1. The shortness of the author’s stay forced him to come to conclusions which a longer experience would have modified very considerably. He himself frankly acknowledged this in many places.
2. Mr. Bryce did not come into contact with any prominent Georgians; he was, therefore, obliged to depend upon foreigners for information about the political condition of the country and the aspirations of the native population. This is why he said so little about Georgia in the last chapter of his book. In that chapter the place of honour is reserved for the Armenians, whose recognized champion our illustrious fellow-countryman has now become.
3. There has, of late, been a great change in the country. The Georgia of to-day is not the Georgia of 1876. Certain causes, which will be touched upon in the present article, have, in the meantime, brought about an awakening as sudden as it is complete.
There is one Englishman who could accurately describe the political condition of Transcaucasia, and it is a subject for congratulation that he is Her Majesty’s Vice-Consul at Batum. When the British Government wakes up to a recognition of the fact that we have interests to protect in the region between the Black Sea and the Caspian, the consulate in Tiflis (abolished in 1881, “because the objects for which it was founded were not accomplished”) may, perhaps, be re-established, and in that case no more able and sympathetic consul could be chosen than Mr. D. R. Peacock, who for so many years has upheld the honour of our flag in the fever-stricken swamps of Poti and Batum.
The writer of the present article is well aware of his unfitness for the task he has set himself, yet he feels sure that the result of his unprejudiced observation cannot fail to be interesting; if he only succeeds in provoking adverse criticism he will be satisfied, for thereby attention will be drawn to a question the discussion of which must lead to a far better understanding of many points of vital importance.
At the very outset it is necessary to remove from the mind of the reader an opinion which is almost universally held in Europe, and which is, perhaps, the chief cause of that apathy with which politicians look upon the Caucasus. It is generally believed, even by some of those who have been in the country, that Transcaucasia is inhabited by a vast number of tribes, more or less wild, having nothing in common but the doubtful benefits of Russian rule. Nothing could be more misleading. Students of ethnography may amuse themselves by making elaborate investigations into the origin and characteristics of the Khevsur, the Svan, the Pshav, the Osset, it is sufficient for us to know that all these peoples are, politically at least, Georgians, and have fought under the Kartvelian kings since the days of William the Conqueror. Between the Caucasus, the Black Sea, the Caspian, and the frontiers of Turkey and Persia, there are only three native peoples who deserve our consideration, viz.:—
| The various Lesghian tribes in the E.,numbering about | 1,500,000 | ||
| The Armenians, in the S., numbering about | 740,000 | ||
The Georgians, in the W.,
| 1,000,000 |
The latter total is made up as follows:—
There are also many Georgians in Turkey, and a few in Persia. The numerous local appellations given above mean no more than Yorkshireman, Cornishman, or Aberdonian do to us. If I succeed in impressing upon my readers the fact that there is a politically homogeneous region stretching from the steppe of Baku to the Black Sea, my labour will not have been fruitless.