III.
Having thus sketched as briefly as possible the early history, ethnology and physical features of the country, we shall be better able to understand what is commonly known as the “Armenian Question.”
When the Ottoman rule was established, the plain-dwellers and the pastoral tribes of the mountain slopes still preserved their national customs, language and vices, and they have retained these to this day. The waves of conquest had swept over the cold, inhospitable plateau into the richer and warmer plains beyond; but while the conquerors had established governors and garrisons, they had never planted colonists; this is the principal reason why there has been so little change in this strange country. When we hear of the aspirations of the Armenians for independence or absorption by Russia, we must always remember that from all accounts the mountaineers, or Kurds, have been as long established in Kurdistan as the plain-dwellers, usually called by the name of Armenians, and have consequently an equal right to a voice in the matter.
How then is it that the Armenians have developed a national sentiment, whereas the Kurds, who equally retain their former customs and language, are bitterly opposed to any alteration in their present condition?
We all know that Constantinople was captured by the Osmanli Turks in the year 1453. Their sultan, Mahomed II., a liberal and wise ruler, granted religious freedom to the conquered races in his dominions and, in order not to be troubled with their continual disputes, organized all the non-Moslems into communities or “millets” under their own ecclesiastical chiefs, with absolute authority in civil and religious matters. There was already at this time a largenumber of Armenians in Stambul, who in due course were formed into a community of this kind under their own Ecclesiastikos or Patriach. When Selim I. conquered Armenia the Gregorian Christians of that country were by an imperial iradé incorporated under the Armenian Patriarch at Constantinople, while the Kurds, who had embraced Islam under the Seljuk rule, received no special treatment since they were of the same religion as their rulers.
The formation of the conquered races into separate communities under their own ecclesiastical chiefs, though inspired by the most benevolent principles, has, by fostering centrifrugal aspirations, been the root evil of all the subsequent internal troubles in the Ottoman Empire. Sir Charles Wilson in his article on Armenia, in the “Encyclopædia Britannica” explains how this happened in the case of the Armenians:
Thisimperium in imperiosecured the Armenians a recognised position before the law, the free enjoyment of their religion, the possession of their churches and monasteries, and the right to educate their children and manage their own municipal affairs. It also encouraged the growth of a community life, which eventually gave birth to an intense longing for national life. On the other hand it degraded the priesthood. The priests became political leaders rather than spiritual guides, and sought promotion by bribery and intrigue. Education was neglected and discouraged, servility and treachery were developed, and in less than a century the people had become depraved and degraded to an almost incredible extent. After the issue, in 1839, of the hatt-i-sheriff of gül-Khaneh, the tradesmen and artisans of the capital freed themselves from clerical control. Under regulations, approved by the Sultan in 1862, the patriarch remained the official representative of the community, but all real power passed into the hands of clerical and lay councils elected by a representative assembly of one hundred and forty members. The “Community,” which excluded Roman Catholics and Protestants, was soon called the “Nation,” “domestic” became “national” affairs, and the “representative” the “national assembly.”
Thisimperium in imperiosecured the Armenians a recognised position before the law, the free enjoyment of their religion, the possession of their churches and monasteries, and the right to educate their children and manage their own municipal affairs. It also encouraged the growth of a community life, which eventually gave birth to an intense longing for national life. On the other hand it degraded the priesthood. The priests became political leaders rather than spiritual guides, and sought promotion by bribery and intrigue. Education was neglected and discouraged, servility and treachery were developed, and in less than a century the people had become depraved and degraded to an almost incredible extent. After the issue, in 1839, of the hatt-i-sheriff of gül-Khaneh, the tradesmen and artisans of the capital freed themselves from clerical control. Under regulations, approved by the Sultan in 1862, the patriarch remained the official representative of the community, but all real power passed into the hands of clerical and lay councils elected by a representative assembly of one hundred and forty members. The “Community,” which excluded Roman Catholics and Protestants, was soon called the “Nation,” “domestic” became “national” affairs, and the “representative” the “national assembly.”
But there the process of evolution stopped, for although the national idea became familiar to the Armenian population, there was no real aspiration for a national or separate existence. A well-informed and acute writer, ‘Odysseus,’ in his book“Turkey in Europe” tells us that until the years succeeding the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878:
the Turks and Armenians got on excellently together. The Armenians looked upon Russia as their enemy, and a large Armenian population from that country migrated into Kurdistan. The Russians restricted the Armenian Church, schools and language; the Turks on the contrary were perfectly tolerant and liberal as to all such matters.They did not care how the Armenians prayed, taught and talked, and in many ways found them the most useful and loyal of their Christian subjects. The Greeks were always inclined towards Hellas. But there was no Armenia.The Armenians were thorough Orientals and appreciated Turkish ideas and habits. While the wealthier members of the community lived in accordance with Turkish custom, the poorer found employment as domestics in Moslem houses. With the exception of those who settled abroad for commercial purposes, the Armenians were quite content to live among the Turks and spend their money in Turkey.The Armenians even went so far as to speak Turkish among themselves, and their present language contains numerous Turkish words (to the extent of almost forty per cent.), and though Kurds and Zaptiehs perhaps rendered life at times a little too eventful, on the whole the “Sarafs” or money changers gained more than brigands and tax-collectors combined. The balance of wealth certainly remained with the Christians. The Turks Seated them with good humoured confidence and the phrase “millet-i-sadika,” the loyal community, was regularly applied to them.
the Turks and Armenians got on excellently together. The Armenians looked upon Russia as their enemy, and a large Armenian population from that country migrated into Kurdistan. The Russians restricted the Armenian Church, schools and language; the Turks on the contrary were perfectly tolerant and liberal as to all such matters.
They did not care how the Armenians prayed, taught and talked, and in many ways found them the most useful and loyal of their Christian subjects. The Greeks were always inclined towards Hellas. But there was no Armenia.
The Armenians were thorough Orientals and appreciated Turkish ideas and habits. While the wealthier members of the community lived in accordance with Turkish custom, the poorer found employment as domestics in Moslem houses. With the exception of those who settled abroad for commercial purposes, the Armenians were quite content to live among the Turks and spend their money in Turkey.
The Armenians even went so far as to speak Turkish among themselves, and their present language contains numerous Turkish words (to the extent of almost forty per cent.), and though Kurds and Zaptiehs perhaps rendered life at times a little too eventful, on the whole the “Sarafs” or money changers gained more than brigands and tax-collectors combined. The balance of wealth certainly remained with the Christians. The Turks Seated them with good humoured confidence and the phrase “millet-i-sadika,” the loyal community, was regularly applied to them.
The toleration of the Government and the friendly relations which existed at that time between the Turks and the Armenians, as described by ‘Odysseus,’ is fully corroborated by the following passages from Mr. Geary’s book “Through Asiatic Turkey”:
The Chief of the Dominican Mission, a very enlightened man who has been for some years resident in Mosul, did not share these misgivings. He did not consider that he ran any risk of losing his life through Mahommedan fanaticism. As for the Government, he said that the religious toleration enjoyed under it was complete. It never in any way interfered with what the Christians did or taught in the schools or the churches. It was impossible to desire more absolute liberty of worship or teaching. But in civil administration there was great scope for improvement, and, indeed, an absolute necessity for it. The laws were good, but they were not steadily applied. The laxity and want of thoroughness which characterised every department were inexplicable and allowed even the best conceived measuresto result in mischief.... We found the village of Krelani to be one of considerable size: theinhabitants being half Christian and half Mohammedan. Religious differences seemed to be completely disregarded, Christian and Moslem being on the most friendly terms. The chief men of both sections were sitting in a little circle in front of the Kahia’s house when we arrived, and they rose and saluted me very civilly.... I can only say, that if there be any bigotry amongst these people, I saw no manifestation of it throughout my long journey: I could not have been received with greater courtesy if I had been myself a True Believer.... He is a very strict Mussulman, though, like most Turks, whether strict or not, he is very tolerant.
The Chief of the Dominican Mission, a very enlightened man who has been for some years resident in Mosul, did not share these misgivings. He did not consider that he ran any risk of losing his life through Mahommedan fanaticism. As for the Government, he said that the religious toleration enjoyed under it was complete. It never in any way interfered with what the Christians did or taught in the schools or the churches. It was impossible to desire more absolute liberty of worship or teaching. But in civil administration there was great scope for improvement, and, indeed, an absolute necessity for it. The laws were good, but they were not steadily applied. The laxity and want of thoroughness which characterised every department were inexplicable and allowed even the best conceived measuresto result in mischief.... We found the village of Krelani to be one of considerable size: theinhabitants being half Christian and half Mohammedan. Religious differences seemed to be completely disregarded, Christian and Moslem being on the most friendly terms. The chief men of both sections were sitting in a little circle in front of the Kahia’s house when we arrived, and they rose and saluted me very civilly.... I can only say, that if there be any bigotry amongst these people, I saw no manifestation of it throughout my long journey: I could not have been received with greater courtesy if I had been myself a True Believer.... He is a very strict Mussulman, though, like most Turks, whether strict or not, he is very tolerant.
It should be observed that the Armenians as a race are considerably scattered. The original territory known as Armenia having been annexed by Russia, Persia, and Turkey, the bulk of the Armenian population is divided between these three Powers. They are estimated to number in Russia about 1,000,000, in Persia 150,000, and in Turkey, including Salonika and the lost European Provinces, 1,500,000. In addition to these there are about 250,000 Armenians scattered through Europe, America, the East Indies and Egypt. As we shall subsequently see, all the troubles originated from outside and not in Kurdistan itself. The first disturbing element, in the opinion of ‘Odysseus,’ was the arrival of a number of Protestant and other foreign missionaries. This judgment, disappointing as it must be to many who are deeply interested in the religious side of missionary work, is amply corroborated by Sir Edwin Pears, who admits in his book, “Forty Years in Constantinople,” that “In a very real sense it may be said that the fomenters of political agitation in Armenia, as in Bulgaria, were the schoolmasters and the missions, Catholic or Protestant.” These good men, as we are told by Sir Mark Sykes, in his interesting and most important work entitled “Dar-ul-Islam,” soon found that
It was as impossible to turn an Oriental Moslem into a Christian, as it would be to transform an English Christian into a Jew; hence their missionary effort was confined to turning one kind of Christian into some other kind.[2]Large sums of money were spent in transforming aJacobite into a little Bethel Peculiar Anabaptist, in converting the little Bethel Anabaptist né Jacobite to Roman Catholicism, and in reforming the Roman Catholic late little Bethel Peculiar Anabaptist né Jacobite into an American Keswickian Presbyterian.
It was as impossible to turn an Oriental Moslem into a Christian, as it would be to transform an English Christian into a Jew; hence their missionary effort was confined to turning one kind of Christian into some other kind.[2]Large sums of money were spent in transforming aJacobite into a little Bethel Peculiar Anabaptist, in converting the little Bethel Anabaptist né Jacobite to Roman Catholicism, and in reforming the Roman Catholic late little Bethel Peculiar Anabaptist né Jacobite into an American Keswickian Presbyterian.
But the process of turning a Jacobite into an American Keswickian Presbyterian spoilt a good Oriental and made him a discontented and semi-europeanised Asiatic.
The first Armenian converts to Protestantism were subjected to fierce persecutions by their fellow Armenians who clung to their old form of faith, and for their protection from this persistent annoyance and cruelty the Sultan about 1857 issued an iradé recognizing the Protestants as a separate religious community independent from the Orthodox Armenian Church and free from any interference by its officials.
The second disturbing factor were the clauses inserted, at the request of Russia, in the Berlin Treaty of July 13th, 1878, whereby the six signatory Powers acquired the right of superintendence and interference in the internal affairs of Kurdistan. The clauses of this treaty imbued the Armenians with the idea that they were entitled to the grant of special privileges from the Porte, and this was easily fomented into the notion of founding an Armenian kingdom, or at least an Armenian autonomous state. These ideas were further encouraged by the formation of the Bulgarian Principality and by the foundation in London in the year 1890 of the Anglo-Armenian Society “whose laudable object was hampered by their invincible ignorance of the spirit and methods of the East.”[3]
The third disturbing element was the development, after the Russo-Turkish war, of the Nihilist movement in Russia. The persecuted Armenians of the Caucasus readily entered into the conspiracy, the Armenian branch of which had its headquarters at Tiflis.
The Czar’s Government increased its severity towards the Armenians, and when the Russian police made the existence of the secret societies at Tiflis too precarious, the Armenian revolutionaries moved their headquarters and branches to New York, Paris, London, and Geneva, where, between the years 1889 and 1892, they founded their secret societies the Hintchak, the Aptak and subsequently the most diabolical of them all, the Dashnahsutium. They also founded a regular revolutionary propaganda publishing their own papers and reviews.
These societies, by blackmailing and preying upon the rich Armenian financiers and traders of Europe and America, soon became wealthy corporations. Hunted out of Russia, they sent their emissaries into Kurdistan, where they renewed their nefarious campaign. Although denounced and hated by the respectable resident Armenians and the priests, whom they blackmailed and murdered as occasion offered, they even tried to embroil the central government with the European Powers by committing crimes, the responsibility for which they attempted by false evidence to fix on the Missionary Colleges. They committed murders in the streets of London. In New York the police unearthed a conspiracy of blackmail, bomb outrages and murder, which completely terrorized the rich Armenian bankers and merchants. A little over two years ago the London Press reported the discovery by the New York police of a further conspiracy of terrorism and assassination.
The advent of these revolutionary agents into Kurdistan had the inevitable result of embittering the former good relations of the Turkish Government and the resident Moslem population with the Christian, and especially the Orthodox Armenian section of the inhabitants.
This was natural for the reason that in Turkey the people have a horror of secret societies and plots, founded on theexperience of their own suffering at the hands of the Greek Hetairia and the Bulgarian Komitadjis. The fears of the Turks and the Kurds were genuine. They believed that the members of the once loyal “millet-i-sadika” no longer merited that title, and that they were arming and preparing to massacre the Moslems. The whole country became like a powder magazine, and Europe had not long to wait for the inevitable spark which started what are known as the Armenian massacres of 1894 and 1896.