XITHE ARMENIAN QUESTION

The previous brief history of this people, especially since the introduction of Christianity into Armenia, has furnished the reader with sufficient facts to show him that the real trouble of this nation began from the time of its conversion to Christianity, and has come down to the present time.

What the Armenians have been suffering now is just a little more intensified than what they have suffered in the past by the hands of the fire-worshiping Persians. Had they received Zoroastrianism, forced upon them in the fifth century, they might have changed the entire aspect of the history of Western Asia. Or, had they embraced Mohammedanism in the seventh century, when fanatic missionary soldiers of Mohammed fell upon them, sword in hand, and massacred thousands upon thousands in cold blood, because they refused to accept the sensual religion of a sensual and bloody man, again the history of Western Asia might have been differently written.

When their infant sons were torn away from their parental bosom by the Ottoman rulers, and rearedin Islamism and inured to the profession of arms, whose skill, vigor, and courage shook the foundations of the then civilized world, then, we say, had the Armenians renounced their religion and professed the Mohammedan faith and entered the army, they would have brought “to bear on the problems of the battlefield all the subtlety of intellect developed by ages of mental activity,” unquestionably would they have saved the Turkish Empire from the inevitable dissolution into which she has plunged herself. This also would have undoubtedly given a different feature to the Ottoman history.

Why have the Armenians been so cruelly persecuted, oppressed, tortured and butchered? Why were their beautiful daughters abducted, their wives ravished, they themselves massacred by the Kurds, Circassians, and Turks? Not because they belong to a different nationality—though they do—but because they belong to a different religion—they are Christians. So I beg the reader to bear in mind that the real trouble or the Armenian question, at the bottom, is the old conflict, first between Christianity and Paganism, then between Christianity and Mohammedanism, and now with Pagan-Mohammedanism.

The Turkish government found a convenient excuse for persecuting Christian Armenians under the garb of suppressing a revolutionary movement. But this movement was of a very recent origin, and altogether “harmless as to any effective force.” The Turkish misrule in Armenia, and in all parts of the Ottoman empire, persecutions, confiscations of property,forcible conversions to Islam, imprisonments, exiles, and massacres, have begun since the entrance of the Turks into Western Asia; at times they have been intensified; they are now at their height.

“Tears of Armenia” was the title of a little book which contained the report of Vartabed Paul Nathanian, who was appointed in 1878 by Bishop Nerses, the patriarch, and the civic and ecclesiastical councils of Constantinople, to take charge of the diocese of Palu in Armenia. While there, this noble prelate, following the example of the Good Shepherd, traveled through the country, visited his flock, and reported the condition of the people. His report was published. With great propriety he begins the preface in the following manner: “Tears and misery, behold, these two painful words are chosen for the theme of this present work, of which with an aching heart will I speak, and still more painful it is, that the esteemed reader will hear undeniable truths.”

The facts recorded in this pamphlet are too painful to be translated into the English language. The crimes of the Kurds and the injustice and cruelty of the government’s officers perpetrated upon the Christian Armenians run from the simplest forms of robbery and cruelty to the vilest forms of abduction, assault, outrage, torture, and murder.

The report of this venerable Vartabed Nathanian was only the confirmation and verification of the oppressed condition of the Armenians in the interior, more or less known before. For, when, in the autumn of 1876, the European powers sent their representativesto meet at Constantinople to consider the cruelties of the Turkish government, the massacre of the Bulgarians and other disturbances in the empire, Bishop Nerses attempted then to draw attention to the condition of the Armenians. But his efforts were fruitless, as the conference itself was futile; a peaceful adjustment of the differences was not agreed upon. The Russo-Turkish war consequently broke out. Again Armenia had to furnish the battle-field for these two formidable combatant nations in Asia.

Russia was apparently fighting for the oppressed Christians. The Turks were called upon to combat with a Christian nation, which was fighting as the champion of the Christian subjects of the Ottoman government. The officials of the government well may say: what do we care for these wretched Christians who are a constant source of trouble to us? The ignorant Turkish soldiers and thebashi-bazouks,[104]Circassians and Kurds were incapable of knowing the difference between an Armenian and a Russian, between a Greek and a Bulgarian, it was enough that all of them went under the name “Christian.” It was their frequent utterance, “Ghiaurlari kesmeli, the infidels must be killed.” Even when the government had no war whatever there was no safety for the Christian; how much less could any tranquillity now be expected. The mountains especially were infested by those who deserted the army, and the highway robbers were at the fullest exercise of their predatory powers.

Who suffered the worst, served the most, and received nothing in Asiatic Turkey? The Armenians. The Turkish troops, by all means, would avoid on their way to the battle-field lodging at a Turkish, but always at an Armenian village, where even the most insignificant soldier was a despot. He must have everything he wished for nothing, and not depart in peace, but give some trouble to his Christian host. The writer, who was not very far from the battle-field, being on the main road leading to it, has seen these things with his own eyes. He may, therefore, say with perfect truthfulness, that these soldiers did not leave out from the category of their deeds anything evil, but the good only.

“Turkey bears a striking resemblance to the infernal regions, which good George Herbert said are paved with broken promises; her conduct in this war has been marked by the vilest crimes of which a nation can be guilty. She has not only committed the crime of arming and letting loose bands of undisciplined, fanatic robbers, whose passions, fed by the religious exhortations of their bigoted priest, and strengthened by the proclamation of the Sheikh-ul-Islam, have led, asthe Porte knew full well and firmly intended that they should lead, to the brutal massacre of the survivors of the Bulgarian rebellion and the cold blooded murders of the inoffensive Christians in Armenia.”[105]

The fearful consequence of this war was the ignominious defeat of Turkey, and her readiness to come to terms with Russia whose armies were almost at the gates of Constantinople. So the representativesof these two combatant powers met at San Stefano, in March, 1878, and drew out the treaty which bears the name of the place. The 16th article of this Treaty was suggested and by the earnest solicitation of the patriarch and the leading Armenians of Constantinople, the Russian representative inserted the article for the express purpose of securing the protection of the Armenians. This article runs: “As the evacuation by the Russian troops of the territory which they occupy in Armenia, and which is to be restored to Turkey, might give rise to conflicts and complications detrimental to the maintenance of good relations between the two countries, the sublime Porte engages to carry into effect, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security from Kurds and Circassians.”

It is the opinion of some of the best Englishmen, that had the conservative government of England let the Treaty of San Stefano stand, Russia would have forced the Turkish government to fulfill her promises of reform in Armenia. But England upset and made it of non-effect by her interference merely for selfish ends. She negotiated with Turkey through the Cyprus convention of June, 1878. The following is the first article of this Anglo-Turkish convention: “His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, promises to England to introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later between the two powers, into the government and for the protection of the Christianand other subjects of the Porte in these territories [Armenia], and in order to enable England to make necessary provision for executing her engagement (keeping Russia out of Armenia), His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, further consents to assign the Island of Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England.”

The Anglo-Turkish Convention of Cyprus was a dagger thrust by a friend into the heart of Armenia; it may have been done unwittingly, yet Armenia has been bleeding ever since.

In the following month, July, 1878, the Congress of the Great Powers met in Berlin, to adjust the differences and make a smaller map for Turkey both in Europe and Asia. The indefatigable Patriarch, Bishop Nerses, sent a special deputation[106]to Berlin to petition the Congress for a Christian governor over Armenia, like that of Lebanon since 1861, and the European Powers themselves constituting the guardians of the Christian Armenians. The Congress of Berlin saw at once the justice and moderation of the Armenian request, and as a result we have the sixty-first Article of the Treaty of Berlin. But with an inexplicable stupidity, and with a criminal credulity, this Congress left the whole matter in the hands of the Turkish government, as if that wicked power was ever ready and willing to do what is right and proper, and the European Powers were to take the simple attitude of “watching over their [reforms] application.”

The Sixty-first article runs:

“The sublime Porte engages to realize without delay those ameliorations and reforms which local needs require in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds. It undertakes to make known from time to time, the measures taken with this object to the powers who will watch over their application.”

It is not enough to say that the Turkish government has failed to introduce necessary reforms, to ameliorate the condition of the Christians, or protect them from the atrocities of the Kurds, Circassians, and the Turks, since the signing of the Treaty of Berlin, for it has done more. It has determined, one way or the other, gradually to decimate and finally to exterminate the entire Armenian population in the empire. The facts of the history of the last thirty-five years bear out this assertion.

It was only two years after the signing of the Treaty of Berlin and England’s contract with Turkey that “the disturbances among the Kurds assumed a more general character in September (1880), when new troubles were reported in the district south of New Bajazid in the Sanjak of Mush, and in other parts of the same region. Incendiary proclamations were addressed to the Armenians by the insurgent chiefs, and the governor-general of Van applied to Constantinople for reinforcements but was answered that none could be spared. On the 20th of September the Kurds had destroyed thirteen Armenian villages.”

The powers who fixed their signatures through their representatives to the treaty of Berlin, “throughMr.Goschen, presented a collective note, on September 7, 1880. It refuted the statement of Abedden Pasha, that the government had already begun the work of reform, and after criticising the projected reforms, declared that they had been inadequate to the object in view and that a much greater development of the principles of decentralization and religious equality, the organization of a better police force, more energetic protection against the Kurds, a more definite provision concerning the functions of Governor-General, could alone satisfy the rights and expectations created by the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin.”[107]

“On October 3, without making the slightest references to censures which had been addressed to it, and even appearing completely to ignore the collective note, the Porte, assuming a haughty tone, merely notified the Powers of what it intended to do.”[108]

From this time on it appears that the Powers thought they had done enough. It is also reported that Prince Bismarck expressed the opinion that there would be “serious inconvenience” in raising the Armenian question and the British Ambassador at Constantinople,Mr.Goschen, in anticipation, wrote to Earl Granville: “If they (the Powers) refuse, or give only lukewarm support, the responsibility will not lie with Her Majesty’s Government.”

Thus the abandonment of the cause of justice by the Powers, thus leaving the Armenians at the pleasure of the Turks, paved the way for successive massacres by the latter under various pretenses.

The Circassians, Kurds, and Turks, have always been at liberty to go about well armed, but no Christian was allowed to carry arms of any kind, not even for self-defense. In case he was found with arms, he was arrested and cast into a dungeon of indescribable torture. If the Armenians would protect themselves against their enemies, they were seized upon by military force as insurgents. Yea, a groundless suspicion was enough for the officers, who entered, by force of arms, into the Armenian Church in Erzroum (1890), desecrated the sacred edifice, disturbed the religious services of the Christians, under the pretext of searching for arms. The indignation of the Christians at the violation of their rights cost the lives of several persons, including that of the Armenian bishop of Erzroum.

Notorious Mousa Bey, a Kurdish chief, after committing numerous robberies and cruelties, murdered an Armenian and abducted his daughter; at Bitlis, he tortured an Armenian to death with red-hot iron. At the head of his brigands he fell upon another Christian family and destroyed the entire family, and ravished the women in the village of Dabovank. Many complaints and a multitude of witnesses of his outrages could hardly effect his being brought to Constantinople to answer for those charges. After all these crimes, the Turkish court of Justice—rather of“Mockery,” as the distinguished statesman, the lateMr.Gladstone, called it—acquitted him.

In the summer of 1890 it looked as if the persecution had reached its climax. TheLondon Daily Newssent special correspondents to Armenia, and their reports leave no doubt that for some reason or other the Turkish government have resolved to make the lives of the Armenians unbearable.

“There is a well-founded suspicion that the sultan is deluding himself with the idea that, by supplanting the Christian Armenians by Mohammedan Kurds, he can raise up a formidable barrier to the Russian conquest of the province. The immediate result of his asinine policy is to make the Armenians look to the czar as their only powerful friend, and the feeling of indignation in this country is so strong on the subject that it is probable Lord Salisbury would not dare to interfere should Russian troops enter Armenia.”“Mampre Benglian, the Armenian bishop of Alashgerd, has arrived at Constantinople by way of Trebizond, under guard as a criminal. The charge against him is that he advised his flock to leave Armenia and seek refuge in Persia. The Bishop was arrested and subjected to the most outrageous indignities, insulted, spat at, and flogged, thrown into a dungeon and there confined for some time before being sent to Constantinople. Owing to the remonstrances by the British and Russian ambassadors, he has been given his freedom on parole. A letter from Alashgerd says: ‘We can neither depart nor stay, and no other course is left us but to perish where we are. The Kurds and Turks openly declare that they mean to kill as many Armenians as they can, and that they have full permission.’ The Kurds have set fire to the crops of the Armenians inmany places in the vicinity of Bitlis. The situation in Armenia is daily becoming more deplorable. There has been a wholesale massacre of Christians at Moosh.”

“Mampre Benglian, the Armenian bishop of Alashgerd, has arrived at Constantinople by way of Trebizond, under guard as a criminal. The charge against him is that he advised his flock to leave Armenia and seek refuge in Persia. The Bishop was arrested and subjected to the most outrageous indignities, insulted, spat at, and flogged, thrown into a dungeon and there confined for some time before being sent to Constantinople. Owing to the remonstrances by the British and Russian ambassadors, he has been given his freedom on parole. A letter from Alashgerd says: ‘We can neither depart nor stay, and no other course is left us but to perish where we are. The Kurds and Turks openly declare that they mean to kill as many Armenians as they can, and that they have full permission.’ The Kurds have set fire to the crops of the Armenians inmany places in the vicinity of Bitlis. The situation in Armenia is daily becoming more deplorable. There has been a wholesale massacre of Christians at Moosh.”

The Turkish government has revised the sixty-first article of the Treaty of Berlin, and the other signatory Powers have silently consented to it. The following is the Turkish revision: “The sublime Porte engages to realize without delay such maltreatments, persecutions, oppressions, outrages, cruelties, and murders in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and guarantees the security of their enemies, the Kurds, Circassians and the Turks, and will acquit them in case of their being brought to justice, and will assist them in case the Armenians rise against them in self-defense, by force of arms, and will declare the Christians as rebels. It, moreover, undertakes to make known to the civilized and Christian powers from time to time, that Mohammedanism and barbarism go hand in hand.” This is just what Turkey has been doing with the silent consent of the European Powers. Of course, Turkey is the chief criminal in the case and the other Powers have been accessories of her crime. And England’s share of that crime is confessed by the best of England’s sons:

“The only effect of the Anglo-Turkish convention has been to increase the confidence of the sultan that he can do as he pleases in Armenia notwithstanding Article LXI of the Berlin Treaty.“England, therefore, is responsible in three ways. She destroyed the Russian guarantee exacted by the Treatyof San Stefano. She framed the ‘watching’ clause of the Berlin Treaty, and then, to preclude all possibility of effective pressure upon the Turk, she concludes the Cyprus convention which established an illegal British protectorate over the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan.”[109]“In the field of Eastern politics generally the conspicuous result has been the failure—the complete, humiliating, and irretrievable failure—of the traditional policy pursued by England of supporting the Turk against Russia. That policy, first attempted byMr.Pitt, in 1791, against the vehement protests ofMr.Burke[110]but presently abandoned, was warmly espoused by Lord Palmerston. It prompted the Crimean war of 1853, and was embodied in the Treaty of Paris of 1856. It had the lifelong support of Lord Beaconsfield, who by refusing to join Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1876 in applying pressure to the sultan, brought on the war of 1877. Public opinion in Great Britain, outraged by the Bulgarian massacre, prevented him from giving the armed support of Great Britain to the Turks in that year. But he was able to revert to and enforce that policy in the negotiations of 1878, which substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stefano, and it dictated the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish convention.”[111]

“The only effect of the Anglo-Turkish convention has been to increase the confidence of the sultan that he can do as he pleases in Armenia notwithstanding Article LXI of the Berlin Treaty.

“England, therefore, is responsible in three ways. She destroyed the Russian guarantee exacted by the Treatyof San Stefano. She framed the ‘watching’ clause of the Berlin Treaty, and then, to preclude all possibility of effective pressure upon the Turk, she concludes the Cyprus convention which established an illegal British protectorate over the Asiatic dominions of the Sultan.”[109]

“In the field of Eastern politics generally the conspicuous result has been the failure—the complete, humiliating, and irretrievable failure—of the traditional policy pursued by England of supporting the Turk against Russia. That policy, first attempted byMr.Pitt, in 1791, against the vehement protests ofMr.Burke[110]but presently abandoned, was warmly espoused by Lord Palmerston. It prompted the Crimean war of 1853, and was embodied in the Treaty of Paris of 1856. It had the lifelong support of Lord Beaconsfield, who by refusing to join Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1876 in applying pressure to the sultan, brought on the war of 1877. Public opinion in Great Britain, outraged by the Bulgarian massacre, prevented him from giving the armed support of Great Britain to the Turks in that year. But he was able to revert to and enforce that policy in the negotiations of 1878, which substituted the Treaty of Berlin for the Treaty of San Stefano, and it dictated the provisions of the Anglo-Turkish convention.”[111]

The Armenian question is simply this: Whether the Armenians should enjoy the liberty ofconscience and of action according to the laws of civilization and Christianity, or whether they should be annihilated by the inveterate enemies of civilization and Christianity, the Turkish rulers. The Armenians brought this question to the decision of the Berlin Congress. The Congress decided that the Armenians must enjoy freedom of conscience and action according to thelawsof civilization and Christianity. Turkey, by her representatives, agreed and consented to the decision and promised to have civilized laws, and give freedom to Christianity. But no sooner was the Congress dissolved and the representatives of the nations returned to their respective governments, than the Turkish government took up the work of annihilation of the Christian Armenians. The decision, without any action on the part of the Powers, encouraged the Turk to return to his mire to wallow in.[112]The historian’s sad duty is to describe the beast and his bestial acts, so far as it is permissible, and to point out the sources wherefrom he derives his power.

This work of extermination has been carried on in different ways in certain parts of the country. While in the interior small groups of Armenians have been killed and done away with, in the cities imprisonments, tortures, exiles, assassinations and compulsive conversions to Ismal have been in vogue. The following letter dated June 26, 1891,[113]published inL’Observateur, from its Constantinople correspondent,will show some ways of doing away with the Armenians:

“I have already written you, that in consequence of the late disturbances at Constantinople most of the Armenian prisoners have been banished, in small groups, to various distant places, in order not to attract the attention of the public. Is it possible ever to pen the tortures that these unfortunates are suffering in Turkish prisons? The penal system in Turkey is still in its primitive state, and has undergone no improvement since the time of Sultan Mehmed II (1451-1481). Many prisoners have not been able to stand the tortures inflicted upon them, and the death of one of them, Vartan Calousdian (a young man twenty-six years of age), is a new proof of their atrocities.“The parents of this young man, hearing of his death in prison, succeeded in securing, through the almighty ‘backshish,’ the remains of their beloved in order to inter him in their family grave. While the attendants of the Church at Galata were washing the body according to the custom of the Armenian Church, they could not withhold their tears, and they were awe-stricken at the sight of numerous wounds which marked the body. The poor young man had many of his ribs broken, the palms of his hands and the bottom of his feet were burned and his breast and back striped with long burns....“Similar cases occur quite often in Asia Minor, but the local authorities conceal them with the utmost care, and make every effort to keep them from the people. The Armenians have not even the right to emigrate from this barbarous country. I telegraphed to you yesterday that the governor of Trebizond prohibited about one hundred Armenian emigrants from leaving the port on the Massangeric steamer ‘Niger.’”

“The parents of this young man, hearing of his death in prison, succeeded in securing, through the almighty ‘backshish,’ the remains of their beloved in order to inter him in their family grave. While the attendants of the Church at Galata were washing the body according to the custom of the Armenian Church, they could not withhold their tears, and they were awe-stricken at the sight of numerous wounds which marked the body. The poor young man had many of his ribs broken, the palms of his hands and the bottom of his feet were burned and his breast and back striped with long burns....

“Similar cases occur quite often in Asia Minor, but the local authorities conceal them with the utmost care, and make every effort to keep them from the people. The Armenians have not even the right to emigrate from this barbarous country. I telegraphed to you yesterday that the governor of Trebizond prohibited about one hundred Armenian emigrants from leaving the port on the Massangeric steamer ‘Niger.’”

Without the slightest fear of exaggeration the reader can stretch the compass of his imagination to picture to himself the pitiable condition of those prisoners and their families in Asia Minor and Armenia proper. There was neither press nor the influence of the foreign powers; neither facilities of rapid communication, nor the possible use of the telegraph system which is controlled by the government; nor did any safety exist in the post-office system; letters were often torn open with the pretense of suspicion, where “similar cases occurquite often, but the local authorities concealed them with utmost care.” These unfortunate prisoners were tortured and starved to death in those filthy and infectious jails; their wives were exposed to the assaults and outrages of the enemies of their religion, their daughters were abducted and proselyted by threats, their little ones were crying for bread, but there was none to provide for them. They and their homes and families were completely ruined. Like the lambs on the thousand hills of Armenia, the Christian inhabitants of Western Asia were turned over to the Mohammedan wolves by the European Powers.

The following poem, which is translated and recomposed from the original byMr.Thomas G. Allen, Jr., appeared with an article by the same gentleman in the New YorkHerald, about twenty-five years ago. The object of the writer was to show how the inflammatory and revolutionary literature had provoked the Turks, who, almost driven out of Europe,were also threatened in Asia. The following is his closing words:

“And now the Turks are threatened in Asia itself. Is there no possible reconciliation between the conflicting elements? Is the unity of civilization to be had only by the sacrifice of whole populations, and those above all, which [the Turks] are distinguished by the highest moral qualities—Uprightness, truth, manliness, courage and tolerance?”

Tastes surely differ. Even the bloodthirsty and bestial Turks are distinguished by the highest moral qualities according toMr.Allen. Here is the revolutionary poem:

ADDRESS TO THE ARMENIANS

Stand firm, O Armenians! Stand firm for the landThat gave thee in childhood her cherishing hand;Stand firm for thy country, thy cradle, thy grave,The country that reeks with the blood of the brave.’Tis here in their dungeons, ’mid torture and moanThe blood of thy fathers so freely has flown;And this is the land where still thou hast saved,Great glories and names, on thy memory engraved.’Tis here, for his home, and the pleasures it brought,Our ancestor, Haik, so courageously fought;And Vartan, that champion of sweet liberty,Broke asunder the chains of foul slavery.O Freedom, thou blessing that nations have craved,How long has thy ensign and emblem here waved!How many Armenians, so noble and brave,For thee have gone down to a premature grave!Though fortune has struck it with terrible blows,And left alone Armenia a prey to its foes,Though subdued, yet unconquered, our nation still lives,To break the slave bonds that a base tyrant gives.Armenia still lives, and out to the worldHer flag of distress she now has unfurled;In torture and pain she utters the cry,“With freedom to live; with slavery to die.”Oh, why should our strife be rewarded with pain,And the blood of our bravest be poured out in vain!Oh, why should our country’s most sorrowful wail,Have stirred noble souls to a cause that must fail!Oh, why should this effort of unceasing pace,These brave souls, be given without even a trace!For this can it be that our country fares worse,And even must bear with this terrible curse?Nay, never! Thank God, the day’s soon at handWhen victory shall marshal our patriot band!For this we have prayed—but alas! ever so,Our prayers are unanswered as years come and go.But if ever thus the fates may decree,Then welcome we death that our souls may be free;Let kind Mother Earth to her bosom enfoldThe corpse of a nation, all bloodless and cold.The nations, astonished, may view her dark grave,And see the ruined homes they neglected to save;And thousand of hearts with repentance may grieveFor the lost Christian nation they failed to relieve.

FOOTNOTES:[104]Literally, “Loose-headed,” in the sense of undisciplined volunteers.[105]Norman, “Armenia and the Campaign of 1877,” p. 372.[106]This deputation consisted of Bishops Mugurdich, Khrimian, Khorene NerBey, DeLusignan and Prof. Minas Tcheraz.[107]Appelton, Annual Cyclopædia, 1880, p. 689.[108]Greene, “The Armenian Crisis in Turkey,” p. 78.[109]The Westminster Gazette, Dec. 12, 1894, reprinted in theArmenia, London, Jan. 1, 1895.[110]The following is part of Burke’s address quoted by Bryce: “I have never before heard that the Turkish Empire has been considered any part of the balance of Powers in Europe. They despise and contemn all Christian princes as infidels, and only wish to subdue and exterminate them and their people. What have these worse than savages to do with the Powers of Europe but to spread war, destruction, and pestilence among them? The ministers and the policy which shall give these people any weight in Europe will deserve all the bans and curses of posterity.” Quoted from Bryce’s.[111]Bryce, “Transcaucasia and Ararat,” p. 519, 4th ed.[112]II Peter, 2:22.[113]Reprinted inThe Ararat, New York, July 30, 1891.

[104]Literally, “Loose-headed,” in the sense of undisciplined volunteers.

[105]Norman, “Armenia and the Campaign of 1877,” p. 372.

[106]This deputation consisted of Bishops Mugurdich, Khrimian, Khorene NerBey, DeLusignan and Prof. Minas Tcheraz.

[107]Appelton, Annual Cyclopædia, 1880, p. 689.

[108]Greene, “The Armenian Crisis in Turkey,” p. 78.

[109]The Westminster Gazette, Dec. 12, 1894, reprinted in theArmenia, London, Jan. 1, 1895.

[110]The following is part of Burke’s address quoted by Bryce: “I have never before heard that the Turkish Empire has been considered any part of the balance of Powers in Europe. They despise and contemn all Christian princes as infidels, and only wish to subdue and exterminate them and their people. What have these worse than savages to do with the Powers of Europe but to spread war, destruction, and pestilence among them? The ministers and the policy which shall give these people any weight in Europe will deserve all the bans and curses of posterity.” Quoted from Bryce’s.

[111]Bryce, “Transcaucasia and Ararat,” p. 519, 4th ed.

[112]II Peter, 2:22.

[113]Reprinted inThe Ararat, New York, July 30, 1891.

Back to Index Next