beyond certain
well-defined limits in Turkey is to be found in the ever-watchful
jealousy of Russia—Turkey’s most relentless and stealthy foe.
Footnote 29:
During our two months’ journey through Armenia in 1897–98 Dr. Hepworth
and myself did not come across a single German, nor even one person
who spoke German, though in common fairness it must be admitted we did
not touch the Anatolian Railway tract, which is, of course, largely a
German enterprise. French, English, Italian, and Greek were the
European languages spoken.
Neither England, France, nor Russia, as great Mohammedan Powers, can be
expected in the long run to view the “conversion” of German influence
into the assumption of the part of Protector of Islam with complacency,
much less with favour. The fact that the action of these Powers is
apparently a passive one for the present would not justify us in
assuming that it will permanently remain so.
The real disposer of Turkey—the vulture hovering overhead, ready to
swoop down upon her, though restrained for a time by the kindly feelings
of the present Emperor Nicholas[30]—is, and always was, Russia: Russia,
which has steadily and relentlessly aimed at the destruction of the
Mohammedan empire of the Ottomans.
Footnote 30:
I have it on good authority that the present Tsar solemnly promised
Sultan Abdul Hamid that he would not undertake anything against Turkey
in his lifetime. This personal promise has been nullified now that the
Sultan has been dethroned.
From the moment England and Russia arrived at an understanding the
fate of Turkey in Europe was in jeopardy, and any ambitions which
Germany had in Turkey were doomed to sterility. Even to-day their
hopelessness is not realized, for the Germans still enjoy the fruits
of past prestige, and the Russians, who are not petty where great
issues are at stake, have quietly looked on at Hedjas and Bagdad
Railway concession-mongering. It will only be when Germany makes any
serious attempt to galvanize Asiatic Turkey into life that the
Russians will and can cry “Halt!”
Friedrich Bodenstedt—and few better judges of Eastern life could be
quoted—writing fifty years ago, has the following: “The Caucasus is the
basis of future world-hegemony. Which does not mean that it will come
about in a day, nor vanish overnight, but gradually and inevitably,
without the befooled nations, proudly conscious of their superior
education, having a suspicion of the danger which threatens them. The
submission of Shamyl in the east and the exodus of the Circassians in
the west of the Caucasus are events of which the Press took hardly any
notice at the time, but which future generations will consider to be
among the most important happenings of the century.”[31]
Footnote 31:
“Tausend und ein Tag im Orient.” Berlin, 1865.
A glance at the map of the Turkish Empire and its frontier separating
the territories of the Northern Colossus should be sufficient to bring
home to the most casual student the full significance of this passage,
and to illuminate M. Nelidow’s remark to me in 1896, “We shall never
allow others to handle the key of our house,” meaning the Bosphorus. But
nobody could well traverse Anatolia and witness its desolate condition,
without roads or bridges—more backward than Siberia or Manchuria—without
realizing that the danger of absorption by Russia is like the sword of
Damocles, a menace ever present. As a matter of fact, Russia occupied
Erzeroum temporarily in 1878, and only the pressure of England at the
Congress of Berlin induced her to withdraw. As long as England was at
variance with Russia the danger was kept in suspense, but now that they
are united in an entente it would be foolhardiness for any other Power
to imagine that it could intervene and prevent by force of arms any
consummation which these two had agreed upon. Should such an entente
lead to a dividing up of Asiatic Turkey into different spheres of
influence among the Great Powers, there would in all probability be a
European war, as foreshadowed by Professor Vambéry,[32] which ultimately
would be only too likely to result in the incorporation of the greater
part of Turkey in Asia in the Russian Empire, since Russia never will,
and in view of her geographical position never can, allow Germany to be
the permanently dominating influence on the Bosphorus.
Footnote 32:
See Appendix, p. 291.
In the course of my first visit to Prince Bismarck in April 1891, the
topic of Russia’s intentions with regard to Constantinople was
discussed. To my surprise, the Prince stated that he did not believe
Russia intended to take Constantinople. Russia might even undertake to
guarantee the Sultan in the possession of his palaces, his harem, and
his wives on condition that no other strong Power should be dominant on
the Bosphorus. I ventured to ask the Prince whether he did not think
such a development might be inimical to British interests. Bismarck
replied: “Not necessarily so.”[33]
Footnote 33:
I was on the point of publishing this conversation at the time, but
wrote first to Bismarck to ask his permission, to which he replied
asking me to refrain from publication.
Leaving these far-flung possibilities out of consideration, it is worth
while pondering what beneficial part England can play in the East. Many
liberal-minded Englishmen have advocated that Germany and England should
join hands with other nations and endeavour to work peacefully together,
in order to enable Turkey to introduce reforms, exploit her unlimited
resources, and thus place herself in a strong independent position in
Asia; the only hope left to her.
The British Government might be careful not to send minor officials to
Turkey imbued with dislike for the Turk. Such men play into the hands of
our rivals by drawing up reports marked by ill-feeling towards the
Turks, by corresponding with English newspapers in the same vein, and
thereby they indirectly hamper English chances in the competition for
commercial advantages. When these practices have ceased, then the
goodwill of the Turk will come as a matter of course, and will readily
take the practical shape of giving English capital an equal chance in
competing for the many valuable opportunities for developing trade still
to be had in Turkey; for it may come as news to many Englishmen that,
next to Holland and Switzerland, Turkey has the lowest tariff of any
country in Europe, and approaches nearest to the English ideal of Free
Trade. The splendid work already done by England in Egypt, particularly
in the matter of irrigation, affords ample guarantee that honest
co-operation between England and Germany, as advocated by
Lieutenant-Colonel H. P. Picot (see Appendix, p. 294), might not only
result in an addition to, but in a multiplication of, forces working for
the benefit of Turkey and for the advantage of the world at large.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX
IN the autumn of 1912 a paragraph appeared in a London evening paper
announcing that a street in Plumstead had been named after Professor
Arminius Vambéry, the eminent Hungarian scholar, who, as is well known,
was a personal friend of Queen Victoria and Edward VII, and I sent it to
him. This little incident led to a correspondence between us, of which
the following letters of the Professor, written in English, are a
portion. After his death I sent copies to his son, Dr. Rustem
Vambéry—who, like his father before him, is now a Professor at the
University of Budapest—and received by return the authorization to
publish them, which is embodied in the first letter of the series. In
view of the eminence of Professor Vambéry as an authority on Eastern
affairs, I gladly avail myself of his kind permission to do so.
BUDAPEST, _October 11, 1913_.
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—I thank you most heartily for the delicacy of
feeling which prompted you to give me the opportunity of
revising my father’s letters to you, which you are quite at
liberty to publish.
I have read them carefully through, and see no reason to alter
or omit anything. You know how proud my father was of his status
as an independent man, who could freely express his views
without let or hindrance. Why should I not continue to act for
him in this spirit now that he has passed away?
It might perhaps interest you to know that your work on
Austria[34] was the last book he read in his life. The afternoon
before his death he asked me to read a few pages aloud, for his
sufferings (oppression of the heart) were alleviated by the
distraction.
He was a great admirer of your writings, a feeling which has
been fully inherited by
Yours most sincerely,
DR. R. VAMBÉRY
(Professor of Criminal Law at the University of Budapest).
Footnote 34:
“The Realm of the Habsburgs,” by Sidney Whitman. Wm. Heinemann,
London, 1892.
I
BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY, _November 12, 1912_.
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—It was very kind of you to remember the old
Dervish and to take interest in the honour bestowed upon him by
your magnanimous countrymen.[35] Any services I may have
rendered to England are insignificant; but I am proud of having
been able to champion England’s interests, for, in spite of all
shortcomings, you are still the greatest nation in the world.
The fate of our poor Turkish friends is sealed. They will get
rid of the cumbersome European ballast, and it is to be wished
that they should be able to recuperate in Asia, where they
cannot be replaced by any other Moslem nation. Their collapse in
Europe was inevitable, and it is only the suddenness of the fall
which has surprised me.
My son is much pleased by your kindly remembrance of the slight
attention he was able to pay to you. He only acted as in duty
bound towards a foreigner and an Englishman.[36]
Yours very truly,
A. VAMBÉRY.
Footnote 35:
Reference to the naming of a street in Plumstead already mentioned
above.
Footnote 36:
Reference to my stay in Budapest in the summer of 1897, during which I
made the acquaintance of Professor Vambéry’s son.
II
_December 14, 1912._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—Allow me to express to you the great pleasure
I felt in reading your article published in the _Pall Mall
Gazette_ under the title “Some German Military Writers.”[37] It
is certainly highly gratifying that you, sir, whom I know as the
most able writer on German affairs in England, should have come
forward to give a good lesson to these overbearing gentlemen. It
is in any case a most important _signum temporis_, and it must
diminish the idolization of brutal force, of sad mediæval
traditions. The eminent soldier who wrote the book “Unser Volk
in Waffen” (General von der Goltz) is often quoted by Germans
when comparisons are drawn between England and Germany’s
Imperial power, and deductions are drawn therefrom of Britain’s
near downfall. Well, let us hope that they are grossly mistaken,
just as they were mistaken in predicting a sure victory for the
poor Turks, of whom a great German once stated, in the presence
of Sultan Abdul Hamid, that “_one Turkish soldier was worth
three Prussians_.” The German military instructor may have
succeeded in turning the goodly Turk into a Prussian, minus the
Pickelhaube, but Lule-Burgas has proved a most cruel
disenchantment to the glorifiers of General Bernhardi’s
theories.
In so far I agree with your views. But there is one point with
regard to which the English must take particular care, and this
is not to fall into the mistake of disregarding the necessity
arising from the general situation of European armaments.
Formerly the English were quite right to pity the man on the
Continent forcibly made a soldier; to-day, however, you must
consider the Latin saying, _Ulula cum lupis_, and you are
compelled to take note of your next-door neighbours. You must
approve Lord Roberts’s efforts regarding compulsory military
service. If Lord Haldane finds it possible to admire all sorts
of German theories and institutions, why does he make an
exception with regard to universal military service, which is a
genuine German invention?
Yours very truly,
A. VAMBÉRY.
Footnote 37:
In the issue of December 4, 1912.
III
BUDAPEST UNIVERSITY, _December 30, 1912_.
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—I have read your ably written chapter on
Sultan Abdul Hamid with much interest, and I may tell you that I
can neither add to nor take away anything from its contents. Of
course there is a good deal I could say about the man whose
favourite I was supposed to be during more than ten years, but
it is impossible to lift the veil more than I did in the two
essays I published in the June and July numbers of 1909 of the
_Nineteenth Century and After_, in which you can find more than
one episode worth reproduction.
Abdul Hamid was decidedly an extraordinary man. Want of able and
trustworthy Ministers caused his downfall; but it is generally
admitted that if he had remained on the throne the present
catastrophe would not have taken place. As I hear from
Constantinople, he has got much chance to return to power. The
bulk of the nation is siding with him. The Young Turks confess
themselves the mistake they made (_vide_ a paper by Husein
Djahid, the editor of the _Tanin_, in the January (1913) number
of the _Deutsche Revue_). The adherents of the old school were
always in the Opposition, but the blow was too heavy a one, and
I very much doubt whether he, or anybody else, will be able to
heal the wounds.
Be so kind as to let me have a copy of the book you will
publish, as I am much interested in the late Sultan. Properly
speaking, I was not his favourite, for he wanted to use my pen
in the interest of Russia, whereas I endeavoured to turn him
into British waters, in which I should have probably succeeded
if your politicians and your public opinion had not been under
the sway of false humanitarian views, and if your nation had not
lost the persistency of bygone ages.
In a personal meeting with you I could furnish you with more
than one detail. With best greetings from my son,
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
IV
_January 1, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—My letter of yesterday will answer most of
your questions, and I only write to tell you that your friendly
feelings towards Sultan Abdul Hamid ought not to blind you to
the real character of this unfortunate prince. He was decidedly
highly gifted, though this was less apparent towards the end of
his reign. He suffered from the defects of Eastern princes and
of Orientals in general. His intentions may have been honest,
but the means he applied were decidedly perverse and he never
listened to advice, nor did he believe in anybody.
At all events I look forward to the issue of your book with
interest.
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
V
_January 6, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—I had great pleasure in perusing the copy I
duly received of your chapter on Sultan Abdul Hamid. Your able
pen has lent colour to his career, even though you could not of
course deal fully with his real doings.
If I have not always done full justice to this extraordinary
man, I may plead some excuse. For more than twelve years I
worked hard, I even risked my life, to lead him into the harbour
of political security by which the present catastrophe could
have been avoided, without, I regret to say, being able to
achieve any result.
His entourage made him over-cautious and distrustful, and I am
sure he will be haunted by remorse when he remembers our long
evening conversations in the Yildiz Kiosk or Chalet Kiosk. He is
not the only culprit: your statesmen, too, have made great
mistakes.
I trust your poetical pen will be fully appreciated by the
reading public, for, as I have told you already, Abdul Hamid has
still a fair chance of coming back to the throne. But I do not
envy him on that account. It would only turn out to be a
midsummer night’s dream.
In reciprocating your good wishes for the New Year,
I beg to remain, yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
P.S.—Pray give my compliments to M. Chedo Mijatovich.[38] I am
very glad that _Bog dal srecu yunacku_[39] to his countrymen.
Footnote 38:
The distinguished Servian historian and diplomatist, formerly Minister
of Finance in Servia and Servian Minister in London, where he has
since taken up his residence.
Footnote 39:
“God has given the good luck of heroes.”
VI
_February 11, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—I delayed answering your last letter as I was
awaiting the arrival of the book you promised to send me. Now
that your most interesting and fascinatingly written study on
Germany[40] has arrived I hasten to express to you my best
thanks for the pleasure I have derived from your book, as well
as for your kind reference to my Essays on Sultan Abdul
Hamid.[41]
In writing about leading contemporaries we are apt to get into a
predicament, evidently not unfamiliar to you, which causes us a
great deal of trouble. Those who know cannot write and those who
write most do not know. At all events the personality of Abdul
Hamid is a landmark in the history of the Osmanides which will
be often spoken of.
The Persian poet whom I quote at the end of my article on Abdul
Hamid is Saadi, and the quotation is derived from the
“Gulistan.”
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
Footnote 40:
“German Memories.” Wm. Heinemann.
Footnote 41:
_Nineteenth Century and After_, June and July 1909.
VII
_February 14, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—Don’t take it as a compliment, for it is a
fact that during the three days that I was reading, with slight
intervals of leisure, your “Deutsche Erinnerungen”[42] all my
studies had to take an involuntary pause. Such an extraordinary
influence has your masterly pen wrought upon me. I dare say no
German would be able to write such a book upon England, although
the subject would be most interesting from a national and
ethical point of view, considering the liberal views
predominating in England and the great achievements of your
nation all over the world. I am glad to see that the unjustified
enmity between your country and Germany is gradually subsiding.
Both nations are supplementary the one to the other, and their
mutual friendship furthers the common interests of humanity.
When will your “Turkish Memories” appear? I am anxious to read
them.
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
Footnote 42:
German version of my “German Memories”. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt,
Stuttgart.
VIII
_February 20, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—It will give me much pleasure to go through
any chapter of your “Turkish Memories” you may choose to send
me. Of course one cannot apply a too severe criticism to a
writer on Western affairs who is dealing with Eastern topics
unless he is under the sway of preconceived notions like Pierre
Loti, who, like Lamartine, dips his pen in Castalian fountains.
And, besides, Abdul Hamid was to me the most incomprehensible
Oriental character I have met in all my long and variegated
Eastern career, and I could not vouch for the correctness of my
judgment of him. There is one danger, however, you must take
care not to fall into, _i.e._ unconditional Turcophilism. I mean
to say you must avoid all sentiment in dealing with politics.
Statesmen may have ignored the horrible effects of Turkish
misrule and the ruin of the finest portion of Asia, but we
writers, at any rate, are bound to speak the truth.
I am no admirer of Sir Edward Grey’s policy in the Near East,
and still less in Central Asia, but I cannot refrain from
calling the German policy haughty and overbearing. Her _Drang
nach dem Osten_[43] is silly and childish and must provoke a
most bloody contest all over the world. If Germany imitates
Austrian methods she will be overtaken by a similar fate, for it
is no secret that the sentence, _finis Austriæ_, is looming in
the distance.
What I pity is my poor country, whose future is not very bright.
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
Footnote 43:
A current German phrase meaning “The trend towards the East.”
IX
_February 21, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—I have gone through your manuscript with great
pleasure, and all I can say is that indulgence, nobility of
mind, gratitude, and gentlemanly feeling form the ruling
features of the paper, whereas the manifold harm resulting from
the personal idiosyncrasies of the Sultan is only occasionally
touched upon.
From your point of view, and judging as a foreigner, you were
quite right to use subdued colours, but having acted as a
political writer who endeavoured and intended to turn the Sultan
on the right way, I am sorry to say I could not follow your
example. Nor could any modern Turk who had witnessed the
ever-increasing calamity of his country do so. At all events
your book will call forth much comment and varied criticism.
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
X
_April 28, 1913._
DEAR MR. WHITMAN,—In reading your well-conceived and
well-written book on the “Realm of the Habsburgs” I could not
refrain from feeling regret at not having been blessed by nature
with that rare gift of literary skill and eminence which
distinguishes your pen. Having seen and experienced so much in
many countries and in many nations, where I passed as a native,
what attractive and truthful pictures could I not have furnished
of my variegated experiences, and how considerably I could have
facilitated the intercourse between man and man! Well, _non
omnes omnia_—and writers like yourself, in whose works I
delight, do sometimes darken the distant horizon of my past.
Your book, like the last one I read, is a masterpiece, in spite
of the disadvantages resulting from the changes caused by the
quick pace of our times, when so many features must obviously
alter. It reminds me of an Oriental remark about a decayed
beauty: “The mosque has fallen into ruins, but the altar where
people worshipped still stands upright.” With some slight
alterations your book could be advantageously republished. I am
exceedingly sorry to be so far from dear old England, for, owing
to this distance, many interesting items culled from my daily
Turkish, Persian, and Tartar reading are lost to the public.
Germany is not the place for practical Eastern topics: a long
essay written on the slippers of Goethe is more appreciated
there than a detailed description of recent political events in
Turkey, Persia, etc. I was certainly not wrong in saying one day
to a great German: “Hätte Deutschland weniger Orientalisten aber
mehr Orientkenner gehabt, so brauchten sie heute Englands
Stellung in Asien nicht mit neidischen Augen zu betrachten.”[44]
You are much younger than I am. Perhaps chance will favour me in
seeing you one day in this part of the world.
Yours sincerely,
A. VAMBÉRY.
Footnote 44:
“If Germany had possessed fewer Orientalists and a greater number of
true judges of the East, she need not have regarded England’s position
in Asia with envious eyes to-day.”
I feel I cannot more fitly conclude my “Turkish Memories” than by citing
the letter of Lieutenant-Colonel H. P. Picot, already referred to in the
Preface:
“On reading the letter written to you on February 14, 1913, by
Professor Vambéry, I was greatly interested to find him saying:
‘I am glad to see that the unjustified enmity between your
country and Germany is gradually subsiding. Both nations are
supplementary the one to the other, and their mutual friendship
furthers the common interests of humanity.’
“The Professor, I see, agrees with you that ‘the real crux of
Turkey’s political problems is, and always was, Russia’; and,
further, that ‘the geographical position of Germany seems to set
fixed limits to her ambitions.’ It was the realization of these
factors by Turkish statesmen that gave Germany her opportunity
during the later years of Abdul Hamid’s Sultanate. The welcome
extended to the German Emperor by the Sultan at the time of his
visit to Constantinople and the Holy Land was a direct
invitation to Germany to interest herself in the development of
the Asiatic provinces of Turkey, and thereby to build up a
barrier against Russia in Armenia and Mesopotamia. The Sultan
saw clearly that if German capital could be employed on a large
scale in the development of railways between the capital and
Bagdad, and in opening up the Mesopotamian delta by means of
irrigation, etc., his country might obtain that political
support which had become practically essential for the
preservation of the integrity of his Asiatic dominions.
“The same view was doubtless held by Sir William White, H.B.M.’s
Ambassador at Constantinople, who, years ago, was of opinion
that, in the interests both of Great Britain and of Turkey, it
would be well if Germany were encouraged to extend her influence
at Constantinople and in the Balkans.
“Abdul Hamid naturally hoped for the political support of
Germany in the Balkans as well as in his Asiatic possessions,
though he must have been aware of the difficult position
Germany, as a Christian Power, would find herself in should the
Balkan States make an effort on a sufficiently wide scale to
extend their frontiers at Turkey’s expense. In such a case,
however, he had little or nothing to expect from Great Britain,
and even less from Russia. Thus, Germany was a last hope; and
though, as events have shown, her support was of little avail
when the psychological moment arrived for the long-expected
Balkan war, the Sultan’s political sagacity has yet to be proved
at fault in so far as Asia Minor is concerned. Germany now
possesses great interests in Anatolia and Mesopotamia, and if
Turkey is ever to build up her Asiatic Empire and regain her
position as a Moslem Power, it will only be done with the
assistance and co-operation of Germany and Great Britain. It
does not follow that because Germany failed Turkey in Europe,
she will do so in Asia. The problem is a different one in that
quarter, where it has lost its peculiarly European character. It
may well be within the power, as it certainly is in the
interest, of Great Britain and Germany to safeguard Turkey’s
sovereign rights in her purely Asiatic possessions. Russia is
the enemy at the gate.
“It is of happy augury that the bitterness of feeling that has
separated Great Britain and Germany is now fast giving way to a
better understanding, and it would be well that Turkish
statesmen should realize early in the day that the future of
their country depends on welding together, as far as it lies in
their power to do so, the economic and political interests of
these two countries in Asia. For Russia is already moving in the
direction of Mesopotamia and Armenia: her occupation of Persian
Azerbaijan, where she has concentrated 17,000 troops, is meant
to serve her designs upon Mesopotamia, as the first étape of her
advance towards the Persian Gulf.
“Russia has not yet forgotten the lessons of the Russo-Japanese
war. If she scents obstacles ahead, she will hesitate to advance
too rapidly on the path of adventure. But hesitation is not
synonymous with withdrawal. Russia is still true to
Gortschakoff’s famous phrase, ‘La Russie ne boude pas, elle se
recueille.’ Turkey would be in less danger from her if she could
enlist the sympathies and engage the material interests of Great
Britain and Germany upon her side, as Abdul Hamid evidently
considered that they might be enlisted in regard to his Asiatic
dominions.
“As already stated in your own words, ‘the geographical position
of Germany seems to set fixed limits to her ambitions’; and
since Great Britain has no territorial ambitions in Asiatic
Turkey—as it is recognized at last, even in Turkey—there is
everything to be gained by their loyal and whole-hearted
co-operation. But only on such lines.
(Signed) “H. P. PICOT.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INDEX
Abdul Aziz, 20, 27, 163, 181, 234, 238, 258
Abdul Hamid, and the Marquis of Salisbury, 1;
works of, 8, 51–54,164–166;
and the Armenians, 20, 57;
and the Germans, 22, 270;
and Ahmed Midhat Effendi, 25, 26;
popularity, 27–28, 180–182, 238–239, 243;
and Dr. Hepworth, 60–61, 128–129;
and Mr. Whitman, 30–35, 51, 61, 170;
and the Press, 148–149;
deposition, 150, 177–178;
ceremony of the Selamlik, 154–158, 178–182;
account of, 159–182;
promise of Nicholas of Russia to, 162, 277 _and note_;
personality, 166–167, 234, 237–238, 254–255;
and Mr. Whittaker, 171;
and Professor Vambéry, 171–172;
audiences, 179–180;
stories of his diplomacy,184;
spies of, 201;
and the Fehim Pasha incident, 264, 266–267, 270;
mentioned in Professor Vambéry’s letters, 285, 286–287, 288–292;
William II and, 294–295
Abdul Medjid, 261;
reforms of, 229–230
Abraham Pasha, 19–20
Abyssinia, Christian monasteries of, 254
Adrianople, peace of, 1829, 106
Ahmed Midhat, account of, 25–28, 235–236;
letter in Turkish to Mr. Whitman, 107–108;
conversations with, 216–224, 225, 247, 257, 265;
stories of Mohammed’s life told by, 258–260
Aintab in Syria, 63, 112, 114
Aja Sophia of Constantinople, 28, 87
Ala Dagh, the, 105
Alaskird, 97
Albanian Redifs, the, 45, 155
Albanians in Salonica, 40
Albigenses, the, 262
Albrecht, Archduke, 182
Alexander of Battenberg, Prince, and the Mohammedan element, 242
Alexander of Servia, 59
Alexandretta, 63, 81, 115–117
Alidjekrek affair of 1896, 97
Ambassadors in Constantinople, position of, 186–169;
types, 189–193;
social life, 193–194;
Turkish, 194–195
American element in Erzeroum, 99–100;
interest in Anatolia, 121 _and note_
Anatolia, the mission to, 60;
reforms, 63, 70, 76, 79–81, 278;
prosperity, 165;
German interests, 295
Anatolian Railway, the, 268, 275 _and note_
Anatolius, General, 90
Anglicans, 228
Angora, prosperity of, 165
Arab types in Turkey, 233, 248
Aram Aramian, arrest, 97
Ararat, Mount, 109
Arians, the, 223
Armenak Dermonprejan, arrest, 97
Armenia, military service in, 75–76;
people of, 118–119, 120 _and note_
“Armenian Atrocities,” rising of 1895–6, 70–79, 170;
the outbreak in Constantinople, 10–35
Armenian Cemetery, Constantinople, 18
Armenian Committees, 13, 74, 127
Armenian schools, 63, 66, 75, 99, 127
Armenians in Turkey, 228, 231
Arms from Russia seized, 97
Arsenal (Tophanè), Constantinople, discovery of bombs, 24
Arson in Constantinople, 243–244
Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis, 48, 53–55
Aspern, 182
Asquith, Mr., and the Eucharistic procession in London, 213
Austria-Hungary, Turkish policy of, 275
Austrian Double Eagle March, the, 156–157
Avellis, Hugo, in Constantinople, 204–248;
knowledge of Turkish character, 239–240;
stories of Turkish women, 257–258
Azarian, Armenian banker, 20
Azerbaijan, 296
Bagdad Railway, 269, 277
Bahri Pasha, Governor-General of Van, fired on, 74
Baiburt, 85–86
Bajezid, Sultan, mosque of, 8
Balkan War, 295
Balls in Constantinople, 197–198
Baptists, 228
Batoum, 67
Bayazid, 105
Bazar de Secours, 52–53
Bebek, 169
Begler-Bey, Palace of, 139, 159
Beikos, 27, 257
Beilan, 116
Belgrade, 59
Belisarius, 183;
sayings of, _quoted_, 160
Benedek, Field-Marshal, 182
Bennett, Mr. Gordon, 10–11, 15, 40, 57–59, 129
Bergholz, Mr. Leo, American Consul at Erzeroum, 99
Berlin, Congress of, 278
Bernhardi, General, 286
Beschiktasch, 142
Bieberstein, Baron Marschall von, 162;
and Abdul Hamid, 177;
and the Fehim Pasha incident, 264–247
Bigham, Clive, 48, 55
Birds, shooting of, 254–245
Biredschik, 63, 111–112
Bismarck, Prince, opinion on the Cretan situation, 1–2;
the Sultan’s message to, 34–35;
and Gortschakoff, 188;
and Détaille’s picture, 215;
diplomacy, 270–271, 272;
on the position in the East, 279
Bitlis, 63, 77, 88, 91, 96, 120, 132;
the road to, 101–110;
report of the English Vice-Consul, 122–123
Black Sea, 65, 82
Blunt, Mr. J. P., 47–48
Bodenstedt, Friedrich, _quoted_, 277–278
Bombs, discovery in Constantinople, 24
Bosphorus, the, 92, 141, 278
Bournous, the, 113
Bribery, charges of, 80
Bucharest, diplomacy in, 189
Büchner, 237
Budapest, 285 (_note_)
Budapest University, 283
Bulgarians, Uniate, 228
Burton, Sir Richard, knowledge of the East, 224–225, 226
Buyukdere, massacre of Armenians at, 19–20
Byron, Lord, on Constantinople, _quoted_, 5
“Byzantinism,” 183
Capitulations, the, 201, 231
Caravans, starting point for, 67;
on the Zigana Pass, 84–85
Carlyle and Islamism, 219–220
Cassim Pasha, suburb of, 8
Castries, Count de, “L’Islam,” 218
Catholics, Latin, 228
Censorship of the Press in Constantinople, evading the, 23–24, 171
Cercle d’Orient, Constantinople, 19, 195
Chadidja, 259
Chakir Pasha, Marshal, story of the watch, 70–6, 93–94;
accounts of the Armenian rising, 77–79;
and Reouf Pasha, 98
Chaldeans, Uniate, 228
Chalet Kiosk, 288
Charles, Archduke, 182
Chary, Hermann, Roumanian interpreter, 40–41, 48, 65, 117
Chefakat, Order of the, 165, 172
Christian Churches in Turkey, 28, 222–223
Christianity in Turkey, 119–123, 216–223, 226–230
Circassians, characteristics of the, 106–107;
exodus of, 278
Club de Constantinople, 195
Colombo, Hôtel, Salonica, 37
Commerce, British Chamber of, at Constantinople, 190
Commercial code of 1850, 229
Commerell, Admiral, 226
Constantine the Great, 223, 254
Constantinople, impressions, 5–9;
cavalry barracks, 7, 8;
Fakir Hanè, 8;
Greek High School, 8;
Marine Hospital, 8;
Marine Ministry, 8;
Ters Hanè, 8;
gossip in, 12–13;
British Embassy, 17, 55–56;
German Post Office, 21–22;
Arsenal, 24;
Aja Sophia, 28, 87;
Gumysch Soujou Hospital, 30;
outbreak of the war, 50–51;
a return to, 127–128;
water
supply of, 165;
diplomacy in, 186–195;
cuisine of, 195–196;
“high life” in, 196–198;
the Passage Oriental, 206–207;
Europeans in, 214–215, 240;
fall of, 222;
fire brigade of, 243–244;
Bazaar, 247
Constantinople, Club de, 12, 195
Copts, 228
Corpus Christi, Feast of, in Constantinople, 213
Corruption and bribery in Turkey, 163–164
“Cospoli,” provincial name for Constantinople, 103
Costaki Pasha, 1
_Courrier de L’Est_, 149
Crete, Bismarck’s interest in the island, 1–2;
the naval demonstration 1898, 276
Crimean War, 170, 230, 261
Criminal code of 1840, 229
Crispi, 271
Crusades, nature of the, 215–216, 219, 221–222
Cuinet _cited_, 120 (_note_)
Currie, Lady, 55–56
Currie, Sir Philip, 263;
the protest to the Porte, 54–56;
urges recall of Chakir Pasha, 71;
telegram to Erzeroum, autumn 1895, 77
Dagmar, Empress, 71
_Daily Mail_ and the Fehim Pasha incident, 266–267
Damascene swords, 91
Damascus, 118
Dandolo, Enrico, 250
Danish Bey, 71
_Daphne_, Austrian-Lloyd steamer, 64
Dead, Turkish reverence for the, 8
Deliler, village of, 55
Demeter Mavrocordato Effendi, 71, 72
Détaille, M. Edouard, “Nos Vainqueurs,” 215
Deutsche Bank, Berlin, 142
_Deutsche Revue_, 287
Diarbekir, 63, 88, 91;
history, 110–111
“Diary of an Idle Woman in Constantinople,” 253
Djahid, Husein, paper by, 287
Dogs of Constantinople, 17, 254
Dolma-Baghtchè, palace of, 139, 141
Doré, Gustave, illustrations of the Bible, 88
Dragoman Service, the, 189
Draper, and Islamism, 219–220
Druses, 228
Dufferin, Lord, 193
_Duilio_, the Italian ship, 37
Edhem Pasha, generalissimo of the Turkish forces, 43–44, 46, 48
Edward VII, 283
Egypt, irrigation, 280
Egyptians at Nisib, 112
Elassona, Turkish headquarters at, 40–48
Emerson, “English Traits,” 249
Emin Bey, story of, 166–167
England, Turkish policy, 22, 170, 272–274, 278–279
English governesses in Constantinople, 213
English settlement in Salonica, 39–40
Englishman, Turkish estimation of the, 261–262
Erzeroum, vilayet, 63 _and note_;
Armenian rising, October 1895, 70–76;
the journey to, 81;
reception at, 88–90;
history of the town, 90;
Russian influence, 91–92;
the American element in, 99–100;
Russian occupation 1878, 278
Erzingian, 73
Etchmiadzin (Russia), 78
Ethnike Hetairia, the, 36 _and note_, 37
Eucharistic Congress in London, 213
Eugénie, Empress, 139
Eunuchs, 253–254
Euphrates, crossing the, 112
Europeans in Constantinople, 214–215, 240
Famine, 165
Fauna between Erzeroum and Bitlis, 102–103
“Fedaïs,” the, 75–76
Fehim Pasha, Chief of Secret Police, 177–178;
scandal of, 263–267
Ferdinand, Austrian ex-Emperor, sayings of, 159–160
Ferid Pasha, 270
Ferrero, Guglielmo, sayings of, _quoted_, 234–235
Fire brigade in Constantinople, 243–244
Franco-German War 1870, 251
Franco-Italian War 1859, 182
Franz-Josef, present to the Bazar de Secours, 53
French Embassy in Constantinople, 50, 251
French language in Turkey, 275–276
Friedrichsruh, 2
Fuad, Grand Vizier, 177
Galata Bridge, the, 15–18, 21–22, 141, 244
Gautier, Théophile, on the Turk, 8
Gellini, Gentil, 250
“German Memories,” Prof. Vambéry’s remarks on, 289, 290
Germany and England, 293, 294
Germany and Turkey—Behaviour of Germans during the massacre, 21–22;
German officers in Turkey, 48–49, 271–272, 285;
German surgeons for the wounded, 51–52;
Turkish policy of Germany, 169–170, 279, 290, 291, 293, 294;
German influence in Turkey, 202, 214, 241, 264, 267–272, 274–277,
279, 295–296;
German language in Turkey, 275–276
Ghazi Osman Pasha, 50–51, 155, 205;
his office at Yildiz, 139, 177–178, 181
_Giaours_, 228, 249
Gladstone, the Rt. Hon. W. E., policy of, 169–170
Goethe _quoted_, 125, 268
Golden Horn, 6, 7, 8, 9 (_note_), 55
“Goldener Lamm,” Vienna, 4
Goltz, General von der, 285
Gordon, General, 40, 226
Görgey, 251
Gortschakoff, 188, 296
Græco-Turkish War, 35–56, 219, 271, 276
Grant, General, and Reouf Pasha, 94–95
Gratz, 182
Graves, Mr., British Consul at Erzeroum, opinion of, _quoted_, 93–94
Greece, incursions into Macedonia, 36;
religious intolerance in, 213–214;
Turks in, 251
Greek Committees, 2
Greek Orthodox Church, 20–21, 213–214
Greek Press, Bismarck and the, 2
Greeks in Constantinople, behaviour, 50–51;
characteristics, 212;
burial customs, 213–214, 241;
Uniate, 228
Grey, Sir Edward, Eastern policy of, 291
Gritti, Andrea, 250
Gritti, Ludovico, 250
Grumbkow Pasha, 48
Gumysch Hanè, 83–8
Gumysch Soujou Hospital, Constantinople, 30
Gwynne, H. A., 55
Hafis Pasha, 112
Haidar Pasha, university at, 162
Haldane, Lord, 286
Halid Bey, 64
Hamid Pasha, 74
Hamidiè cavalry regiments, 73, 109, 145–155
Hamidiè Mosque, 156, 164, 178–179
“Hans,” 83, 86
Harem, the, 215, 256–257
_Harper’s Magazine_, 132
Hassan Bey, 258
Hassib Effendi, 71
Hatti-Humayoun of 1856, 230
Hatti-Sherif of Gulhanè, 229–230
Hatzfeldt, Count, 206
Hedjas Railway, 150, 277
Heine, “Buch der Lieder,” _quoted_, 151
Hepworth, Dr. George H., the expedition into Armenia, 58 _et seq._;
“Through Armenia on Horseback,” 62;
the journey to Erzeroum, 81, 89–90;
the road to Bitlis, 101–102, 104, 105, 108;
incidents of the journey, 113, 114, 115, 116;
and Abdul Hamid, 128–129;
letters to Mr. Whitman, 132–133
Hepworth, Mrs., 129
Herbert, Sir Michael, 263
Hobart Pasha, 226, 248
Holy Sepulchre, Turkish protection, 213, 215–216, 228
Horse, the Anatolian, 114–115
Hospital for the wounded at Yildiz, 51–52
Hugo, Victor, 26
Huguenin, M., 268–269
Huguenots, the, 217
Humboldt, Alexander von, observations of, on Constantinople, 5–6
Hungarian revolutionists, sheltered by the Sultan, 251
Hunger-typhus, 165
Hunuesch, 120
Hussein Avni Pasha, 258
Hyacinthe, Father, and Islamism, 219–220
Ibrahim Pasha, 112, 145, 152–154
Impérial, Hôtel, Salonica, 40
Imtiaz medal, the, 33, 51–52, 179
“Iradè,” the term, 144–145
Izzet Fuad Pasha, Turkish ambassador at Madrid, 177
Izzet Pasha, and Mr. Whitman, 30–35, 237;
apartments at Yildiz, 140–145, 265;
work of, 154;
Arab origin 169 (_note_)
Jacobites, 228
Janissaries, the, 155, 180
Japan, German officers in, 272
Jerusalem, 94–95, 118, 213, 216, 256
Jews in Turkey, 21, 38–39, 92, 217, 221, 228, 249–250
Johnson, President Andrew, 26
_Journal de Salonique_, extract from, 41–42
Justinian, Emperor, 183, 254
Kaarie, or Kariè, Mosque, 28, 222–223
Kara Hissar Charki, mines of, 76
Kara Sua, source, 90
Karaferia, 42
Katerina, 42, 46
Kegel Club, Salonica, 37
Kerasoun, 66
Khalifate, the, claim of the Sultan, 148
Khinis, 77
Khrimyan, Monsignor, 78
Kighi, 96
Knackfuss, Professor, 53
Kop Dagh Pass, 86–88
Koran, precepts of the, 213, 217–223, 234–235, 254
Kossona, village of, 43
Kossuth, 251
Kotal Dagh, the, 66–67
Kurdistan, 63, 79;
relations with Armenians, 74–75;
rising of the autumn 1895, 77;
mountain fastnesses of, 107;
characteristics, 129–130
Kurds, arming of the, 73;
Reouf Pasha and, 96–97;
kindliness of, 107–109;
marksmanship, 113;
predatory propensities, 124;
deputation to the Sultan, 145
Lamartine, 291
Larissa, 45, 55
Layard, Sir Henry, 193
Lazis, the, of Trebizond, 67
Lebanon, 223
Lessing, “Nathan the Wise,” 216–217
_Levant Herald_, and the censorship, 171
Levantine, the, 199–209
London, contrasts with the East, 130–132
Lorenz, Melchoir, 250
Loti, Pierre, 291
Louis XIV, 217
Lufti Aga, story of, 168–169
Lule-Burgas, 285
Macedonia, missionaries of, 121
Mahmoud, Sultan, 229–230, 248
Mahmud Nedim Pasha, 169
Mamuret ül Aziz, 63
Marienbad, 57
Maronites, 228
Mavrocordato Effendi, 79–80
Mavrocordato, Prince, 231
Mavrogeni, Dr., 206
Maximow, M., dragoman, 19
Maximow M., Consul-General, 90, 93, 147
Mazzini, 271
McColl, Canon, 22
Mecca, 65, 140–141
Medjediè, order of, 98, 154
Mehmet, Circassian officer, 40, 43, 48
Mehmet Izzet Bey, saying of, _quoted_, 15, 255–256
Mehmet Tscherkess, 45
_Mekteb Milkiè_, 164
Meluna Pass, the, 45
Mersey, Lord, 48
Mersina, 127
Mersina-Adana Railway, 269
Mesopotamia, 63, 295, 296
Methodists, 228
Metoualis, 228
Midhat Pasha, 26, 166
Migirditch, Armenian cook, 101–102
Mijatovich, M. Chedo, 289
Milan, ex-king, 59
Miles, Gen. Nelson, 53
Mining law, alterations, 273
Missionaries in Turkey, 38, 39, 120–121
Modiki, Kurds of, 124
Mohamed Cherif Reouf Pasha, 93–98, 104
Mohammed, life of, stories of, 125, 258–260
Mohammed V, 208
Mohammed Faté, Sultan, 250
Mohammedanism and Christianity, 82–83, 216–223, 228–230
Mollahs, 143–145
Moltke, Count von, and Turkey, 35, 112, 248
Monasteries, Christian, 82–83, 127, 222, 254
Montenegrins, struggle of 1876, 207;
characteristics, 212
Montgomery, George R., 55
Mordtmann, Dr., 164–165
Moscow, fires of, 243
Möser, Justus, 237
Mosques, 222–223
Mosul, 110
Moutschka, River, 66
Muezzin, the, 145
Munir Pasha, Grand Master of Ceremonies, 60, 152, 180;
letter to Mr. Whitman, 129;
personality, 157–158;
estimate of his master, 175–176
Murad Su, 101
Mustapha Pasha, railway station at, 262
_Namouma_, yacht, 57
Naples, 5
Napoleon, Code of, 229
Napoleon, saying of, 62, 226
Napoleon III, Abdul Hamid compared with, 161–162
National, Hôtel, Vienna, 4
Naturalization of Turkish subjects, 231
Neghib Bey, saying of, 246
Nelidow, M. de, 19, 278
Nestorians, Chaldean, 228
Nestorius, 223
_New York Herald_, the, 2, 10–11, 14, 23–25, 31, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43,
46, 57, 58, 60, 61, 129, 133 (_note_), 170
Nicæa, Council of, 223
Nicholas, Emperor, promise to Abdul Hamid, 162, 277 _and note_
_Nineteenth Century and After_, 286, 289 (_note_ 4)
Nisib, village of, 112
O’Conor, Sir Nicholas, 193;
letter of, _quoted_, 272–273
Offenbach, Jacques, 157
Ohannes Effendi, 19
Olympus, Mount, 37, 43
_Orient (L’)_, 149
Ortogrul cavalry, 155
Osman Pasha, 95, 139
Osmanian, 18–19
Osmaniè order, 154
Ottoman Bank, the attack on the, 16–18, 23–24
Palestine, law in, 229
_Pall Mall Gazette_, 285
Pancaldi, 71
Paris Commune 1871, 256
Pascal, “Les Pensées” _quoted_, 161
Paskiewitsch, General, 86
Passage Oriental, Constantinople, 206–207
Passen, 97
Paul, Emperor, 32
Peel, W., 55
Pera, 15, 199, 200;
the outbreak at, 17;
discovery of bombs, 25;
after the massacre, 29–30;
water supply, 165;
Grande Rue de Pera, 206–208, 257;
population of, 212;
the French Embassy, 251
Pera Palace Hotel, 6, 12, 177, 266
Phanariotes, 235, 270
Pharsalia, 45
Philippopolis, 23–24
Picot, Lieut.-Colonel H. P., 280;
letter to Mr. Whitman, 294–297
“Pilaf,” 255
Platana, 67
Plevna, siege of, 205
Plumstead, naming of a street in, 283–284 and _note_
Police, Turkish, 201–202
_Policevera_, steamer, 50
Polygamy, 215
Pontine range, the, 85
Potsdam Guards, the, 271
Powers, the, proposals of 1895, 77;
the Capitulations, 201, 231
Presbyterians, 228
Press, the, in Turkey, 148–149, 160, 188, 230–232, 251;
evading the censorship, 23–24, 171
Prinkipo Islands, 20
Prior, Mr. Melton, 29
Procopius of Cæsarea, 183
Protestants in Turkey, 120–121, 228
Pruth, the, 164
Ramadan Festival, 149–150
Razi Khan, 74
“Realm of the Habsburgs,” by Mr. Sidney Whitman, 284, 292
Red Cross, the, 205
Redcliffe, Lord Stratford de, 56, 193, 261
Reformation, the English, 213
Religious toleration in Turkey, 216–222, 227–228;
firman of 1854, 229–230
Revolvers at the Pera Palace Hotel, 17
Rhodes, Island of, 25, 127
Riedler, Professor, 248
Rifat Bey, 169
Roads, Persian, 80–81, 85, 101, 125, 128
Robert College on the Bosphorus, 226–227
Roberts, Lord, 286
Roman Catholic Armenians, 21
Rome, rites in communion with, 228
Roqueferrier, M., 93
Rothschild, London house of, 20
Roumania, King of, 272
Ruskin, saying of, _quoted_, 131
Rushti Bey, Colonel, 65, 107
Russia—Turkish policy of, 19, 127, 147, 232, 276–279, 296–297;
revolutionary propaganda fomented by, 20–21, 24, 61, 75–76, 123;
protest against German officers in Turkey, 49;
influence in Erzeroum, 90–92, 97;
the Czar’s promise to Abdul Hamid, 162, 277 _and note_;
trade with Turkey, 165;
religious toleration in, 229
Russian Cossack regiments, 73
Russo-Japanese War, 296
Russo-Turkish War, 44, 85–86, 164
Saadi, poet, 290
Sadjur, River, 114
Sadowa, battle of, 182
Saint Andrews, Cathedral of, 213
Saint Sophia, Church of, 250
Saladin, 114, 216–217, 233
Salisbury, Marquis of, 1, 170, 220 (_note_)
Salonica, Greek population, 37, 49–50;
Jewish element, 38–39;
English element, 39–40;
outbreak of the war, 49;
Turks in, 251
Salzburg, 5
Samsoun, 66
Saumur, 45
Schah-Zadè, Sultan, 8
Schiites, 233
Schismanian, Givon, 77
Schools, Armenian, 63, 66, 75, 99, 127;
Turkish, 164–165, 275
Schopenhauer, 237
Schreyer, 114
Scott, Sir Walter, _quoted_, 49
Scutari, 257;
the English cemetery, 165, 201–202
Sedan-chairs, 197
Selamlik, ceremony of the, 154–158, 164, 178–181, 253
Selim, Sultan, 8, 110, 111, 217, 233
Shamyl, submission of, 278
Shaw, Captain, 243
Shaw, G. B., 48
Shefket Pasha, Marshal, 51
Sheikh-ul-Islam, 52, 217, 233, 237–238
Sheikhs, 143–145
Shipka Pass, 71
Silver mines, 83–84
Sirry Bey, 64, 103–106, 113, 117, 172, 266–267
Sitaouk, 97
Sivas, 76
Smyrna, 22, 127
Smyrna-Aidin Railway, 273
Sobranje, the, Mohammedan members, 242
Softas, 145
Solferino, 182
Sorovitch, 41, 42
Spain—Religious intolerance in, 38, 217, 250;
the Moors in, 220–221;
generosity of the people, 248
Special Correspondent, Mr. Gordon Bennett’s ideas of his duties, 11–12
Spencer, Herbert, 237
Spinoza, 237
“Stambolin,” 25, 150, 176
Stamboul, the outbreak in, 15–17, 22;
the Aja Sophia, 28, 87;
the Sublime Porte, 141;
fires in, 244;
the public fountain, 261
Steevens, G. W., 55
Sublime Porte, the, 14, 141
Suleyman, Sultan, 8, 165, 250
Sultan, the, and the Khalifate, 225
Sunday, the Mohammedan, 27
Suwarie Tschaoush, 64
Sycosis, 117
Syrian horsemen, 113
Syrians, Uniate, 228
Szechenyi Pasha, Count, 243
Tahsim Pasha, 139
_Tanin_, the, 287
Tanzimat, the, 229–230
Tariff, Turkish, 280
Tauchnitz Collection of British Authors, 253
Taurus, the, 82–85, 88
“Tcharik,” 42
Tcheragan, Palace of, 139
“Temena,” ceremony of, 142–143
Tempè, vale of, 45
_Terdjumani Hakkikat_, the, 26
Tewfik Bey, Colonel, 64–65
Tewfik Pasha, 270
Theodora, Empress, 183
Theodosiopolis, 90
Theodosius the Younger, 90
Therapia, 263
Thessaly, alleged Turkish atrocities, 54–55
Tiflis, Armenians of, 78
Tigris, the, 101, 110
_Times_, the, correspondents in Turkey, 14, 18, 47–48, 171
Timur the Tartar, 114
Tophanè, Constantinople, 141
Transylvania, Saxon colony, 276
Trebizond, 63, 64, 81;
description, 66–70;
the troubles at, 74–76;
Christian monasteries of, 82–83, 222
Tripoli, 214
Tschishly, 18
Tschoueh, Daniel, 76
Turanian type in Turkey, 233
Turk, the, traits, 210–260;
love of family, 103–104;
fidelity, 104–105;
generosity and courtesy, 105–106, 240–242;
respect for personal character, 206, 208–209, 246;
absence of class distinctions, 235–237;
gratitude, 246–248;
hospitality, 248–249;
love of animals, 254
Turkey—War on Greece, 36;
religious tolerance in, 184, 212, 216–222, 227–230, 249–250;
shelter given to Hungarian revolutionaries, 251;
foreigners in, 252–253;
German officers in Turkish army, 271–272
Turks, Orthodox, 228
Tussaud’s, Madame, 215 _and note_
Twain, Mark, 118
Ulemas, 143, 144, 145
United States, the Press in, 231
University at Haidar Pasha, 165
“Vali,” the term, 63 (_note_)
Valis, unpopularity of, 124
Valladolid, 250
Vambéry, Dr. Rustem, letter to Mr. Whitman, 283–284
Vambéry, Professor Arminius, experiences, 84;
life and adventures, _quoted_, 89;
stories of Abdul Hamid, 168–169, 171–172, 186;
letters to Mr. Whitman, 211, 289–293;
on the European situation, 279;
a London street named after, 283, 284
Van, 63, 64, 65, 74, 78, 79;
the rising in, 78–79
Van, Lake of, 72, 109–110
Vassos, Colonel, recall from Crete, 36
Venice, 57
Vereschagin, 205
Victoria, Queen, 283
Vienna, impressions, 3–5, 59;
Central Post Office, 4, 5;
Leopoldstadt, 4
Vienna Congress 1815, 4
“Vilayet,” the term, 63 (_note_)
Vincent, Sir Edgar, in Constantinople, 226
Voltaire, 237
Wagner, Reisen von Moritz, _quoted_, 86
Wallisch, Dr., 65
Waugh, Mr. Alexander, English Consul, 111
Weldon, Mr. Hamilton, 55
Westminster, Duke of, attitude towards Armenian atrocities, 22
White, Sir William, 193, 295
Whitman, Mrs., and the Turkish ladies, 258
Whittaker, Mr., 14, 171
Whittall, 15–16, 22–23, 242
William II and Abdul Hamid, 53, 162 (_note_), 261, 294–295
William III of England, 252
Woman, the Turkish, status, 165–166, 215, 256–258
Woods, Admiral Sir Henry, Pasha, 242–243
Xerias, River, 43
Yildiz, the Palace at, 14, 18, 19, 31–35, 51–52, 72–73, 128–129,
137–158, 176–177
Young Turk movement, 26, 124 (_note_), 287
Zeki Pasha, Marshal, 73
Zigana Pass, 84–85
Zola, _La Débâcle_, 124
PRINTED AT
THE BALLANTYNE PRESS
LONDON
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transcriber’s note:
○ Index entries showing abbreviated page ranges were written out in
full. For example: “294–5” was changed to “294–295.”
○ The index entry for “Plumstead, naming of a street in” pointed to
page 282, but there is no page 282. It has been corrected to page
283.
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.