TABLE OF CONTENTS

ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIANS

A LIST OF REFERENCES

Prefatory Note

By Richard Gottheil, Ph.D.

Chief of the Oriental Division

Few people have been the subject of so much pity and commiseration as have the Armenians. And few have deserved such pity as fully as have they. A remarkable race, they have had an uncommon history. They have always written and spoken an Indo-European language, one that belongs to that large number of which the Sanskrit is an early and prominent representative. According to their traditions, they are also of Indo-European race; though evidently intermixed with Semitic and other blood. Historically, they come to our notice at first in ancient Phrygia; and, peculiarly enough, seem to have reversed the general order and to have travelled towards the rising sun instead of towards the west. The Empire of the Hittites was breaking up, and the Armenians appear to have settled in the upper reaches of the Euphrates, to have extended their quarters into the region of Lakes Van and Urmia and to have made their home around Mt. Ararat. Unfortunately, the Armenians were never able to hold out long as an independent kingdom. In antiquity the greater Powers of Greece, of Seleucid Syria, of Persia and of Rome were at hand, ready to prevent the assertion of any rights that might controvert their own. At one time, it is true, that which historians call Armenia Major and Armenia Minor—the Caucasus regions south of the mountains and north of Mesopotamia—were ruled by independent kings, especially under Tigranes II, termed the Great (94–56 B. C.), who extended his power to take in a good deal of the former kingdom of Assyria, the northwest corner of Persia, the province of Azerbaijan, a territory said to have covered some 500,000 square miles and to have contained some 3,000,000 inhabitants. His royal city was called after his own name—Tigranocerta; and it is sufficient to record Cicero’s saying that “Tigranes made the Republic of Rome tremble before his powers.” But Rome’s watchful eye was envious of such power, and under Lucullus, in 69 B. C., Armenian independence was put down—not to be raised again for many centuries. At a later date she became the playball between Byzantium and Persia, who in their continued strife swarmed up and down her land carrying destruction in their wake. Weakened as she thus was, she was in no condition to withstand the onslaughts made upon her by the Arab hordes that swarmed up through northern Mesopotamia in 636 A.D. But, withal, her people held firmly to their heritage. From time to time attempts at freedom were made and independent kings ruled for a nonce and after a fashion. Vartan did this in from 571 until 578 under the Byzantines. Ashot I was semi-independent in 885 under the auspices of Arab overlords.

But such attempts as these were not productive of good. They opened the way for internal strife and for the entry of those Tartar hordes in the eleventh century that were destined finally to overrun the whole country. Here again the tenacity of the Armenians told its tale. Small independent kingdoms were established at Ani, in Georgia and near Lake Van. But the coming of Toghril Beg soon ended their existence. In 1071, the Turks drove the Byzantines out of Armenia and began that series of depredations and plunder through which they have made their name infamous. In 1239, Jenghiz Khan was there; and when the Turks were at rest, the Kurds were ready to supplement their work. An exodus was begun, the first of many the Armenians have had to suffer during their long and tragic history. Multitudes were driven out of the country into Poland, into Moldavia and Galicia,—even around the north of the Caspian Sea, where in Lemberg, an important colony was founded. Some wandered to the South and founded settlements in the mountains of Cilicia which were able to exist for some 300 years, although they were looked at askance by Byzantium because of their peculiar church government.

In 1375, the country was conquered by the Ottomans; but so strong is the desire of the Armenians for freedom that a small body of them withdrew into the recesses of the Taurus mountains and refused—with success—down to the present day, to pay taxes to the government at Constantinople. The Armenians were overrun by Tamerlane in 1401, by the Sultan Selim I in 1514, by the Persians in 1575 and 1639. It was therefore natural that, when the Russian armies came upon the scene and offered to release the Christian peoples from the yoke of the Turk they were received with joy. Etchmiadzin, which for a time had been Persian, became Russian by the treaty of Turkman-Chai in 1828. Whatever fault we may in truth find with the manner in which the former Russian government treated its subject peoples, very little can be said against its method of dealing with the Armenians. It is true that a strong attempt at Russification was commenced during the closing years of the nineteenth century. This went so far that in 1898, under the governorship of Prince Galitzin, many Armenian schools were taken over, and in 1903 much Armenian church property was condemned. But nothing was done to disturb the daily life of the Armenians who grew numerous and flourished in that part of the Caucasus that was under Russian surveillance. The Plain of Erivan and the Valley of the Araxes River are their chief residing places. Here, though in close contact with Tartars, Lazes and Kurds, they have preserved their separate existence, and have cherished with ardor the details of their older life. Etchmiadzin was originally a religious settlement—a monastery encircled by high battlements. But for the Armenians it is not only a religious center. It is more than this. It has become a national rallying point towards which all Armenians look with a peculiar attachment and affection.

One would have imagined that such tenacity in holding on to what they considered to be the truth would have received the recognition it deserved on the part of the leading political forces in Europe. But that was asking too much. The lot of the Armenians who were under Turkish overlordship gradually grew worse. It is true that the Draft Treaty of San Stefano called for “improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by Armenians,” and guaranteed “their security from Kurds and Circassians.” But the final Berlin Treaty of 1878 had whittled this down to a simple promise of reform “for the protection of Christian and other subjects of the Porte.” This meant, of course, that nothing was to be done. Turkey was astute enough to know this; and the great arbiter of fate in the Europe of his time, Bismarck, had said openly that the Germans had no care for Armenian reforms.

Soon the massacres commenced that unfortunately carried the tale of Armenian sufferings all over the world. Beginning at Mush, in 1893, they have lasted with more or less continuity down to our own day. Unfortunately, such place-names as Erzerum (1895) and Adana (1909) are too familiar to our ears. The hope was felt and openly expressed that the coming of the Young Turk would bring a change in the treatment of the Armenians; but Enver, Talaat, and Djavid have certainly done their best to prove that though the Turk may change from “old” to “young” he still remains a Turk. “The first phase of Ottoman policy towards subject peoples was neglect; the Hamidian was attrition; but the Young Turkish phase is extermination.” The report presented in 1916 by Viscount Bryce on “The Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire,” is the severest indictment that could be presented against a people and against their political backers. From 800,000 to 1,000,000 of these Armenians are said, on reliable authority, to have perished.

At an early date the Armenians accepted Christianity. They themselves believe that the new faith was preached to them by the apostles Thaddai and Bartholomew. But it was not until the year 301 that Gregory the Illuminator persuaded their king Tiridates officially to accept Christianity for the state and the people as a whole. And just as they have preserved their national identity, so they have kept themselves apart as a church—called the “Gregorian,” after the saint mentioned above. They followed the decisions of the Council of Nicea (325) of Constantinople (381) and of Ephesus (381), but refused to regard the Council of Chalcedon as legally convened; and at a synod of their own, composed of Armenian and Georgian bishops, held at Driune in 506, the Armenians definitely wedded themselves to the Council of Ephesus and the theological doctrines propounded there. The Armenian Church stands thus, in no connection either with the Greek or the Roman Church. In the 18th century, it is true, a certain bishop Mekhitar, of Sebaste, joined the Roman Hierarchy and established at Venice the Mekitarist Monastery that has done some excellent literary and educational work, and that in Turkey a Kotolik Milleti (Catholic Nation), was established in 1835, through Roman influence. But neither have any connection with the Armenian Church as such. The Oriental character of this church may be seen from the fact that its weekly day of rest lasts from Saturday sun-down up to Sunday evening.

At an equally early date the Armenians showed a taste for literary expression, and so eager are they for education that in the year 1902, and under all the circumstances of Turkish oppression, they had no less than 1,200 Armenian schools in the Ottoman empire, giving instruction to 130,000 pupils. Their script is said to have come to them from a certain Syrian Daniel and to have been enlarged and perfected by their own Saint Mesrob in 410, who added the vowel signs after the manner of the Greek system. It was to this same Mesrob, assisted by Sahak (Isaac; 387–439), to whom the Armenians owe the translation of both the Old and New Testament into their tongue. Much of the older literature is composed of translations from Greek and from Syriac authors, but, in a certain sense, a national literature was growing up—though, as was natural, it was largely theological in character. Yet valuable historical works were written by Moses of Khorene, by Mesrob, and in the twelfth century, by Nerses Shnorhali. Some poetry has also been written, though this, too, is chiefly of a religious turn. Printing in Armenia was introduced by the Patriarch Mikhael of Sebaste (1542–1570) though some years prior to this—in 1512—a press that used Armenian type had been set up in Venice. The first Armenian book to be printed in England dates from the year 1736; the first to be put out in Russia from 1771; but it was not until 1857 that an Armenian book left the press in America. In quite modern times large quantities of Armenian literature have been published dealing with a great variety of topics. Wherever they are, the Armenians are in the forefront of those who work and strive; they have large capacity and when they will once again be settled in their ancient home in Asia Minor and in northern Mesopotamia, to which 500,000 are ready to return at a moment’s notice, we shall look forward to a development that will be as remarkable as it will be thorough. Prior to the calamities of this war, Armenian historians reckoned the number of their fellow-racials to be 4,160,000—of whom 2,380,000 were in the Turkish empire.

The following list deals with the various subjects to which reference has been made in these pages. Whatever excellence it has is due to the care and vigilance of Miss Pratt. I am also beholden to Mr. V. H. Kalendarian for the help he has given in verifying the transliteration of the Armenian titles.