RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
Aggression of Peter the Great--Diminution and Renewal of French
Influence--The Contest over the Holy Places--Victory of Russian
Influence in Favor of the Greek Church--Russia’s Religious
Propaganda Among the Greeks--Rise of Phil-Hellenism--Dismemberment
Talked of--Effect of the French Revolution--The Russian Fleet in
the Dardanelles--The English Fleet at Constantinople--Peace of
Tilsit--Plan for Partition--Accession of Mahmud II.
From the Peace of Carlowitz the history of the Turkish Empire is
involved with that of Europe to a degree hitherto unknown. The varied
schemes of ambitious rulers, the influences of popular movements,
were felt even across the Bosporus, and Turkey becoming no longer an
Asiatic but a European power, found itself in a situation singularly
incongruous. There was all the old Ottoman pride, which had its
sharpest illustration in the custom of throwing European ambassadors
into the prison at the Seven Towers whenever there was danger of
hostilities, and there was also that recognition of commercial
relations and need which militated so sharply against the former as
to inevitably result in the decadence of the following centuries.
The eighteenth century opened with considerable diminution of French
influence and with marked aggression on the part of the Czar.
Unfortunately for Turkey the Porte knew little and cared less about the
entrance of this last element, and paid little attention to the efforts
made by Charles XII to stop the advance of Peter the Great. The battle
of Pultowa had a strange result in the reception of the Swedish King
by the Sultan and the combination of his efforts with those of French
ambassadors to secure an alliance against Russia, which, however, would
have failed, probably, had not the Russian fleet appeared. The embassy
of the Czar to counteract their efforts appeared on a squadron which
entered from the Black Sea and cast anchor before the windows of the
Seraglio.
The following years were a kaleidoscope of war and peace, treaty and
aggression; now with Russia, now with Venice and Austria, resulting
in the peace of Passarowitz, in which Peter pledged himself not to
appropriate any part of Poland or to meddle with the government of
its republic, but to make every effort to prevent the sovereignty
and hereditary succession from being attached to its crown. A second
article was the securing of freedom for Russians and Turks to travel
and traffic in all safety in each empire. Pilgrimages to Jerusalem were
to be subjected to no pecuniary exactions and Russian ecclesiastics
throughout the East were to remain unmolested. Thus was taken the first
step toward the dominating power of Russia in the Holy Land, which has
since had so great an effect. The next step was the alliance between
Austria and Russia to secure the ruin of Turkey notwithstanding the
alliance with France. Again treaty was followed by war and war by
treaty, until by the treaty of Belgrade the desert territory of Azof
was to form the boundary between the two empires; commerce on the Black
Sea was to be free, with the condition, however, that the Russians
should only employ Turkish vessels. For this the credit must chiefly be
given to the French ambassador Villeneuve, who restored the prestige
which had fallen low under the successors of De Brèves.
The Frenchman’s next victory was the developing of a treaty of
friendship and commerce into a treaty of alliance, offensive and
defensive, between the Porte and Sweden, for mutual support against
the aggression of Russia. He also, in 1740, secured a formal treaty
of friendship and commerce between France and the Porte, which has
only been renewed once since, in 1802, and which still regulates the
relations of France with the Ottoman Empire. In this the precedence
previously accorded to the representatives of France was renewed and
new privileges given to the French consuls, merchants and traders. A
special rate of duty was extended to every kind of merchandise and
French protegés, as well as Frenchmen themselves, even when wearing
Oriental dress, were granted free access to the States of the Sultan
without payment of a tax. One effect of this general diplomatic
intrigue was to give to Turkey the idea that its friendship was sought
on account of its power, whereas as a matter of fact she had become
weak and was liable to be overborne at any time by one power or the
other. This influenced her to remain neutral during the war of the
Austrian succession, and rendered her blind to the revelations of the
French ambassador as to the encroachments of Russia. That government
had spread its fortifications into every territory which had been
declared neutral, by this means cutting off communication between
the Turks and the Tartars of Southern Russia, as well as usurping a
considerable territory. But all to no avail. The Ottoman preferred
peace and paid little attention to the steps that were being taken
against his power.
Frequent references have been made to the relation of the European
governments, especially France and Russia, to the Holy Places in
Jerusalem. That question became at this time a very important one,
and a brief survey of the situation will be in place. The possession
of these places was disputed between the Latins, the Greeks and
the Armenians. The Moslem law recognized no one of them as having
exclusive rights, but held that each communion might enter and
observe its ceremonies. To one, however, there was accorded a certain
primacy, involved in the keeping of the keys, repairing the edifices,
maintaining them at their own cost, lighting them, and having general
care for them. This privilege was accorded primarily by the Porte to
the French ambassador, according to the firman given in 1564:
“The keys of the doors of the said place (the grotto in which Jesus
Christ was born) are in the hands of the Franks, and pass successively
from one to the other of those among them who arrive at Jerusalem, and
that, as well before as since the taking of that city by the Sultan
Selim I, up to the present date, without having passed into other hands
than theirs. It is they who open to those of the Mussulmans or of the
Christians who dwell in, or who come to Jerusalem, and who desire to
visit that place (the grotto). There is no record that they have ceased
to possess the said keys, nor that any one has contested with them
for their possession, and has dispossessed them of the keys. They are
in constant and uninterrupted possession of them from the most remote
times up to the day of the date of the present act. Consequently, the
under-mentioned judge has confirmed the possession of the keys of the
said places in the hands of the Frank nation.”
Later, in 1620, another firman has the following:
“The Franks, ancient exclusive possessors of the Great Church of
Bethlehem and the Church of the Tomb of the Virgin, have, of their full
accord, granted to each of the other Christian communions sanctuaries
in the Superior Church; but the inferior portion, the place wherein
Jesus Christ was born (may salvation rest with him!) is the sanctuary
of the Frankish monks; no other nation has any right therein, and it
is forbidden to each and every nation to usurp hereafter the said
place.... We order that no individual be permitted, Armenian or other,
to say mass in the place where Jesus Christ was born, a place situate
underneath the Church of Bethlehem, no more than in the cupola, which
is called the tomb of Jesus Christ; neither in the interior of the tomb
of the Holy Virgin; nor finally in the sanctuaries which, from the old
time, belonged to the Frankish monks.”
In 1633 a still more explicit firman states:
... “To-day the Frankish monks came to produce the titles which are
in their hands. We have examined them, and have recognized that they
were ancient and authentic papers. They prove that all the places above
mentioned, as well as the possession of the three doors of the grotto
of Bethlehem, and the keys of those doors, belonged exclusively to the
Frankish monks since the conquest of Jerusalem by the Calif Omar, and
that at the epoch at which Selim I made himself master of those Holy
Places, that a large number of localities have remained, as before, in
the hands of the same Frankish monks. We order that the Franks have,
as anciently, the possession and enjoyment of the grotto situate at
Bethlehem, and known under the name of the Crib of Jesus Christ, upon
which the Greeks have seized, as it is said, to the detriment of the
Frankish monks, by fraud, and by producing false titles; that they
have the possession and enjoyment of the keys of the three doors,
north, south and west, of the said grotto, and of two small gardens
which belong to it; that they may have again, and in the said manner
which they have had from all time, the enjoyment and possession of the
_stone of unction_, situate in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the
vaults of Calvary, the seven arches situate below Saint Mary, the two
cupolas, great and small, which cover over the tomb of Jesus Christ;
that they may have, besides the enjoyment and possession, whether at
Jerusalem of the tomb of St. Mary or monastery called Deir-al-Amoud,
with its belongings and dependencies, or whether in the village of
Nazareth, of the churches and monasteries; in a word, of all the
places of which, up to the present day, they have had uncontested
possession; that henceforth neither the Greeks nor the Armenians, nor
any other Christian nation, trouble or disquiet them, or cause them to
be troubled or disquieted; ... that always, in the said places, and
chiefly in Calvary, the Frankish monks may exercise their worship at
their will and as in the past; that they may place therein, as before,
candles and torches, without any one hindering them; that in the
exercise of their worship, the prefect of the Frankish monks have, as
in the past, precedence over all the monks of other nations, provided
that they pay the tribute desired by ancient custom (about £800).”
Notwithstanding these, the Greeks succeeded in forcibly taking away
the power from the Latins within a year after this last firman, but
forty years later were obliged to yield. Then followed a series of
intrigues in which the Moslem Governors of Damascus and Jerusalem were
bribed by one party or the other to favor them. This resulted in 1676
in giving to the Greeks the keys, carpets and lamps of the sanctuaries
on condition of paying annually the rent of 1000 piasters for the
income of the mosque of Sultan Ahmet in Constantinople. In 1690,
however, this judgment was reversed, and in 1718, in the treaty of
Belgrade, the only stipulation by Russia was that the Russians should
have the right of making pilgrimages to Palestine without molestation
or payment of ransom. The capitulations of 1740 solemnly confirmed
the rights of France, and peace seemed established. But again, 17
years later, some Greek pilgrims pillaged the Catholic monastery at
Jaffa, assailed the monks and the Catholics in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, broke the lamps and scattered the ornaments; and, then
having purchased at a heavy price, various affidavits, proclaimed to
the Turkish Government the interruption of their worship by the Latins.
They found means of securing the favor of the Grand Vizier, and a Hatti
Sherif followed, which drove the Latins from the Church of the Virgin,
and from that at Bethlehem, and placed under the special care and
protection of the Greeks the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and several
other sanctuaries.
Russia’s next move was to start a religious propaganda in the Greek
provinces of Turkey. Peter III had sent zealous emissaries among them,
one of whom, a Greek of Thessaly, an artillery officer in the Russian
service, traversed the shores of the Adriatic, Thessaly and the Morea;
another, a monk, went through Servia and Croatia. He said to the
Sultan’s subjects that neither Germany or Hungary could do anything
for them; France was careless, Poland helpless; Russia alone cared for
them, and was willing to help them; she alone belonged to the orthodox
church. Stirred by these harangues, the Christians of Albania, Servia
and Montenegro arose, but too early for Russian movements, and the
insurrection was of no avail. The emissary to the Morea found greater
difficulty. A bishop promised to raise 100,000 Greeks at the approach
of the Russians, but a mountain chief refused to be seduced by flattery
or yield to the threats. He gloried in his chieftainship of a free
people, and said to the Russian that he was still a slave; if Russia
cared to come as an ally, he would take up arms on condition of the
war being pushed until the Turks were driven out. A third emissary
went among the Rumanian provinces, but the Moldo-Wallachians achieved
nothing more by an insurrection than the pillaging of a few Turkish
villages, and the only result of the three movements was to deprive the
Christian merchants of their wealth, which was sent to Constantinople
to insure their loyalty, and to raise a suspicion against all
Christians on the part of the Porte. The intrigues of Russia, however,
continued and there was over the whole empire a sense of uneasiness.
The French ministers did their best to stir the Turks against Russia,
but the ministry were either too weak or too lazy, and held off for
a time. At last war was again declared, and the Empress Catherine
despatched her fleet from the Baltic. The French ambassador called the
Turks’ attention to this and received in reply the expression:
“Tell us how ships can get from St. Petersburg to Constantinople?”
At the same time, 1769, Voltaire was trying to stir the spirit of
Phil-Hellenism, in Germany and Russia. Already he urged the partition
of Turkey and the restoration of the Greeks to independence. Fleets
were fitted out; England approved the project; the Morea arose, but
there was no general plan. The Russians withdrew and the Morea was
terribly devastated. Similar results followed renewed movements in
the Danubian Principalities; but the Turkish fleet was defeated at
Tchesmeh and the army on the Danube, and Russia appeared predominant.
Then came the mediation of Austria, and England offered assistance,
which, however, was refused by the Turks, partly under the influence
of France, who was anxious to use the newly developing disturbances
in America to help her in her opposition to England. There were
leagues and counter-leagues from Austria and Russia, with bargains
for Wallachia, Moldavia, Bosnia and Dalmatia, the Turkish Government
developing its since famous principle of sowing discord among the
European powers that thereby it might gain strength.
The next step of importance was the Congress of Bucharest, when the
Czarina sent in her demands for freedom of navigation in the Black
Sea, in the Archipelago for ships of war and merchant vessels, the
right of protection of the Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, and various
other things, all of which, however, were indignantly rejected by the
Turks, who went to war and gained marked success. This, however, was
followed by the treaty of Kainardji, in 1774, when Russia received
the protectorate over the Danubian Provinces, over the Christians
of Turkey, and was henceforth to be the “oracle of the diplomatic
negotiations pursued by the Porte; the arbiter of peace or war, the
soul of the most important affairs of the empire.” French influence
received a mortal blow in gaining a rival in the protectorate of the
Christians, who by having advantage of position, race and origin, could
be no longer baffled. England, too, had been made a fool of and her
influence was at a low ebb.
The Russians followed up their advantage by intriguing anew in the
Danubian Provinces, but came again in contact with Austria, whom the
French king sought to stir up to extend her territory in proportion
as Russia extended hers. Very little, however, was gained and Russia
secured the sovereignty of the Crimea, fresh rights over the Black
Sea, and seemed in the way to accomplish the project of a new Eastern
Empire, which had already been set forth by Catherine. England
meanwhile had her hands busy with America and paid little attention to
Eastern affairs until her Western task was finished, when she again
entered the lists, endeavoring to drive Turkey to war with Russia.
In this she succeeded and again came talk of dismemberment. Russia’s
advance along the Danube compelled England to act more positively in
aid of Turkey, when the French Revolution broke out and turned every
one’s attention, except that of Russia, away from Turkey. Then came the
treaty of Jassy, in 1792, when the Danubian Principalities ceased to be
recognized as Turkish Provinces.
The first result of the French Revolution was the war of the allied
monarchs to restore the house of Bourbon, and in this as hitherto
entered the question of Turkey. England as well as the rest sought to
induce the Porte to break with France, and to this end endeavored to
secure some concessions from Russia. The Porte, however, preserved its
neutrality and continued to extend its protection to French commercial
interests. Its increasing weakness, however, led Europe to believe
that the empire was fast approaching dissolution. This also was the
opinion of France, and Napoleon, looking forward to taking a part in
dismemberment, planned for the leading part to belong to himself. The
French ambassador at Constantinople advised the renunciation of the
alliance with the Porte and the appropriation of the provinces escaping
from its rule. Accordingly, with this came the invasion of Egypt and
the sudden disillusion on the part of the Turks of the value of the
French alliance. England, Russia and Austria profited by this to arouse
French opposition, and at last war was declared, the result of which
was the ruin of French influence in the Levant and an alliance between
the Porte and Russia, the admission of the Russian fleet into the
Dardanelles and the treaty of Constantinople, by which the two powers
mutually guaranteed each other’s possessions, including Egypt. To this
Great Britain acceded.
In the peace of Amiens England desired to bind the Porte as a
contracting party, but Napoleon persisted in a separate peace with
Turkey, and sought to gain favor by evacuating Egypt and restoring
the original situation. On the other hand, the capitulations of 1740
were renewed with new articles, recognizing the incontestable right
of French vessels in the Black Sea. Napoleon’s ambition for Eastern
conquest continued, and it was not long before the peace of Amiens was
broken through the re-establishment of French relations with Turkey
and the refusal of England to give up Malta and of Russia to give up
the Ionian Islands, where they had placed a garrison. Then followed
various concessions and accessions accompanied by considerable dread
on the part of the Turks of the new French power, until the battle of
Austerlitz made him appear a most desirable ally.
Meanwhile the Turkish Government had so thoroughly left Servia to
the brigands and the Janissaries that in despair they resolved to
strike for independence, and called for the protection and support
of Russia. Similarly Rumania thought to lean upon France for its
independence, and the general result was a rupture of the peace and the
occupation by Russia of Wallachia and Moldavia. Napoleon sent aid to
the Porte and urged the fortification of the Straits. Then the English
ambassador made strong demands, calling for the expulsion of the French
ambassador, the concession of the Danubian Provinces to Russia, the
giving up of the Turkish fleet to England, as well as of the forts and
batteries of the Dardanelles, and threatened an expedition against
Constantinople. Already the Russian fleet was at the island of Tenedos,
when it was joined by the British admiral, who, taking advantage of
a favorable wind and a feast of Bairam, forced the passage of the
Dardanelles, burned the Turkish fleet near Gallipoli and anchored off
the Princes’ Islands.
Sharp conditions were sent demanding the dismissal of the French
ambassador, the renewal of alliance between England and Russia, free
passage of the straits and the surrender of the Turkish navy. The
Frenchman, however, did not lose courage. He pointed out that the wind
was no longer favorable and that it would not be difficult to defend
the city. Encouraging messages came from Napoleon, and meanwhile
the English ambassador, thinking himself secure, occupied himself
with negotiations instead of taking action. The result was that,
notwithstanding summons after summons from the fleet, the Turkish
defense was complete and the English ships had to withdraw through
the Dardanelles. Then came the sudden deposition of Sultan Selim by
a revolution of the Yamaks, which disgusted Napoleon and undoubtedly
influenced him in arranging the peace of Tilsit, which was concluded,
to the complete abandonment of Turkey by France. It was stipulated that
hostilities should cease between Turkey and Russia, after an armistice
concluded in the presence of a French commissioner; but a secret
article made still more apparent the policy of France, in which it was
declared that in case the mediation of France was not accepted she
would make common cause with Russia against the Ottoman Porte, withdraw
all the Turkish provinces, in Europe, from its rule, with the exception
of Constantinople and province of Rumelia. From correspondence it is
gathered that the partition would have been as follows: France to have
Bosnia, Albania, Epirus, all Greece, Thessaly and Macedonia; Austria to
have Servia; Russia to have Wallachia, Moldavia, Bulgaria and Thrace,
as far as the Maritza. The French mediation was accepted, but definite
arrangements could not be secured. English intrigues interrupted, but
before any definite result could be achieved another Sultan had been
deposed and Mahmud II came to the throne.
[Illustration:
GENERAL VIEW OF CONSTANTINOPLE from the heights above Scutari on the
Asiatic shore. Immediately in front is the harbor opening into the
Golden Horn and the Bosporus on the right and into the Sea of Marmora
on the left. The two prominent mosques in the city are, on the left
hand Sultan Achmet, and on the right hand St. Sophia. On the extreme
right is the fire tower. The point of the city is occupied by the
gardens of the Seraglio.]
[Illustration: VIEW OF ADRIANOPLE, IN EUROPEAN TURKEY.]