Nevertheless, in religious matters, Ferriol did not at first show himself so audaciously arbitrary as he was afterwards to become. This man, who subsequently allowed himself to be enticed by the missionaries into the most tyrannical and violent resolutions, endeavoured at the commencement of his embassy to restrain their imprudent and immoderate zeal. Everything, moreover, engaged him to it. Everything should have determined him to persevere in this policy of circumspection which the instructions received from Louis XIV., the character of the schismatic Armenians, and the blamable excesses of the Jesuits equally made a duty to him. “His Majesty orders you,” it had been written to Ferriol, “to accord to the Jesuit fathers a protection conformable to the zeal which they show for religion, to their disinterestedness, and to the regularity of their manners.... Nevertheless, you must beware of the inconsiderate zeal which the missionaries sometimes carry too far; religion often suffers more prejudice from imprudent undertakings or untimely demands than it acquires real advantages of success.”[234] Wise words, too soon disregarded both by him to whom they were addressed, and by the Prince in whose name they had been written, and which, singularly prophetic, announced seven years in advance the misfortunes which the forgetfulness of this judicious warning was to bring upon the Catholics.

No church deserved more than that of the schismatic Armenians the employment of that moderation and prudence so opportunely recommended by Louis XIV. to his ambassador. Naturally good and peaceable, and of a sociable and kind temper, the Armenians readily became intimate with strangers, and had no quarrels with them, except in instances when their own interests were wronged.[235] Long since driven from their ancient kingdom by conquest, or having voluntarily emigrated through the necessities of their commerce, they were dispersed over a very extensive territory, and were encountered in large numbers, not only in the Turkish Empire and in Persia, but also in Tartary, and even in Poland. Everywhere they had acquired the reputation of being alike industrious and persevering. Eager in pursuit of gain, they excelled in commerce. Although losing more and more the recollection of their old country, they carefully preserved the unity of their church, and remained resolutely attached to their faith. They had adopted the language of the Turks, their costume,[236] everything in short save what concerned the Armenian religion, to which they showed themselves scrupulously faithful, and which they respected in every one of its practices as well as in its doctrines and its spirit. The severities which it imposed upon them did not dishearten them, neither did they consider themselves absolved, even by painful journeys, from long and austere fasts. Their churches were the most decorated and most crowded of all the East.[237] Their traditions seemed to them so much the more deserving of veneration because they were more ancient. Having preserved their nationality by means of their religion, tenacious and fertile of resources, they were interesting from their misfortunes, the firmness with which they endured them, and their industrious activity.

For a century past storms had at distant intervals disturbed their ordinarily peaceable state. These troubles, coming from without, were not due, as one might imagine, to the persecutions of the conqueror. The Turks, tolerant by nature as well as out of obedience to their religion, looked upon all the Christian churches with equal scorn. If they interfered in the internal divisions of these churches, it was because they were engaged to do so by complaints, or else to profit by the voluntary gifts of one of the parties to the controversy. The punctual payment of the legal tribute sufficed to assure to a conquered people not only the free exercise of their religion, but also a material and efficacious support for their patriarchs and bishops.[238] Far from endeavouring to convert its Christian subjects to Mahometanism, the Divan received with extreme reserve and even discouraged those whom the greed of a reward excited to abandon the religion of Christ. Often rigorously exacting in maintaining their political rights, the Mahometans were disdainfully and absolutely indifferent with respect to the religion of the Christians.[239] Although persuaded of the excellence of Islamism, the Mussulman is altogether devoid of the spirit of propagandism. In his eyes the infidels are not necessarily rejected; since, according to the Koran, “He who hath said there is only one God, he shall enter into Paradise.” Moreover, the number of the elect is fixed from all eternity, and to endeavour to increase the number is useless as well as contrary to the commands of the sacred book. So they were ignorant of and could not understand that charity, admirable in principle although often carried to excess, which animated the Catholic missionary, inspiring in him a sublime abnegation, and determining him to leave his country, to cross deserts, to suffer and to die, in order to save a single soul and make it share in the consolations and hopes of his faith.

This ardour of propagandism, so highly beneficial to humanity when it serves to spread the beautiful morality of the Gospel among nations where it has not yet penetrated, was early made use of by the Holy See to cause not only idolaters, but also Christians whom very slight differences in doctrine separated from the Roman communion, to submit to its spiritual authority. In 1587, Sixtus V., desirous of removing these differences, sent the Bishop of Sidon to all the Armenian churches; he failed, however, in his attempt.[240] In 1622, there was founded at Rome, by Gregory XV., the congregation “for the propagation of the faith,” to which Urban VIII., his successor, added the College of the Propaganda, where young men from every part of the world were instructed and prepared for their missions. At first they had the wisdom to pursue in the East methods of kindness and of persuasion, and by these means succeeded in gaining over a rather large number of dissenters. But success soon rendered the missionaries bolder, and too confident in the exclusive excellence of their own doctrines, they substituted for the clever circumspection they had hitherto shown, and the slow but certain influence of a persuasive impressiveness, a proselytism, ardent, impassioned, and too hasty in arriving at its ends. Instead of assisting dissenters to clear the narrow space which separated them from the Roman Church, by showing them how near they were to it,[241] instead of rendering prominent all the points which united them, they proceeded to attack with ill-timed perseverance the questions of liturgy to which the Armenian Church was especially attached. They forbade the Catholics, under the severest penalties, to enter other churches, and when they ought, by judicious indulgence, to have recognized in the majority of the Armenians brothers separated by their observances, but in a very slight degree by their doctrines, they treated them as enemies and barbarians. Justly irritated by this violent conduct, finding themselves subjected to scorn, and menaced in their dearest and most venerated traditions, the schismatics complained to the Divan, and represented the Jesuits not as envoys of peace, but as fomenters of discord and as conspirators, so much more dangerous, because they were in the pay of foreign courts.[242]

Ferriol comprehended the imprudent behaviour of the Jesuits, and attempted to repair it. In 1701 he arranged a reconciliation between the principal dissenters and the chiefs of the Catholics, and succeeded in moderating the demands of the latter, and in appeasing the legitimate resentment of the former. A kind of treaty of union was drawn up, which, approved by the Grand Patriarch of Armenia, and by the Catholic archbishop, was to be submitted afterwards to the ratification of the Court of Rome, and was to regulate the future relations of the two churches. But the happy effects which would have resulted from this transaction were sacrificed by the implacable resistance which Father Braconnier, superior of the Jesuit mission in the East, opposed to it.[243] In vain Ferriol observed to him “that they were threatened with a general persecution of the Catholics throughout the Turkish empire; that the Sultan could issue severe orders, which would give a mortal blow to the religion by reason of the little firmness which the Catholics possessed, and that a persecution ought to be avoided when this could be done without injuring religion and without offending it.” To these pressing reasons, inspired by humanity and foresight, Father Braconnier replied, “that the Church had formerly suffered persecutions much more cruel; that the Armenians ought to know how to suffer; that he could not permit the Catholics to have the least communication with their schismatic brethren, and that they ought rather to expose themselves to the harshest treatment.”[244]

Unfortunately Ferriol had neither sufficient firmness to make his opinion prevail, nor even perseverance to resolutely maintain it. All at once abandoning his attempt at reconciliation, he desperately threw himself into the party of action much more suitable to his vehement character, and to his strong liking for contest, and also, we must admit, to the delicate position in which the encroachments of Rome and the requirements of the Jesuits placed him. The ambassador of the King of France at Constantinople was then indeed the representative of the Holy See quite as much as of the court of Versailles, and he submitted to the custom of corresponding regularly either with the Pope or with the principal cardinals. Whilst he rendered account to Louis XIV. of matters of commerce and of the political situation, the great religious interests formed the subject of periodical despatches addressed directly to Rome. Very jealous of his authority, Louis XIV. had pointed out the inconvenience of this correspondence,[245] then he had tolerated it, and, as often happens, the custom had grown into an obligation. On the other hand, the Jesuits had more and more exaggerated the importance of their part, and to the direct influence which the court of Rome exercised upon the French ambassador by its pressing despatches,[246] they added the effects of their constant recriminations, of their feverish and turbulent activity, of their audacious encroachments. Instructing the Holy See according to their own fancy and inspiring its orders; ruling Ferriol through Versailles quite as much as through Rome; ready to calumniate him if he ceased to be their tool, and even powerful enough to overthrow him; present and influential everywhere, they were in reality the masters of the situation, and their responsibility before history is as incontestable as their power.

While submitting to their yoke, Ferriol sometimes could not prevent himself from complaining of it. “All here wish to pass for ministers,” he wrote to Torcy. “They believe themselves more enlightened than the ambassadors, and the order of each is reversed. These good fathers, who ought only to go to the convict-prison and the houses of Christians established in the country, do not abstain from visiting persons of power, and from imposing upon everybody in political affairs. When an ambassador wishes to reduce them within the bounds which seem to be prescribed for them, they treat him as a man devoid of religion who sacrifices everything to his ambition.”[247] Assuredly this is the language of truth, everything proves it. But although these complaints were well founded, although the domination of the Jesuits was then real enough, we cannot feel much concern for this voluntary victim of their encroachments. Not only, indeed, did Ferriol refrain from endeavouring to throw off their heavy yoke, although it sometimes weighed on his self-esteem; but also, forgetting the character with which he was invested, and passing from a brief and honourable independence to a servile devotion, he became the executioner of the vengeance of a few missionaries with so much implacability, that in fighting their adversaries he seemed to be engaging his own personal enemies. His hatred, revived and cleverly kept up by baleful excitements, is about to docilely follow the direction indicated to it, and to strike without pity, to pursue without respite, to cause to disappear and overwhelm, a long time even after his own fall, a great Armenian personage whom it is now time to introduce in his turn into this story, and to make known to our readers.

FOOTNOTES:

[218] L’Homme au Masque de Fer, Mémoire Historique, par le Chevalier de Taulès, Ancien Consul-général en Syrie, Paris, 1825. Hammer, Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine jusqu’à nos Jours, vol. xiii. p. 187. M. Ubicini, Lettres sur la Turquie, Paris, Dumaine, 1854, part ii. p. 256.

[219] Aubry de la Motraye, Voyage en Europe, Asie, et Afrique, La Haye, 1727, 2 vols. in folio, vol. i. p. 371. Didot’s Biographie Universelle, article “Avedick.”