The Project Gutenberg eBook, Daybreak in Turkey, by James L. (James Levi) Barton

GALATA AND PERA AND THE BRIDGE OF BOATS
CONNECTING WITH STAMBOUL, CONSTANTINOPLE

DAYBREAK IN TURKEY

BY
JAMES L. BARTON, D. D.
Secretary of the American Board

AUTHOR OF
“THE MISSIONARY AND HIS CRITICS,”
“THE UNFINISHED TASK OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH,” ETC.

SECOND EDITION

BOSTON
THE PILGRIM PRESS
NEW YORK CHICAGO

Copyright, 1908
By James L. Barton

THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, CAMBRIDGE, U. S. A.

To the revered memory of that noble company of men and women of all races and creeds who have toiled and sacrificed and died that Turkey might be free, this volume is dedicated.

FOREWORD

This book was not written in order to catch popular favor at this time of revolution in the Ottoman empire. All except the concluding chapter was prepared some time before the 24th of July, 1908, and the entire work was at that time nearly ready for the press. Much of the material had been used in the Hyde Lecture Course at Andover Seminary and in the Alden Lecture Course at the Chicago Theological Seminary. The chapter, “Turkey and the Constitution,” was written since the overthrow of the old régime, and appeared as an article in The Outlook in September, 1908. The book does not pretend to be an exhaustive study of the Turkish empire and its problems. Such a work would necessarily be encyclopedic in its size and scope.

The purpose from the beginning has been briefly and clearly to set forth the various historical, religious, racial, material, and national questions having so vital a bearing upon all Turkish matters, and which now reveal the forces that have had so much to do in changing Turkey from an absolute monarchy into a constitutional and representative government. Reformations have never come by accident, and this moral and political revolution in Turkey, the most sweeping of all, is no exception. To one who traces the entrance and development in the Ottoman empire during the last century, of reformative ideas in the religious, intellectual, and social life of the people, the present almost bloodless revolution presents no mysteries. It is but the fruit of the seeds of intelligence, of righteousness, and of holy ambition, sown in good soil and now bearing fruit after their kind.

J. L. B.

Boston, December, 1908.

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

The illustration on the front cover shows the ruins of the Arch of Constantine, Salonica, Macedonia.

INTRODUCTION

One of the obstacles which lie in the path of the European when he wants to arrive at the true opinion of the Oriental is that the European, especially if he be an official, is almost always in a hurry. If, he thinks, the Oriental has anything to say to me, why does he not say it and go away? I am quite prepared to listen most attentively, but my time is valuable and I have a quantity of other business to do; I must, therefore, really ask him to come to the point at once. This frame of mind is quite fatal if one wishes to arrive at the truth. In order to attain this object, the Oriental must be allowed to tell his story and put forward his ideas in his own way; and his own way is generally a lengthy, circuitous, and very involved way. But if any one has the patience to listen, he will sometimes be amply rewarded for his pains.

I once asked a high Moslem authority how he reconciled the fact that an apostate could now no longer be executed with the alleged immutability of the Sacred Law. The casuistry of his reply would have done honor to a Spanish Inquisitor. The Kadi, he said, does not recognise any change in the Law. He would, in the case of an apostate, pronounce sentence of death according to the Law, but it was for the secular authorities to carry out the sentence. If they failed in their duty, the sin of disobeying the Law would lie on their heads. Cases of apostasy are very rare, but during my tenure of office in Egypt, I had to interfere once or twice to protect from maltreatment Moslems who had been converted to Christianity by the American missionaries.

The reasons why Islam as a social system has been a complete failure are manifold.

First and foremost, Islam keeps women in a position of marked inferiority. In the second place, Islam, speaking not so much through the Koran as through the traditions which cluster round the Koran, crystallises religion and law into one inseparable and immutable whole, with the result that all elasticity is taken away from the social system. If to this day an Egyptian goes to law over a question of testamentary succession, his case is decided according to the antique principles which were laid down as applicable to the primitive society of the Arabian Peninsula in the seventh century.

—Lord Cromer
in “Modern Egypt.”

No other country is so hard to understand, in its political, intellectual, industrial, and religious conditions, as the Turkish empire. This difficulty is augmented by the fact that no one of these conditions can be even measurably understood without a knowledge of the others. It is this which accounts for the widely divergent opinions expressed by casual travelers, and makes well-nigh impossible an explanation of Turkish phenomena to one who as yet knows nothing of the country and people, of actual conditions and the reasons for them.

Turkey differs in almost every respect from all other countries. Its government has no parallel either in fundamental principles of organization or in methods of administration. It is unique in its religious beliefs, unexampled in its educational conditions, and incalculable in its dealings with moral and religious questions. We entertain notions of right and wrong that are generally accepted by the nations of Christendom as well as by many others not so classed. These conceptions constitute the fundamental principles of international usage and form the basis for what we call International Law. To conclude, however, that these generally accepted principles will command recognition in Turkey as the basis for its international relations is to invite disappointment. Turkey recognizes no such law as having force in its empire.

In the dealings of one nation with another it is customary to regard the verbal pledge of a sovereign or cabinet minister as worthy of credence, and a basis for negotiations, at least, if not for final adjustment. This notion must be laid aside as purely academic and visionary, in dealing with Turkey.

In view of such facts, it is plain that no phase of Turkish life or affairs can be clearly understood without considerable knowledge of the country and its history, the government and its administrative processes, the diversified religions of its people, and their interdependence. Such a knowledge is especially necessary to anything like an intelligent comprehension of the problems and methods of mission work in the empire of Turkey.

All the chapters of this book except the last were written as they stand, some months before the promulgation of the Constitution on July 24, 1908. A reading of this manuscript suggests no alterations in the light of recent facts except the addition of a statement of the immediate events that led to the overthrow of the old régime and the inauguration of the new order. Obviously only the transitions can be recorded here. The new constitutional government has yet to demonstrate its stability.

I. THE COUNTRY

In attempting to understand this motley field, two principles of the empire must always be kept in mind. One is the Mohammedan principle, which allows non-idolatrous peoples to retain their religion on payment of a poll-tax, at the same time freeing them from military duty. The other is the Turkish principle, which allows different nationalities to remain distinct, but requires them to be represented before the sultan by a political or religious head. There is no assimilating power tending to unify these many races and religions, like that of the British, or even the Mughals, in India. The consequence is that all these separate units form a conglomerate state, binding religions and nationalities together in a repellent contact ready to fly apart into fragments the moment the external fettering bond snaps.

—Edward A. Lawrence
in “Modern Missions in the East.”

When the Turks laid siege to Vienna in 1529 it was the period of their greatest prosperity. If at that time the entire Ottoman empire had been enclosed by a modest wall it would have taken a large army of workmen from that day to the present to tear down the old boundaries and reerect them upon the new lines. A most interesting feature of this constant change is that it has been almost uniformly a decrease in the area of the empire. At that time it was the most powerful realm in the world. It included all the states bordering upon the Mediterranean except Spain, France, Italy, and Morocco, the entire Black Sea coast, and nearly all that of the Red Sea, as well as the lower Danube district. Gradually province after province and state after state have slipped from the grasp of the sultan. The decline became decided in 1606 beginning with the treaties of the Sitavorok. With the treaty of Carlowitz in 1699 it amounted to actual dismemberment. The epithet, “The sick man of the East,” was applied to the sultan, after this loss of prestige from which he never recovered. The retrograde movement continued through the seventeenth century. While the Ottoman empire had been the object of extreme fear upon the part of the nations of Europe up to the beginning of that century, each of them vying with the rest in seeking the favor and good-will of the reigning sultan, at the beginning of the eighteenth century Turkey had reached a point where it was protected by its relative weakness. It no longer inspired fear in the hearts of European rulers, while its impotency and the mutual antagonism of its subject non-Moslem races rendered aggressive national action practically impossible. Parts of its territory became wholly lost, like the Danube provinces, the Caucasus and Tunis, while other sections became semi-independent like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Crete, and Egypt.

The Turkish empire may now be defined as covering Macedonia in Europe, extending west to Greece, northward to include Albania, Bulgaria, and Adrianople,—all of Asia Minor to the Russian and Persian borders upon the east, Syria and Arabia, with two small sections of Africa and a few islands in the Mediterranean. It exercises no actual control of Egypt, while its hold upon parts of Arabia is constantly contested by the people themselves.

The size and population of territory under direct control of Turkey are:

Under indirect control:

This makes a total area covered by both the immediate and quasi possessions of the sultan 1,622,080 square miles, with a population of 39,787,240. These are the figures given by the Statesman’s Year-Book, the best attainable authority upon the subject; but even these must be taken largely as estimates and not as the results of a careful and reliable census,—something that never takes place in Turkey.

It may be said, therefore, that at the present time the sultan of Turkey actually rules over only Constantinople, the Macedonian provinces in Europe and Asia Minor to the borders of Russia and Persia, extending south through Syria and into Arabia. This includes an area of about 704,000 square miles, and a population of about 23,500,000.

These countries directly and indirectly governed by the Turkish empire command the interest of the Biblical, classical, and historical student beyond any other part of the earth. No other land possesses so many antiquities of such priceless worth. Turkey is the stage upon which many of the best-known characters of literature and history have lived and acted. It is the battle-field where, for more than thirty-five centuries, contending civilizations and hostile religions, under ambitious leadership, have met in bloody conflict. There is hardly a section of it that has not been connected directly with some well-known historical personage or race or that has not given the setting to some event of world-wide renown. This is true from Salonica on the Ægean Sea to Persia upon the east, and from Trebizond upon the Black Sea at the north to Aden at the southern point of Arabia. The ruins of massive castles and fortresses, moats and walled cities, that tell of former strength, of pride and of conflict, are found in almost every part of the empire. Inscriptions in many languages adorn the cliffs or are built into walls now crumbling to ruin. Fragments of ancient roads with arches of bridges and of aqueducts still standing, as old as our Christian era, tell of the engineering skill of the early possessors of the land.

In the soil thrown up beneath one’s feet are found gold, silver, bronze, and copper coins, with dates varying from six hundred years before our Christian era to the coin of the present ruler of the realm.

The ancient city of the Trojans, for ten years defended by Priam against the finally successful assaults of Agamemnon and his Greeks, was upon what is now Turkish soil. Many of the scenes pictured in the Iliad and the Odyssey have their staging in what is modern Turkey. Assyria and Babylon and Nineveh there arose into prominence, wielded their power, and passed into ruin. Darius and Xerxes crossed and recrossed this country; and Cyrus met his great defeat and Xenophon made his immortal retreat and all within Turkey. Alexander the Great, born in Macedonia, conducted many of his brilliant campaigns, fought with Darius and defeated him, occupied Sidon and annexed Babylon and Nineveh to the throne of Greece, and died in Babylon while planning the conquest of Arabia; all in territory now subject to Sultan Hamid II.

At the time of Christ much of Asia Minor was a Roman province. Ruins of Roman roads and Roman bridges, in many parts of the country, extend to the northern borders of Mesopotamia, while Roman coins and Latin inscriptions are too common to attract special attention. It is safe to say that there is no other part of the world which presents so much of permanent interest to the student of classic literature and life as the territory now covered by the Turkish empire.

The same is true in no less striking measure of the literature and life recorded in the Bible. Probably all Old Testament history, except that part which was enacted in Egypt, belongs to the geography of Turkey; and Egypt, until recent years, was a part of that empire. The Tigris and Euphrates rivers rise and flow throughout their length upon Turkish soil. Chaldea, Haran, Mt. Moriah, Sinai, the Wilderness, Nineveh, and the Promised Land are a part of the present Moslem empire. Turkey includes the land of the prophets and kings of Israel, and from what is to-day her domain the Hebrew poets sang; there, too, the temples were built, the chosen race was scattered, enslaved, and restored.

Except for one brief sojourn of our Lord in Egypt, his entire life was passed on what is now Turkish territory. With few exceptions the apostles lived and labored and wrote and died in regions now ruled over by the sultan of Turkey. The great foreign missionary, Paul, spent but little time outside this country, while the site of the seven churches of the Apocalypse is in Turkish territory. The most of our Christian Scriptures were written in the same country, passing from there to the west.

The land of Turkey may well be called the cradle of classic and Biblical literature of the Jewish and Christian religions as well as that of Islam. All this, however, be it not forgotten, refers only to the territory covered to-day by the Turkish empire and not at all to the empire itself.

II. ITS RESOURCES

The dominion of the Ottoman clan, which should have been a mere passing phenomenon, like the similar dominion of another Tartar clan in Russia, owes its continuance, as we read its history, to three causes, two of them intellectual. The first is the extraordinary, indeed the absolutely unrivalled force displayed through ages by the descendants of Othman, the Tartar chief from Khorassan. The old line, “An Amurath, an Amurath succeeds,” has been substantially true. Sprung originally from a stock welded into iron by the endless strife of the great Asiatic desert, mating always with women picked for some separate charm either of beauty or captivation, the sultans, with the rarest exceptions, have been personages, great soldiers, great statesmen, or great tyrants. Mahmoud the destroyer of the Janissaries, who only died in 1839—that is, while men still middle-aged were alive—was the equal in all but success of Amurath I, who organized, though he did not invent, that terrible institution; and even the present sultan, in many ways so feeble, is no Romulus Augustulus, no connoisseur in poultry, but a timid Louis XI, who overmatches Russians and Greeks in craft, who terrifies men like his Ottoman Pashas, and who is obeyed with trembling by the most distant servant of his throne. The terrible emir of Afghanistan, whose satraps, while ruling provinces and armies, open his letters “white in the lips with fear,” is not regarded with more slavish awe than Abdul Hamid, the recluse who watches always in his palace against assassination or mutiny. We have only to remember what the Hohenzollerns have been to Prussia, to understand what the family of Othman, defended as they have been against revolution by the Mussulman belief that “when Othman falls Islam falls,” has been to a fighting clan.

—Meredith Townsend
in “Asia and Europe.”

The countries under Turkish rule are lands of real resource, and yet a superficial view of the greater part of the Turkish empire gives one the impression of extreme poverty. Throughout most of the country the hills have been denuded of timber, and trees are found only where they are cultivated. There are still some forest lands bordering on the southern shores of the Black Sea, especially towards the east. In Armenia, the region in which the Tigris and Euphrates rivers have their rise, even the roots of the scrub-oaks that grow upon the low mountains and high plateaux are dug up for fuel. The crops, in large part, are raised by the most primitive methods of irrigation, although in the western part of Asia Minor, as well as in other sections, considerable high land crops are produced. These are uncertain, owing to frequent failure of the rains. There are other large sections, like the plains to the north of the modern city of Diarbekr—the ancient city of Amida upon the banks of the Tigris—where for lack of surface water a large area of the richest arable land lies waste, except as flocks and herds roam over it during the rainy season in the spring.

Yet there are few countries in the world that can boast of richer or more productive soil than can Turkey. There are desert regions in Arabia, but these are not as extensive as we have been wont to suppose. Turkey exports more foodstuffs than she imports, although her agricultural resources are but slightly developed. The method of farming is entirely antiquated, the same primitive plow being in constant use to-day that was employed by Abraham in the fields of Haran. In spite of this fact, wheat of excellent quality, barley, rice, millet, cotton, tobacco, the opium poppy, and almost all kinds of vegetables, as well as grapes, plums, cherries, olives, quinces, oranges, lemons, figs, and pomegranates are produced in great abundance. The mulberry-tree flourishes in many regions. Sheep, goats, and a stunted breed of cattle and the water-buffalo, donkeys and horses thrive in most parts of the country, while as beasts of burden the camel and mule are found in all sections of Asiatic Turkey.

The country is also rich in minerals, but the mines are undeveloped. By the laws of the land, all minerals belong to the government, hence no private mining enterprises are permitted. Coal is found in many parts of the country, but being a mineral, by government classification, it cannot be mined except officially. Copper, silver, and lead abound, but the few mines worked by the government have not been paying enterprises except to the official in charge.

In a word, Turkey is naturally a rich country, with boundless resources now largely undeveloped, with undreamed-of possibilities of increased production under modern methods of agriculture and mining. It is probably true that the empire includes some of the very richest land and ore deposits in the world.

Exportation from Turkey is limited to the coast borders and to the proximity of the few railways that exist. Railroads are confined to the European district and the eastern section of Asia Minor, with a short line reaching to Tarsus and Adana from Mersin and one from Joppa up to Jerusalem. New lines are under construction intending to connect Damascus with Mecca. Railroads cannot long be kept out of the interior of the country. There are but few made wagon roads, nearly all of which have been constructed since the Crimean war in 1854. One of the most noted of these few roads over which wheeled vehicles can pass extends from Samsoun upon the middle southern coast of the Black Sea, through Marsovan, Tokat, Amasia, Sivas, Malatia, Harpoot, and Diarbekr, ending at Mardin, a distance of nearly six hundred miles. Some of the bridges planned were never built, and many were washed away soon after construction. Another highway of a similar nature extends from Trebizond to Erzerum. Others have been recently built in Northern Syria. These roads never fail to be in poor repair. But the ordinary roads are worse, being in all parts of the empire mere bridle-paths, often worn deep in the solid rock by the hoof-beats of the caravans of fifty centuries.

These conditions necessitate in the interior the transportation of all freight by horse or camel, thus discouraging commerce and trade, increasing the price of imports and making export practically impossible. This explains why a famine may prevail in one part of the country when at the same time, less than three hundred miles away, the crops are abundant. A good system of railroads would revolutionize everything. There is an abundance of foreign capital ready to construct such roads. Some fifteen years ago the plan was practically consummated to build a railroad from Samsoun through Asia Minor down across northern Mesopotamia to Bagdad. At the last moment the plan was thwarted by the sultan himself. In conversation upon this matter with an intelligent Mohammedan official who had been educated in England and France, the writer asked him if he did not understand that such a road would bring much wealth into the country, and at the same time develop far more wealth in the country itself. He was asked if he had studied the railroads of America and Europe and observed the great value they were in every way in those countries. His reply was characteristic. It was in substance, “I know well that all that you say of the value of railroads to a country is true. You have not overstated it. At the same time I know, and so does my master, the sultan, that every dollar of foreign capital that comes into this country under concessions as an investment, curtails by so much the authority of the sultan in his own domains. Such capital always brings with it foreign protection. If his imperial majesty should change his mind, as he has full right to do at any time, in regard to any of these concessions, he is at once confronted by the protests of that country to which the capital belongs, demanding that he adhere to the original agreement or pay damages. The ruler of the Ottoman empire will never willingly submit to such humiliation. When railroads are built through Turkey, his majesty will construct them himself.”

This explains why foreign capital is not building railroads, developing mines, and constructing factories in that country. It explains why, in this respect, Turkey is still in the depths of the dark ages.

The telegraph system of the country is entirely in the hands of the government and reaches every city of any considerable size. This became necessary to the sultan in order to carry on the processes of government. Telegrams are carefully censored; cipher despatches, when known to be such, are not accepted except from ambassadors and from foreign powers to their chief at the Porte, or vice versa. The postal system is antiquated, irregular, and uncertain, reaching only the large towns upon the limited cross-country routes. Telephones are strictly prohibited.

In Constantinople and in several of the port cities like Smyrna, Trebizond, etc., there are foreign post-offices supported and conducted by foreign countries and using foreign stamps. These became necessary because of the unreliability of the Turkish offices. The local government has made several attempts to abolish the sale and use of foreign postage-stamps in the country, but has failed of accomplishing it because the representatives of the leading foreign powers are unwilling to trust their mail to Turkish supervision and control.

III. HISTORY AND GOVERNMENT

Even now, when we all talk of the Turkish empire as moribund, it is doubtful if it will perish under any decay from within. The subject races do not grow stronger, as witness recent scenes in Armenia, where a single tribe, with only tolerance from the sultan, keeps a whole people in agonies of fear. The Arabs, full-blooded and half-caste, who might succeed in insurrection, find the strength of civilized Europe right across their path, and are precipitating themselves, in a fury of fanaticism and greed, upon the powerless states of the interior of Africa. The European subjects of the sultan are cowed, and without foreign assistance will not risk a repetition of Batouk. The army for internal purposes is far stronger than ever, the men being the old Ottoman soldiers, brave as Englishmen, abstemious as Spaniards, to whom the Germans have lent their discipline and their drill. No force within the empire outside Arabia could resist the reorganized troops or hope to reach, as no doubt the first Mahdi if left alone might have reached, Constantinople itself. The financial difficulties of the treasury are great, but the sultans have recently risked and have survived complete repudiation, and the revenue is enough, and will remain enough, to keep the army together and supply the luxury of the palace.

—Meredith Townsend in “Asia and Europe.”

We cannot trace here the story of the rise and spread of Islam from its cradle in Arabia to the period of its greatest virility in 1529, when all Europe trembled at its onward sweep and conquest. We can speak only of the rise of the Ottoman empire that has been perpetuated in unbroken succession to the present time.

Near the middle of the thirteenth century a tribe of Turks, not Suljuks, left their camping-grounds in Khorassan, urged on by the Mongol invaders, and wandered into Armenia. This tribe was divided into four sections; one of these, led by Ertogrul, went into Asia Minor, and there became allied with Aladdin the Suljukian, sultan of Iconium. He settled upon the borders of Phrygia and Bithynia and there his son Othman, or Osman, who became the founder of a dynasty and an empire, was born and nurtured. The name “Ottoman Empire” or “Osmanli Turks” came from him. The name “Othman” signifies “bone-breaker.”

The young man succeeded his father as the head of the tribe. He united in his character the traits of shepherd, freebooter, and warrior. Osman’s ambition was fired by a dream of conquest that seated him upon the Byzantine throne. He was upon the border of the decaying Greek empire to the west, and back of him were the vast, restless populations ready to enlist under any leader of strength and action. He invaded Nicomedia July 27, 1299, from which time his reign is usually dated. This was parallel with Edward I of England, Philip the Fair of France, and Andronicus Palæologus the elder of Constantinople. Slow encroachment was made upon the imperial domains of the Greek empire, while at the same time his authority was extended over considerable districts in the north and west of Asia Minor, including large parts of Phrygia, Galatia, and Bithynia. Prusa (Brusa) was captured and became the residence of Othman, and was the seat of his government when he died in 1326.

Othman was succeeded by Orchan, his son, who extended the boundaries of the infant state with marked rapidity. He took Nicæa, the rest of Bithynia, the greater part of Mysia, and was the first Turkish ruler to pass over into Europe. He coined money in his own name, and assumed the prerogatives of royalty, and began the systematic organization of his government. A permanent military force was established. One of his strongest military organizations was composed of the children of conquered Christians who were reared in Islam, inured from their youth to the profession of arms. These became the famous Janissaries perpetuated in the conquests of the Turkish government until the middle of the nineteenth century. They were distinguished for their valor and fanaticism. Through more than three centuries, marked by a long series of great battles, they experienced only four signal reverses. One of these was by Tamerlane, in 1402, and another by the Hungarian general, John Huniades, in 1442. The present methods of administration of the Ottoman empire are due in no small measure to the despotic nature and fanatical character of the Janissaries. Their assumption finally reached such a state that it became necessary to extirpate them by the sword to prevent their exercise of authority over the sultans themselves. This was accomplished by Mohammed II in 1826.

Amurath I succeeded Orchan in 1359. He began at once to make advance against the Greek throne, which was much weakened by its schismatic separation from the Roman church. In 1361 he took Adrianople in Europe and made it his official residence, and the first European capital of the Ottoman power. His successor, Bajazet I, changed the title of “Emir” for that of “Sultan,” which name has been perpetuated. He set the example, followed so repeatedly since, of putting his only brother to death in order that he might not aspire to the throne. He extended his domains east to the Euphrates and north to the Danube. He boasted that he would yet feed his horses on the altar of St. Peter’s in Rome. He was captured by Tamerlane in 1402, dying the following year in captivity. Tamerlane held undisputed sway over Asia for a few years. A son of Bajazet, Mahomet I, restored the empire of his fathers in its integrity. It was during his reign, 1413-21, that the first Turkish ambassador appeared abroad. He was sent to Venice. The sultan himself paid a visit to the emperor Manuel at Constantinople.

Without dwelling upon the successive sultans and the advances made by each, it is sufficient to record that most important of all the victories, the capture of Constantinople, the capital of the Greek empire, by Mohammed II, the seventh in succession from Othman, on May 29, 1453, in the second year of his reign. This terminated the Greek empire, 1123 years after Constantine the Great had removed his imperial throne to Byzantium, changing its name to Constantinople. Consternation prevailed among the European nations, especially in those immediately contiguous to the Mohammedan empire.

From that time to the present day, Constantinople has been the residence of the sultans ruling over the Ottoman empire, and the seat of the Turkish power. Much of the machinery of government now in use was organized and put into operation by Mohammed II. The administrative departments were constituted in what was then called “The Porte,” while the head of the department was given the well-known name of “Sublime Porte.” This name came from the metaphorical resemblance between a state and a house or tent. The most important part of the tent was the entrance in which the chiefs sat for the administration of justice, as well as for the performance of other duties.

Mohammed died in 1481. Succeeding sultans for a century seriously threatened the institutions of Western nations. In the religious conflicts of the sixteenth century the pope of Rome was undecided which to fear the more, the Protestants or the Turks.

The Ottoman empire reached the zenith of its power under Suliman, the tenth sultan, whose reign was the longest in the annals of the empire, from 1520-1566. He is often known in Europe as Suliman “the great” or “the magnificent,” but Moslem writers name him “the lawgiver.” In 1525 the French ambassador appeared at the Ottoman court. The first European states to stipulate regular capitulations with the Porte were Genoa and Venice, which accomplished this in 1453 and 1454 respectively. These were confirmed and enlarged by succeeding sovereigns to 1733. France next secured capitulations in 1528, which were afterwards amplified, renewed, and confirmed down to 1861. The first treaty relations of England with Turkey were in 1579. Other European nations followed in orderly succession, until the United States concluded its first treaty at Constantinople, May 7, 1830, which was ratified at Washington, Feb. 4, 1832.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century the Ottoman empire covered Europe, Macedonia, Adrianople, Greece, and the greater part of Hungary, while in Asia it held all of Asia Minor, Armenia, Georgia, Daghestan, the western part of Koordistan, Mesopotamia, Syria, Cyprus, and the chief part of Arabia. In Africa, Egypt, Tripoli, Tunis, and Algiers acknowledged allegiance to the sultan at Constantinople; and the khanate of Crimea, the principalities of Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania with the republic of Ragusa were vassal states. Diplomatic and commercial relations had been established between the Porte and the leading European nations. From that time the great power then possessed began to wane.

Fundamentally the laws of Turkey are based upon the teachings of the Koran. The only restraint upon the acts of the sultan are the accepted truths of Islam as laid down in the sacred book of the prophet Mohammed. Next to the Koran the authority is a code of laws formed of the supposed sayings and opinions of Mohammed, and of sentences and decisions of his immediate successors. These are called the “Multeka,” and are binding upon both the sovereign and his subjects. Beyond these the will of the man who occupies the throne of the Ottoman empire is absolute and must be unquestioned by every subject.

The sultan, therefore, is at the head of every department of government, amenable to no laws except the law of the Koran. He appoints two high dignitaries,—the grand vizier, to be the nominal head of the temporal government, and the Sheik-ul-Islam, to be the head of the spiritual government. The Sheik-ul-Islam presides over the “Ulema,” a body made up of the Mohammedan clergy, the great judges, theologians, and jurists, as well as the noted teachers of Mohammedan literature and science.

There is no constitution to exercise directing influence over either the sultan or his subordinates. The grand vizier is nominally at the head of the government and represents the sultan. At the present time he has come to be only the agent of the sultan in carrying out his wishes, having little authority to act independently. The privy council, over which the grand vizier presides, is composed of the following officials or cabinet officers:

• Sheik-ul-Islam
• Minister of Justice
• “ “ War
• “ “ Marines
• President of the Council of State
• Minister of Foreign Affairs
• “ “ the Interior
• “ “ Finance
• “ “ Pious Foundations
• “ “ Public Instruction
• “ “ Commerce and Public Works

The whole of the country is divided into vilayets or states, and these are subdivided into sanjaks or provinces, which, in turn, are also divided and subdivided. The ruler in a vilayet is a vali or governor-general, who receives his appointment directly from the sultan, and who, with the assistance of a provincial council, is master of the vilayet. He has power over the inferior officers of his district, whom, theoretically at least, he appoints and removes at will. There are eight of these vilayets in Europe, eleven in Asia, five in Armenia, three in Mesopotamia, six in Syria, two in Arabia, and two in Africa, making thirty-seven in all. The man at the head of each one of these states, averaging a population of about 700,000 souls each, is accountable to the sultan alone for his position and to him he makes constant secret reports. These valis are frequently recalled and more frequently changed from place to place by orders issued directly from the throne. In this way the sultan controls all parts of his dominions and personally determines the character of the administration. All policies carried out in any part of the empire are his own and cannot be otherwise under present conditions.

IV. THE SULTAN, THE HEART OF TURKEY

The general tendency of Islam is to stimulate intolerance and to engender hatred and contempt not only for polytheists, but also, although in a modified form, for all monotheists who will not repeat the formula which acknowledges that Mohammed was indeed the Prophet of God. Neither can this be any matter for surprise. The faith of Islam admits of no compromise. The Moslem is the antithesis of the pantheistic Hindoo. His faith is essentially exclusive. Its founder launched fiery anathemas against all who would not accept the divinity of his inspiration, and his words fell on fertile ground, for a large number of those who have embraced Islam are semi-savages, and often warlike savages, whose minds are too untrained to receive the idea that an honest difference of opinion is no cause for bitter hatred. More than this, the Moslem has for centuries past been taught that the barbarous principles of the lex talionis are sanctioned, and even enjoined by his religion. He is told to revenge himself on his enemies, to strike them that strike him, to claim an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. Islamism, therefore, unlike Christianity, tends to engender the idea that revenge and hatred, rather than love and charity, should form the basis of the relations between man and man; and it inculcates a special degree of hatred against those who do not accept the Moslem faith. “When ye encounter the unbelievers,” says the Koran, “strike off their heads until ye have made a great slaughter among them, and bind them in bonds.... O true believers, if ye assist God, by fighting for his religion, he will assist you against your enemies; and will set your feet fast; but as for the infidels, let them perish; and their works God shall render vain.... Verily, God will introduce those who believe and do good works into gardens beneath which rivers flow, but the unbelievers indulge themselves in pleasures, and eat as beasts eat; and their abode shall be hell fire.” It is true that when Mohammed denounced unbelievers he was alluding more especially to the pagans who during his lifetime inhabited the Arabian Peninsula, but later commentators and interpreters of the Koran applied his denunciations to Christians and Jews, and it is in this sense that they are now understood by a large number of Mohammedans. Does not the word “Ghazi,” which is the highest title attainable by an officer of the sultan’s army, signify “one who fights in the cause of Islam; a hero; a warrior; one who slays an infidel”? Does not every Mollah, when he recites the Khutbeh at the Mosque, invoke Divine wrath on the heads of unbelievers in terms which are sufficiently pronounced at all times, and in which the diapason of invective swells still more loudly when any adventitious circumstances may have tended to fan the flame of fanaticism? Should not every non-Moslem land be considered in strict parlance a Dar-el-Harb, a land of warfare? When principles such as these have been dinned for centuries past into the ears of Moslems, it can be no matter for surprise that a spirit of intolerance has been generated.

—Lord Cromer in “Modern Egypt.”

The present sultan, Abdul Hamid II, is the thirty-fourth in direct male succession from Othman and the second son of Sultan Abdul Medjid. He succeeded to the throne upon the deposition of his brother, Murad V, August 31, 1876, at the age of thirty-four. By the Turkish law of succession the crown is inherited according to seniority by the male descendants of Othman springing from the imperial harem. All children born in the harem, whether from free women or slaves, are legitimate and possess equal rights. The sultan is succeeded by his eldest son, in case there are no uncles or cousins of greater age. The present heir apparent to the throne is the oldest brother of the sultan, who outranks all of the five sons of Abdul Hamid as heir to the throne. It is not the custom of the sultans to contract regular marriages. The harem is kept full of women by purchase, capture, or voluntary offering. Most of the inmates come from districts beyond the limits of the empire, largely from Circassia.

The sultan is, without question, the most phenomenal person sitting upon any throne to-day. Educated within his own palace, having passed but once beyond the borders of the land in which he was born, he is able to outwit and outmatch in diplomacy the combined rulers of Europe. He has administered his widely-extended and varied empire in accordance with the unmodified Moslem principles of the Middle Ages, and has successfully defied all attempts upon the part of Christian nations to change his policy. Without a navy he has succeeded in averting repeated threats of attack by the strongest navies of the world. With depleted and diminishing resources he has held his creditors at bay, capitalized his indebtedness, and continued to live in lavish luxury. It is true that his refusal to comply with the demands for reform have at times in the past led to the loss of some of his possessions, still he does not seem to have learned therefrom any permanent lesson.

Turkey as a whole has never been so unrighteously governed as it is to-day, and, in spite of the pressure of European governments, there is little prospect of radical reforms so long as the present sultan sits upon the throne. While he is an astute and unprincipled diplomat and a tireless sovereign, he is not a reformer in any sense of the word. So long as he is sultan, he proposes to be master, preferring to lose entire provinces rather than to share the administration with any. He yields only when subterfuge fails and the policy of delay is rejected; after he has yielded, he devotes himself to vitiating the advantages his subjects might gain by his concessions.

Personally timid and fearful, he astonishes the world by the boldness of his strokes at home and his stubborn resistance to pressure from abroad. Himself profoundly religious, he horrifies all by the wholesale murder of his subjects through his lieutenants acting upon direct orders from the palace. This he has done repeatedly, and it is a part of his method of administering his home affairs and keeping his subjects properly subdued.

A GROUP OF OFFICIAL TURKS IN PRAYER
FOR THE SULTAN UPON HIS BIRTHDAY

The present political, social, economic, and religious problems of Turkey center in the sultan. Few countries in the world would respond so quickly to the influence of good government, and few people would so appreciatively welcome a firm and righteous administration as the people of Turkey.

The sultan exercises his power through his army and his appointees to office. The Turks make perhaps the best soldiers in the world. They are strong, inured to hardship, uncomplaining, and practical. To them all war with non-Moslems and rebels—and they fight with no others—is holy war. Only Mohammedans are enrolled in the army, and all such, over twenty years of age in the country, are liable to military service until they are forty. The empire is divided into seven army administrative districts, in each of which is located an army corps. These are Constantinople, Adrianople, Monastir, Erzerum, Damascus, Bagdad, and the Yemen, with the independent divisions of the Hejaz and Tripoli. The infantry are armed with Mauser rifles. The effective war strength of the Turkish army is 987,900 men. The navy possesses no fighting power.

The governing force of the empire is strictly Mohammedan. The army is indeed a church militant with no unbeliever among its officers or men, except as European military experts are employed to drill and discipline the troops. The entire administration of both civil and military affairs is a religious administration. Men of other religions are asked to take part in civil affairs only when Mohammedans cannot be found to do the work required. Many high positions, even in the cabinet, have been creditably filled by Armenians and Greeks, but this is the exception and not the rule. Turkey agreed some time ago to admit Christians to her army, but has never seen her way clear to carry out the agreement. At the center of this Mohammedan administration sits the sultan, Hamid II, with his valis or governors at the head of affairs in every province, in close and constant communication with himself and carrying out his imperial will. These local governors are sustained by the Moslem army, commanded by officers who also receive their instructions directly from the palace on the Bosporus.

This is the system of administration that has become established in the Ottoman empire, and that must be borne in mind as we proceed with the study of the country, the people, their economic, social, and religious conditions.

The position of Turkey and of the Ottoman empire is unique among the countries of the world. For centuries it has stood before the world as the one great Mohammedan temporal power, with its laws and usages built upon the tenets, traditions, and fanaticisms of Islam. Every civilized definition of a government fails when applied to Turkey, and every conception of the duty of a government to its subjects is violated in the existing relations between the Turkish government and the people of that empire. Under these conditions, much worse now than they were two generations ago, mission work is carried on.

While there are many Turkish officials who keenly deplore the evils of the system, and would change if they could the untoward relations of the government to its oppressed subjects, they are powerless to act and must even conceal their dissatisfaction for fear of being branded, as many have been, as traitors to the existing rule, for which charge the penalty is banishment or death. There is a general feeling that no reform can be inaugurated or carried out so long as the present monarch sits upon the throne.

A distinguished Orientalist, intimately acquainted with affairs at Constantinople, has recently written upon the sultan and his diplomatic methods in the following terms. For obvious reasons the identity of the writer is concealed:

Rarely has a young sovereign been in a more desperate and apparently hopeless position than Abd-ul-Hamid occupied in the third year of his reign, 1878. His armies had been utterly beaten in a great war. His people had no confidence in their country, or their future, or their sultan. Prophecies were widely current about 1878-1882 identifying him as the last sultan of Turkey and the consummator of its ruin. The treasury was almost bankrupt. He himself had, and still has, a dislike and fear of ships, which paralyzed his fleet during the war that had just ended, and has ever since left it to rot in idleness, until there is at the present day, probably, not a Turkish ship of war that could venture to cross the Ægean Sea in the calmest day of summer.

The sultan alone in Turkey did not despair. He alone saw how the power of the sultans could be restored. And twenty-eight years after he seemed to be near the end of a disastrous and short reign he is still on the throne, absolute autocrat to a degree that hardly even the greatest of the sultans before him attained, in close communication with the remotest corners of the Mohammedan world from the east of Asia to the west of Africa, respected and powerful in Moslem lands where the name of no former sultan was known or heeded, courted by at least one leading Power in Europe and by the great American republic.

The last fact is, perhaps, the most remarkable of all in this strange history. The diplomatists of America, so strong and self-confident in their dealings with the greatest of European Powers, so accustomed to say to them all, “This is our will and intention,” have for many years been the humblest and most subservient of all the Christian Powers in their attitude to Turkey, aiming always at imitating the German policy and being on the friendly side of the Turks, but forgetting that Germany has that to give which America has not, and that America has interests to protect in Turkey of a kind which Germany has not.

The sultan had the genius or the good fortune to divine almost from the beginning of his reign what only a few even yet dimly comprehend,—the power of reaction and resistance which Asia can oppose against the West. He formed the plan of consolidating the power of the entire Mohammedan world, and placing himself at the head of this power, and he has carried the plan into effect. The sultans had always claimed the position of khalif, but this had hitherto been a mere empty name, until Abd-ul-Hamid appealed from his own subjects, who rejected him, to the wider world of Mohammedans, won their confidence, and made them think of him as the true Commander of the Faithful.

One naturally asks whether this result was gained through the strength of a real religious fervor or through the clever playing of an astute and purely selfish game. While there may have been something of both elements, I do not doubt that there was a good deal of religious enthusiasm or fanaticism; the first idea could never have been struck out without the inspiration of strong religious feeling.

It used to be said about 1880 by those who were in a position to know best—no one has ever been in a position to have quite certain knowledge in Constantinople—that the sultan was a Dervish of the class called vulgarly the Howling, and that when (as was often the case) the ministers of state summoned to a council had to wait hour after hour for the sultan to appear, he was in an inner room with a circle of other Dervishes loudly invoking the name of Allah and working up the ecstatic condition in which it should be revealed whether and when he should enter the council. I do not doubt that the great idea of appealing to the world of Islam was struck out in some such moment of ecstasy. At the same time, Abd-ul-Hamid has had a good deal to gain from the success of this policy.

Europeans who have been admitted to meet the sultan in direct intercourse are almost all agreed that he possesses great personal charm and a gracious, winning courtesy. On the other hand, ministers of state used to speak with deep feeling of the insults and abuse poured on any, even the highest, who had the misfortune to express an opinion that did not agree with his wishes.

An official in the palace described very frankly—it is wonderful how freely and frankly Turks express their opinion; this seems inseparable from the Turkish nature—to an Englishman whom he knew well the situation in the palace at the time when an ultimatum had been presented, and before it was known what would be the issue; how the sultan was flattered up to believe that he had only to go into Egypt and resume possession, and that the English would never resist. The Englishman remarked, “But you know better than that, and of course you give better advice when the sultan asks your opinion.” “God forbid,” was the reply, “that I should say to the sultan anything except what he wishes me to say. No! when he asks me, I reply that of course the master of a million of soldiers has only to enter Egypt and it is his. And it is not for nothing that I do this. The sultan is pleased with me, and signs some paper that I have brought him, and it may be worth 10,000 piastres to me.”

The sultan hates England with a permanent and ineradicable hatred; this feeling dominates and colors his whole policy; it is only for that reason that he tolerates Germany, which otherwise he dislikes. England has always been the friend of the Reform party in Turkey; and the sultan is the great reactionary who has trodden the Reform party in the dust. But, worse than that, England, pretending to help Turkey, took possession of Cyprus, nominally to enable her to guarantee Turkey against Russia in Asia Minor, but really (as it seems to the Turks) by pure theft, because all pretence of using Cyprus as a basis of operations against Russia in Asia Minor was abandoned in 1880, and yet England kept Cyprus.

Now to the sultan the sting lies in this, that Cyprus was his private appanage, and not part of the State. The whole revenue of Cyprus went to the sultan’s privy purse. But worse still: at first the English paid over the Cypriote revenue, about £95,000 a year, to Constantinople, but after the Gladstonian government came into power, in 1880, this revenue was diverted to pay interest on the Turkish debt, emptying the sultan’s private purse into the lap of the European bondholders.

The sultan, therefore, welcomed the German intervention, for the Germans encouraged him to govern as he pleased. They even persuaded him that railways were necessary for military efficiency, and showed that the Hedjaz Railway must be the foundation of his khalifate. Yet the railways that he has made, and the Moslem schools that he has founded, are the surest means of educating his people, and education is the inevitable enemy of autocracy.

The German policy has seemed to be very successful in promoting German interests in Turkey. But, after all, the ground fact is that the German policy was an opportunist policy, and the English policy, ignorant and ill-managed as it has been, was founded on deeper principles. History will record hereafter that the former proved a failure, and that the hatred of a people more than compensated for the favor of an evanescent tyrant. The same struggle is going on in Turkey as in Russia—the educated part of the people on one side, a tyranny resting on bureaucracy and obscurantism on the other. Whatever may be the faults of Abd-ul-Hamid, his worst enemy must place him on an immensely higher level than the czar on any point of view, humanitarian or patriotic, personal or political. But for England in Turkey the greatest danger is that she be tempted to Germanize her policy from experience of the apparent German success. Her policy has been, on the whole, the wiser, but it has been carried out with an ignorance of Turkish facts that is appalling.

V. RACE QUESTIONS AND
SOME OF THE RACES

The rigidity of the Sacred Law has been at times slightly tempered by well-meaning and learned Moslems who have tortured their brains in devising sophisms to show that the legal principles and social system of the seventh century can, by some strained and intricate process of reasoning, be consistently and logically made to conform with the civilized practices of the twentieth century. But, as a rule, custom based on the religious law, coupled with exaggerated reverence for the original lawgiver, holds all those who cling to the faith of Islam with a grip of iron from which there is no escape. “During the Middle Ages,” it has been truly said, “man lived enveloped in a cowl.” The true Moslem of the present day is even more tightly enveloped by the sheriat.

In the third place, Islam does not, indeed, encourage, but it tolerates slavery. “Mohammed found the custom existing among the Pagan Arabs; he minimised the evil.” But he was powerless to abolish it altogether. His followers have forgotten the discouragement, and have very generally made the permission to possess slaves the practical guide for their conduct. This is another fatal blot in Islam.

Lastly, Islam has the reputation of being an intolerant religion, and the reputation is, from some points of view, well deserved, though the bald and sweeping accusation of intolerance requires qualification and explanation. The followers of the Prophet have, indeed, waged war against those whom they considered infidels. They are taught by their religious code that any unbelievers, who may be made prisoners of war, may rightly be enslaved. Moreover, sectarian strife has not been uncommon. Sunni has fought against Shiah. The orthodox Moslem has mercilessly repressed the followers of Abdul Wahab. Further, apostasy from Islam is punishable with death, and it is not many years ago that the sentence used to be carried into effect. On the other hand, the annals of Islam are not stained by the history of an Inquisition. More than this, when he is not moved by any circumstances specially calculated to rouse his religious passions, the Moslem readily extends a half-contemptuous tolerance to the Jew and the Christian. In the villages of Upper Egypt, the Crescent and the Cross, the Mosque and the monastery, have stood peacefully side by side for many a long year.

—Lord Cromer in “Modern Egypt.”

All questions relating to the internal government of the Ottoman empire would be greatly simplified and much more easily comprehended, were the people of Turkey substantially of one race like those of China or Japan. But this is not the case. As the Moslems overran Syria, Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, they conquered peoples of other races than themselves and of other religions. In their wars of conquest the Mohammedans revealed a degree of toleration which is to be commended. All conquered people were asked to embrace Islam. If they persistently refused, they were conceded the right to live upon the payment of an annual tribute per capita. The acceptance of this condition was an outward recognition that the Moslems were their masters, while the money thus obtained enabled the conquerors to extend their conquests. Whoever declined to accept Islam and refused to pay the life tax was put to the sword. This left within the conquered districts only two classes, the Mohammedan rulers and those who, by annual tribute, confessed themselves to be a conquered people, permitted to live from year to year by virtue of the money paid.

It is most natural that this distinction, perpetuated for thirty generations, should lead to aggravated relations of conqueror and conquered. It was inevitable that the Moslems should become imperious and the other people depressed and subservient.

In order to understand certain governmental and religious phases of the Turkish empire, it is essential that we look a little in detail into the history and characteristics of these divergent elements of its population which together make up the populations of that country. It is a subject preeminently of races and religions. Within the empire there is only one unifying force and that is Mohammedanism. All who embrace Islam, irrespective of the race from which they sprang, become an integral part of the governing body. Such begin at once to use either the Turkish or the Arabic language and to bear the name “Turk.”

Besides this one unifying force, there is no tendency to bring together the different races or to amalgamate them. There is little intermarriage. Each race has its own language and its distinct religion. To them all religion is racial, or, as they call it, “national.” A man without a religion is beyond their conception; and under the laws of the empire he can have no place in any community or possess any rights that others are bound to respect. Each man, woman, and child must be registered upon the rolls of some national church. There his name stands, and in that record his rights inhere until he changes to Islam. Turkey allows few rights or privileges to one not a registered member of a religious community.

We will consider briefly a few of the old historical and, in some cases, once powerful races, now found in that empire, and among which mission work is carried on. Only by acquaintance with these races can we understand the real factors in the problem.

There are the many non-Moslem races of Syria, the country first overrun by the Moslem invaders as they pushed their way northward. The races who occupy that country in connection with perhaps one million Mohammedans are the Nusairiyeh, the Maronites, Greeks and Armenians, Jacobites, Druses, and Jews. The three mentioned here especially peculiar to Syria are the Nusairiyeh, the Maronites, and the Jews.

THE NUSAIRIYEH

The Nusairiyeh number a quarter of a million souls or more and are perhaps the most degraded of all of the races in Turkey. They are also most difficult to classify religiously or ethnologically. Their religion is a mixture of ancient heathenism, the survival of certain Gnostic beliefs, tinged strongly with Mohammedanism. The Mohammedans claim them, as they do the Koords and Albanians. They dwell in the mountains north of Syria and along the Mediterranean coast as far north as Cilicia. Their origin is lost in obscurity. At present they are decidedly a mixed race. Their name comes from Nusair, who led them in their separation from the Shiites, of which they were a branch. The Nusairiyeh are most reticent upon the subject of their religion. It is regarded as an unpardonable sin to reveal their religious beliefs and rites. They worship the moon, which they think is the throne of Ali, and the sun, which is the throne of Mohammed. They also worship fire, the waves of the sea, and anything that manifests power. They believe in transmigration of the soul, progress being upward or downward according to the life of the individual.

It is, in short, a rude, primitive, rough, and ignorant race, absolutely under Turkish sway and terribly oppressed. Little progress has yet been made in the line of mission work among them. The Turks guard them with a jealous eye, and the severest persecutions await all who profess Christianity, and every effort is made to prevent their education and general enlightenment.

THE MARONITES

The Syrian Maronites number not less than 250,000 and are scattered all over the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges. They are found in largest numbers in the northern districts of Lebanon and there they have control of local affairs. They are also found as far south as Mount Hermon in the country of the Druses. The hostility of these two races led to the massacres of 1860 in which thousands of the Maronites were slain. They take their name from John Maron, their first patriarch and political leader, who died in 701 a. d. They were mixed up with the Monophysite controversy in the sixth and seventh centuries. In an attempt to reconcile them, John Maron, a Monothelite (one will) leader, at the time of the Moslem invasion, conducted them into the high mountains of the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, where for five hundred years they maintained their independent existence in the face of every attempt to subdue or dislodge them. They developed qualities of manly strength and industry. Their language was the Syrian and their government a simple feudal system. They had a patriarch with Episcopal dioceses at Aleppo, Balbek, Jebeil, Tripoli, Ehden, Damascus, Beirut, Tyre, and Cyprus.

This interesting people was discovered to the world by the Crusaders and through them were brought under the wing of the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Florence in 1445. They adopted the Arabic language but retained their old Syriac ritual. They are to-day recognized as followers of the Church of Rome with a form of worship somewhat modified to meet their special conditions. The Jesuits and forces of the Catholic Church have made every effort to prevent the Protestant missionaries from getting a foothold among them. Much, however, has been done for them by both the Presbyterian Board North, and the Free Church of Scotland. The Irish Presbyterian Church of Damascus is reaching the Maronites in that part of the country. Education is greatly transforming the race and through this they are becoming more and more responsive to evangelical religion.

THE DRUSES

The Druses are a smaller sect numbering probably not more than 100,000, possibly less, and occupying the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon in touch with the Maronites. They are found as far north as Beirut and as far south as Tyre, extending even to Damascus. Their chief town is Deir-el-Kamor, about fifteen miles southeast of Beirut. They are decidedly a mixed race with the blood of the Crusaders mingling with that of native and invading peoples. They are a people of an unusually high order of intelligence and outward refinement. They are an offshoot of the Mohammedans through the fanatical, if not insane, leadership of one of the caliphs of Egypt who began to reign in 996. One Darazi who made known the claims of the caliph to divine incarnation led these people into the mountains of Lebanon and is supposed to have given them his own name.

They believe in one God and in a fixed number of human souls that can never be increased or diminished. This resemblance to the religions of India is probably due to Persian teaching. They recognize the claims upon them of no other religion, and yet with manifest indifference they join in the prayers of the Mohammedans in their mosques and sprinkle the holy water of the Catholic Church with the Maronites, according as expediency may require. They have seven commandments:

• 1. Speaking the truth (only between Druses, however).
• 2. Combination for mutual defense.
• 3. Renunciation of all other creeds.
• 4. Social separation from all who are in error.
• 5. Recognition of the unity of Hakim with God.
• 6. Complete resignation of the will.
• 7. Obedience to orders.

They believe in free will and reject the fatalism of the Mohammedans.

When the Mohammedans inaugurated the massacre of the Maronites to check their growing strength under Christian enlightenment, the Druses joined with the Turks as the enemies of Christianity. It was this massacre which led to the intervention of Europe, resulting in the exclusion of Turkish officials from the Lebanon and the establishment of a special government for that district with a Roman Catholic governor and a mixed council under a constitution drawn by the European Powers. This has made a great change in the Lebanon, affording the people of that vilayet larger freedom of action and greater exemption from Turkish persecution than are enjoyed in any other part of the Turkish empire. The Druses and Maronites live on terms of harmony. They are a brave, fine-looking and enterprising people, living mostly by agriculture.

THE JEWS

The Jews are too well known in both ancient and modern history to demand space here. While they are found in considerable numbers in Syria, possibly as many as eighty thousand, they do not hold an important position in relation to the government of that country, or in the mission problems. While the Jews in Russia are always at the front, in Turkey they seldom appear. The Turks seem to have no fear that they will interfere in any way with the affairs of state.

They do not command the prominence commercially in Turkey that they do in most other countries. In the city of Constantinople it is estimated that there are seventy-five thousand Jews, and in the other large cities of the empire they exist in smaller numbers. They are an inoffensive people, attending to their own affairs and not interfering with the other races, all of whom look down upon them as inferior. In many places in the interior where they appear in small numbers they are, for the most part, extremely poor.

SYRIANS OR JACOBITES

There is probably no distinct race in Turkey that may be called Syrian. Dwelling in Syria and extending north into Mesopotamia and east towards Persia are Christian peoples who do not belong to any of the races mentioned, but who are the direct descendants of the early Christian Church. This country has been the great meeting-ground of nations, over which have swept from time to time Egyptians, Greeks, Armenians, Persians, Mongols, Koords, and Europeans of every name and race. The presence of the sacred places of the Christian faith has called forth pilgrimages and given occasion for conflicts. It was here that the early Christian Church was named, and here have dwelt some of the greatest of the fathers of the early Greek Church, such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Jerome. In those earlier days missionary influences went out from that land to other regions and countries.

Under the special effort of Constantine and his mother, Helena, pilgrims began to turn their steps towards Palestine, and monasteries sprang up all over the country. When Chosroes of Persia swept over that land, he slaughtered Christian monks by the thousand. Then came the Arabs with Mohammedanism, who converted some of the churches into mosques, but left others for the service of the Christians. Many Syrians accepted Islam and the strength of the Church waned. At the time of the crusades there were not more than five hundred thousand Christians in the country, according to some estimates. To win these the Roman pontiff had made prodigious efforts, but for the most part they refused to acknowledge the supremacy of the pope.

The Syrian Church, therefore, is the remnant which remains from the conflicts and persecutions of the last eight centuries. It does not represent a single race or people, but is able to trace its pedigree as a church back to the very beginnings of Christianity. The remnants of this early church are found throughout Palestine and northern Syria, including Damascus. They are found also in Mosul, Mardin, and northern Mesopotamia in considerable numbers. In the northern regions they are sometimes called Jacobites. There are many strong men among them and in some places not a little of the pride and glory of the old church remains. Some of their old churches and monasteries contain valuable manuscripts in the Syriac language of ancient date. The spoken language of these people is now, for the most part, Arabic.

They have suffered much persecution from the Mohammedans, especially from the Suljuk Turks, which had much influence in arousing the knighthood of Europe to enter upon the crusades. After the failure of the crusades these Christians were again subject to Moslem misrule at the hands of the Mohammedan sultans of Egypt and invaders from Turkey. The whole land was conquered in 1517 by the Ottoman Turk, Selim I. Except for the brief period (1832-1841) when Syria was held by Ibrahim Pasha, this country and this church have been under the rule of the sultan who sat upon the throne in Constantinople.

As the manuscript Bibles, liturgy, and church books were in Syriac, while the common people spoke and understood only the Arabic, Christianity became largely a matter of form from which the spirit had departed. The same conditions prevailed here which we shall discuss later in the Gregorian Church.

THE GREEKS

The Greeks claim that they have the oldest Christian Church, since they are the heirs to the old Byzantine empire at Constantinople, and use even now in their worship the Greek of the apostles and the liturgy of the early fathers. They constituted the majority at the first seven ecumenical councils, dominating in no small degree by their philosophy and thought the doctrines there established. They contend with the Syrian Church over priority of origin. The political history of the Greek Church began with the conversion of Constantine in 312 a. d., when persecution ceased and Christianity became the state religion.

We do not need for our present purpose to trace the history of the Church of Constantinople down to its separation from the Church of Rome in 1054, and the capture of the city by the Turks in 1453.

During this period the Church conducted a vigorous missionary propaganda. Cyril and Methodius went into Thessalonica and Bulgaria and there did substantial fundamental Christian work. Russia was also reached from this center and the czar was baptized and the nation became Christian.

In government, the Greek Church is Episcopal. The temporal power centers in the patriarch. There are several of these, the chief of whom resides at Constantinople, although the patriarchs at Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem have nominally the same authority. Under Turkish rule the office of the patriarch has been exalted into practically the head of the Church, the bishops exercising spiritual authority alone. This arrangement is the same that exists in the Gregorian Church, as we shall see later. The general synod, made up of the bishops of the surrounding provinces, is presided over by the patriarchs, whom they are supposed to elect, but whose election must always be confirmed by the sultan of Turkey. The authority by which the patriarch acts comes from a firman or charter granted by the sultan.

In 1833 the branch of the Greek Church now included in the kingdom of Greece severed itself from primary dependence upon the patriarch at Constantinople. The Church of Russia, up to the middle of the seventeenth century, was holden to the Constantinople patriarch to confirm the primate of Moscow. Peter the Great in 1712 curtailed the authority of this primate, putting in his place the Holy Synod, over which the czar is supreme. These changes left the patriarch at Constantinople with authority over only the Greek churches within the bounds of the Turkish empire. The Greek Church of Roumania and Servia soon became independent and in 1870 the Church of Bulgaria withdrew and reunited under one chief bishop called the Bulgarian exarch.

One prominent fact that must be constantly kept in mind is that after these churches had separated from the mother Church and become independent of her control, they constituted what is virtually another Church. Relations one with the other were completely severed, and often violent hostility prevailed. In 1905 a severe and bloody conflict was waged in Macedonia between officers of the Greek Church who claimed allegiance to the Synod at Athens, and officers of the same Church who recognized as their head the Bulgarian exarch. Hostility was as severe and bloody as between Moslems and Christians. Church buildings were captured, the one from the other, and loyal subjects fought to the death in resistance of these attacks. This is a fact that must be taken into consideration as the various Churches and Christian sects in that part of the world are studied and their relation to Mohammedanism and the Turkish empire weighed.

We are not especially concerned here with the peculiar beliefs of this Church. We are not dealing with the question from a theological standpoint, but from the general standpoint of its relations to the government of Turkey and to the other coreligionists within the empire.

The most of the adherents of the Greek Church within the Turkish empire are Greeks. They are a strong, hardy, vigorous and intelligent race. Many of them are direct descendants, without doubt, of mighty men of valor who held their own in the face of overpowering odds in the early days of Greek chivalry. In Constantinople, where some 175,000 live to-day, they stand first among the bankers and leading merchants. Greeks figure largely in Smyrna and in fact in all of the cities of western Asia Minor, while they are found as far in the interior as Marsovan, Cæsarea and Sivas. As one goes still farther east, Greeks for the most part disappear and their place in trade and commerce is taken by Armenians. It is an interesting fact that along the upper Tigris and Euphrates rivers, where mines exist, in many instances there is a colony of Greeks close by. Tradition reports that these are descendants of the men left behind in the famous retreat of the Ten Thousand across that country to Trebizond upon the Black Sea.

These Greeks, while citizens of Turkey, it may be, for fifty generations, not infrequently refer to the king of Greece as “our king George.” Along the borders of Macedonia towards Greece they cause the sultan much trouble by their sympathy with that kingdom rather than with him. For the most part, throughout Turkey they are quiet and give little trouble by revolutionary propagandism.

In educational institutions the Greek youth show superior intellectual ability and unusual eagerness. In commercial affairs they rank second to no other race and as merchants they have already gone into all the earth. Destitute of the intense national feeling of the Armenians, they have not given the Turkish government the trouble and anxiety that the Armenians have caused. As their fatherland is outside the borders of the present Turkish empire there is no fear upon the part of the Turkish rulers that they will attempt to set up an independent government. They have not, therefore, suffered the persecution that has been laid upon the Armenians.

VI. THE ARMENIANS

When I was in Constantinople I felt the restless tossings of long enthralled nationalities awaking to the new destinies that might be theirs—Armenians thirsting for their lost country and dispersed people; Bulgarians panting and striving for freedom in a Greater Bulgaria; Egyptians claiming independence; Jews praying for a return to the land of David and Solomon; Greeks dreaming strange dreams of a greater and united Greece, yes, even of an eastern empire restored to them, with Constantinople as its centre. I saw the Turk, still defiant but apprehensive, dimly conscious that the end is near at hand, lamenting the sins of his people—such sins as that the women do not wholly veil their faces, that the men do not slay the infidels. I discerned the subtle plotting of diplomacy to guard or gain the Queen City, and so the empire of the East. Everything seemed then, as now, uncertain. It might be peace, it might be war; but all were sure that the old was breaking up, whether to make way for inrushing floods of destruction, or for better days and nobler nations, none could tell. Then I went to the most sacred and vital spot of Stamboul, not to St. Sophia, which, with all the lights and prayers of Ramazan, testified only to the degradation and defeat of the purer by a coarser faith, which had become God’s scourge. I went to the Bible House, and there first, while all was shaking about, I felt that I stood upon a rock, the very Rock of Ages. The old city had fallen because it was built upon a shut Bible; this city was about to fall because it was built upon the Koran. But here on the open Bible was being reared a city which hath a foundation whose builder and maker is God.

—Edward A. Lawrence in
“Modern Missions in the East.”

Of all the races and sects of the Ottoman empire, none except the Turks are so closely identified with the country, its progress and present conditions, as the Armenians. They have been preeminently the means and occasion for prosecuting missionary work there, and the Armenian question has been discussed in the parliaments of all Europe and even now is far from solution.

The Armenians constitute one of the two distinct Christian peoples in the empire, the other being the Greeks. They stand with the Greeks, a keen rival for the honors of antiquity, while from the Christian standpoint they hold a position entirely unique. Their antiquity, racial strength, intellectual alertness, large numbers, and importance in that empire all demand a more extended consideration.

There are two distinct sources from which account of them comes,—one, their own historians, and the other, contemporary historians. According to the former, they are the direct descendants from Noah through Japheth, who was the father of Gomer, the father of Togarmah, who begat Haig, the father of the Armenian race. It is a fact to be noted here that they always refer to themselves not as Armenians but as Haiks, and to their country as Haiasdan. They find no little difficulty in pronouncing the word “Armenia.” The name “Armenians” was applied to the race by outside nations because of the exploits of one Aram, the king of Haiasdan, the seventh removed from Haik, who made many conquests and impressed the power of his arms upon the weaker people about him. To these people the Haiks were the followers of Aram and so were called Armenians. The Armenians claim that their present language, except for the changes that have crept in through the centuries, was spoken in the ark. Their traditions blend in the third and fourth centuries before Christ with many facts of Assyrian, Median, and Greek history, so it is impossible to differentiate precisely where legend ends and history begins.

There is no doubt that during the Assyrian and Median period there was in Armenia, which included the mountains of Ararat, and the upper Araxes, Euphrates and Tigris rivers, centering perhaps in the region of Lake Van, a well-organized and powerful monarchy. The ancient Assyrian records show that this people had to be reckoned with in all plans for campaigns in the Ararat country, and not infrequently the invaders were compelled to retire in apparent haste. Well-preserved inscriptions are found upon the cliffs at Van and in the same language across the country six hundred miles or more to the east, which show the presence there (700 b. c.) of a powerful and warlike people. Whether these were the progenitors of the present Armenian race or whether they were conquered by some stronger invading force, which completely dominated the country, is not as yet clear.

The last of the Haig dynasty, Vahe, formed an alliance with Darius III against the Macedonians. He was defeated by the forces under Alexander and was slain. The people were without a leader for one hundred and thirty years, and were trampled upon and plundered by invading armies from every side. About 190 b. c. two Armenian nobles arose who divided the kingdom and ruled over it. This divided kingdom was again united under Tigranes (Dickran II) in 89 b. c. In 67 b. c. the Armenians became an ally of Rome, and in 30 b. c. were made tributary. For two and a half centuries thereafter the entire country was again in turmoil and political disorder. From that time to the present the Armenians have never represented a political power that needed to be reckoned with. Their people were scattered with no uniting force, without a commanding leader or a distinctive country.

A little Armenian kingdom in Cilicia in the Taurus Mountains maintained an existence until 1375 a. d. Since that time Armenians have had no political existence whatever. They have been, and are still, a people without a country, a nation without a government.

As soon as the Mohammedan invasion took place they had no alternative but to yield to their conquerors or die. It was but natural that they should scatter from the old ancestral haunts to all points of the compass, in search of more liberty and a better opportunity to secure a living. They have gone into every city, if not into nearly every village of size in the empire. Before the massacre of 1895-96 there were nearly a quarter of a million Armenians in Constantinople alone. Their energy and enterprise and industry give them prominence in trade, in the professions, and in the cultivation of the soil. They have gone far beyond the borders of Turkey, and are found to-day in nearly every country in the world. Many hold high and honorable positions in foreign lands.

Armenians exist in larger numbers still in their old haunts about Lake Van, where they constitute perhaps a majority of the population. In all the cities of Eastern Turkey, extending from the Black Sea south into northern Mesopotamia, westward to the Euphrates river, and beyond, they hold a prominent place, although they are upon the whole a minority. The rest of the population are mostly Turks, the ruling body, and the Koords. These races, especially the Turks and Armenians, live in the same towns, but never intermarry. The Koords live more by themselves in the mountains. As we pass on into Asia Minor, the Armenians decrease while the Greeks increase in numbers and in the importance of the positions they command.

The Armenians are also numerous in northern Syria, especially in the region near their last Cilician kingdom. Adana, Tarsus, Marash, Aintab, Hadjin, Oorfa and many other cities in that region have a large Armenian population. Their language is Turanian, constructed upon the Greek model, and is especially rich in its power of expressing Christian truths and sentiments. The most of the Armenians speak this tongue, but some in the mountains of Koordistan speak only Koordish, while the Armenians in northern Syria use the Turkish language. Turkish is spoken by nearly all Armenians, as well as by all the races north of Syria.

Religiously, the history of the Armenians is full of interest. Their histories claim that at the time of Christ their king Abgar, called by Tacitus the king of the Arabs, resided at Urfa in northern Mesopotamia. He is reported to have had some communication with Christ, who, at his death, through the apostle Thomas, sent Thaddeus to preach to the Armenians. The king and his court were baptized. His successor apostatized from the faith, and so Christianity was lost to the race until the fourth century. At the beginning of this century St. Gregory the Illuminator preached at the court of Armenia with such effect that from that period to this Christianity has been the national religion. The Church has held the race together. It is known as the Gregorian Church, after St. Gregory, while the people themselves always refer to their church as Loosavorchagan, derived from Loosavorich, meaning “The Illuminator.” As this is the national Church, all Armenian children are baptized in infancy and become members.

AN ARMENIAN ECCLESIASTIC

A KOORDISH CHIEF
OF SOUTHERN KORDISTAN

At first the Gregorian Church took part in the ecumenical conferences, but for some reason they had no representatives in the council which met at Chalcedon in 451 a. d. In a synod of Armenian bishops in 491 the decisions of the council of Chalcedon were rejected, and at a later synod they declared openly for the Monophysite doctrine. This led to their complete separation from the Greek Church.

Their church government is Episcopal, with the same form of patriarchal control which dominates the Greek Church in Turkey. The bishop of the main body of the Armenians resides at Etchmiadzin, their holy city, now in Russia, not far from the Turkish borders. There is also a bishop on the island of Octamar in the lake of Van, and another at Cis in Cilicia, each with a small following. The bishops have authority over the spiritual affairs of the Church, like the ordaining of priests and vartabeds, while the two patriarchs, one at Jerusalem and one at Constantinople, control its temporal affairs. As these patriarchs, and especially the one at Constantinople, are in a measure the appointees of the sultan, and as he represents his people in all their government matters, the office is largely political and secular. The importance as well as the delicacy of the position is greatly increased during the times of political unrest.

At its beginning, the Church was as pure in doctrine and practise as was the Greek Church at Constantinople. It was an important branch of the Church of Christ on earth. The location of the unprotected Armenians, in a country swept by invasion and persecutors of every kind, made the position of the Church a most trying one. As illiteracy increased, the spoken language of the people underwent marked changes. The Church possessed most sacredly guarded manuscript copies of the Scriptures and beautiful liturgies, all in the then spoken language of the people. These were read at all church services and sermons were preached by the officiating clergy. As the spoken language changed during the last ten centuries, under the blasting influence of Mohammedan rule, the sacred books of the Church ceased to speak to the people. The priests read the words of the ritual, but neither they nor the people understood it. The church was too holy a place in which to make use of the vulgar vernacular, so the sermon was discontinued because there was no one to preach in the classic tongue of the race.

Under these conditions the Christianity of the Gregorian Church became, for the most part, a religion of form, from which the spirit had departed. Thus bereft of the true power of Christianity and subject to the temptations and persecutions of the Moslems among whom they dwelt, it is not strange that the Christianity of the Gregorian Church lost its vital power.

VII. MOSLEM PEOPLES

What was said above concerning Islam as the hereditary faith of the Ottoman Turk does not hold true of the other Moslem races of Turkey. Koords, Circassians, Albanians—nearly half as many, all together, as the Turks—are, at best, but half Mohammedan. To a large extent the profession of Islam by Koords and Circassians is purely outward and formal, while their esoteric faith is a mixture of Mohammedanism, Christianity and heathenism. In grouping and generalization we cannot go farther than the statement just made. Take the Koords alone. There is almost infinite variety in their religious beliefs and superstitions. It is well known that there are whole villages among them ready to declare themselves Christians, could they be assured of protection in so doing. The Moslem Albanians—somewhat more than half the race—are more bigoted and violent Mohammedans than the Turks, just as the Janissaries, likewise of Christian origin, who were compelled from childhood to embrace Islam, out-Heroded Herod in the fanaticism of their anti-Christian zeal.

With the exception of the Albanians, Islam has, in all the centuries of the reign of the Ottoman Power over these lands, made very slight gains from the Christian races. The number of Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Servian, Bosnian, or Montenegrin Mohammedans is insignificant. Of these seven races, for hundreds of years under Moslem sway, the number to-day free from Ottoman control is nearly equal to the entire population, Moslem and Christian, now directly under Turkish domination.

—From “The Mohammedan World of To-day.”

THE KOORDS

Besides the Turks and Armenians, no race in Turkey has commanded more attention during the past two decades than the Koords. They have attracted the notice of the world by their large part in the Armenian massacres in 1895-96 as well as by their relations to the sultan himself through the organization and arming of the Hamidich cavalry within the last quarter of a century. They were almost unknown and unheard-of except locally until they came into prominence at the time of the siege of Erzerum by the Russians in 1876, when the Koords were used by the Turks in defense. They rendered little real service, however.

Whatever else may be said, this race has now to be reckoned with in all plans for propagating Christianity in any form in Eastern Turkey and western Persia, as well as in all questions of order in that region. Sometimes they are in open conflict with the Turks, and troops are mobilized and sent against them in their mountain fastnesses. Again they are provided with arms by the government and sent out to subdue and suppress revolutionary bands of Armenians who are more ambitious than discreet in their endeavors to obtain liberty.

Little is known of the origin and history of this wild and most interesting people. They probably are the direct descendants of the Karduchi, who occupied the same plateaus and commanded the same mountain passes that the Koords now hold. It is probable that they are not a race by themselves, but a collection of tribes with little among them all that is common except their hardihood, roughness, and tendency to plunder. One chief, whom the writer knew, declared that his ancestors came to the upper waters of the Tigris from Mesopotamia some eight centuries ago, and, after conquering the region, ruled it as feudal lords. That form of government is in existence among them even at the present time. Undoubtedly the word Koord, Kurd, Gutu, Gardu, or Karu, has been promiscuously applied to any mountain race, clan, or tribe occupying the upper waters of the great rivers in that part of the empire, if they were not already claimed by another race.

There are some marked distinctions between the peoples called Koords. Some are nomadic and pastoral, taking their flocks into the north of Armenia as the summer advances, and returning to the warmer regions of the south as it recedes. These live almost entirely in black tents, and, while they steal, are not generally robbers. Others settle in villages and the men devote their time usually to robbing traders and caravans passing through their country, and levying blackmail upon the Armenians who dwell upon their borders. It is this class who cause both the Turkish government and the Armenians the most trouble. A chief, whom the writer knew personally, and at whose castle he has often passed the night, boasted that he owned nearly four hundred villages with the adjacent land, and could throw, within two days’ notice, two thousand armed horsemen into a fight anywhere within the bounds of his territory. He said that he had over three hundred armed men out upon the road most of the time. His castle had dungeons, and was, to all intents and purposes, a fort.

These various Koordish leaders not only have little in common, but they are frequently in open conflict one with another. Could these people unite under a bold leader and form an alliance with the Arabs of the south, nothing in Turkey could stand against them. Many renowned leaders from among the Koords have appeared from time to time. Saladin, a noted ameer at the time of the crusades, was a Koord.

They occupy the mountainous regions throughout Eastern Turkey, reaching far down the Tigris to Mosul and into Mesopotamia, extending into Persia upon the east and coming west as far even as Anatolia. The mass of the Koords dwell within this area, but not a few are found outside. An estimate given of their numbers places it as high as 3,000,000.

Their languages are unclassified. There are two of them, neither of which ever was put into writing except within the last generation, so that the spoken tongues of those professing to speak the same language greatly differ in different parts of the country. Their speech is rough, like the life they live, and resembles in no small degree the barren cliffs amid which they dwell.

Some years ago Sultan Hamid II conceived the idea of subduing the Koords in the eastern part of his dominions by calling the chiefs to Constantinople and making them each commander of a body of their own people, giving this troop his own name as a special honor. The chiefs were to provide the men and the horses and the sultan furnished the equipment. The proposition was most acceptable to the Koordish nobles, for it provided them with modern equipments of warfare and at the same time stamped their acts, even of depredation, with official authority. Under the new dispensation, whoever offered resistance to a Koord armed with a government rifle, by that very act put himself into open rebellion against the government. These conditions prevail at the present time in the Erzerum, Bitlis, Diarbekr and Van vilayets along the Russian frontier. Much of the trouble of the last fifteen years in these regions is due to this fact. Were it not that the Koords are urged by the government to take aggressive measures against the resident Christian population, conditions there would be better than they are at the present time.

It is often stated that all Koords are Mohammedans. The Turks take this ground, as they do regarding the Albanians of Macedonia. The fact is that few of the Koords are good Moslems. They do not hesitate to put out of the way a Turkish tax-collector who makes himself obnoxious. The fact that he is a brother Moslem interposes no obstacle. Many of them observe few of the rites and customs of Islam, and one tribe, at least, living along the upper waters of the Euphrates openly declares that it is not Mohammedan. The writer, in conversation with a leading man of that tribe, said, “You are a Mohammedan.” With great indignation he spat into the air, and, beating upon his breast, he said, “I am a Koord; Moslems are dogs.” They have certain religious rites which greatly resemble some of the Christian customs, as, for instance, they have a service in which bread dipped in wine is put into the mouths of the kneeling participants by their religious leader. These people often tell the Armenian Christians that their sympathy is with them rather than with the Turks.

Owing to the claim of the Turks that all Koords are Mohammedans, missionaries have not been able to inaugurate special work among them. Throughout the country called Armenia and where the Armenians are the most numerous, there also the Koords are found in the largest numbers. Frequently they reside in the same city, side by side, but more often the Armenians dwell in the plains, where they are the cultivators of the soil, while the Koords live higher up the mountains. A study of the regeneration of the Turkish empire cannot be complete without giving large consideration to this ancient, wild and violent people.

THE TURKS

In Turkey the word “Turk” is used only to designate a Mohammedan. A Greek who had accepted Islam would at once be called a “Turk.” It would be said of him that “he had Turkofied himself.” In its ordinary use, therefore, in Turkey it signifies a religious belief and that alone. The same may be said of the other names for nationality, such as Armenian, Greek, Jacobite, Yezidi, Koord, etc. Instead of using the word “Mohammedan” at this point we will consider this part of our subject under the title “The Turks,” thus keeping the national and religious parallel intact.

The Turks of Turkey comprise every race that has ever lived within its territory and has accepted Islam. As the people of the different races embrace Islam, they come at once into the Mohammedan body and are in a large measure unified with it by the common customs imposed upon them through the government and by their religion. These assimilated races marry and intermarry so that to-day, outside of Arabia, where the race has been kept more free from mixture, it is difficult to find among the Turks a clear racial type.

The original Turkish people were invaders, coming into the country from the north and east for plunder and conquest. As soon as these conquering hordes accepted Islam, every victory over a foe meant new women for the harem and added men who chose Islam to tribute or death. When the country had been overrun and Turkish rule was established, there was exhibited the spectacle of a Mohammedan body of officials from every race of the East, scattered over all parts of the empire, except possibly some sections of Koordistan and Arabia, administering a government over the other races dwelling among them. The Turks alone could hold office, serve in the army, collect the taxes, and control affairs. In Arabia the rulers or Turks (not so called there, however) comprised the main part of the population and so had things their own way. In all other sections of the country, other races, and not infrequently races of strength and energy who had occupied that same territory for generations before Mohammedanism arose, looked upon the Turk as an intruder and were not slow to make him aware of the fact. These were, for the most part, disorganized, and, by Turkish law, disarmed, so that little could be done to change local conditions.

The Druses of Syria, the Koords in Eastern Turkey, and the Albanians of Macedonia were reckoned as Mohammedans by their rulers. As these people had few religious convictions of any kind, and as the Mohammedan yoke placed upon them did not seem heavy, they fell in with the idea in so far as it seemed to conserve their interests to do so. Even at the present time, it is not clear how sincerely these races are Mohammedan. It is thought by many who have been among them that their Mohammedanism is largely in name. During recent years, undoubtedly influences have been brought upon the Koords which bound them more closely to the sultan, although this is not true of all classes of Koords.

Years of Turkish rule, by which the non-Moslem subject is looked down upon as a “Raya” who has no rights that a Mohammedan is bound or expected to respect, has made the Turk selfish and cruel, while it has hardened the Rayas, and made them hate the government. It has come to be generally understood that the government exists only for the Turks, to serve whom the Rayas are permitted to live. Through several centuries of Turkish rule, when the Raya subjects of the Turks were in grossest ignorance and widely scattered in the country, they came to accept in stolid silence the situation as divinely ordained. Something of the fatalism of their masters seemed to settle down upon even the Christian subjects and, with little complaint, almost human slavery was accepted.

If the immediate possessions of Turkey include a population of about 24,000,000, probably 6,000,000 of these are nominal Christians, and perhaps 1,000,000 are neither Christians nor Mohammedans.

It should be said that among the Turks are found men of great strength of intellect, and not a few of high character. Every one who has been in the country speaks of men of this class whom he has met. All would probably agree with the statement that the Turk as a whole is far better than his government.

It should also be stated that in recent years the Turks themselves have been more boldly open in expressing their intense dissatisfaction with the methods of government administration, especially in the eastern part of the country. The New Turk Party, so called, has no one knows how many followers, but undoubtedly it represents the modern spirit of unrest and progress.

OTHER RACES

We need not speak at length of the Circassians, who in some respects are the most interesting race in Asiatic Turkey. These are Mohammedans who came into Turkey in large numbers after the Russian conquest of the Caucasus. Their business is primarily robbery. They are a race which must be reckoned with in the northern half of Asia Minor. We must pass over the Turkmen, or Turkomans, who can be traced back at least eight centuries. These are also Mohammedans and nomads in their habits. They are found in considerable numbers, scattered mainly over the southern half of Asia Minor. There are also the Albanians in the western part of European Turkey, able to substantiate their claim of being one of the purest and oldest races in Europe. These number perhaps two million souls, and are more united as a race than either the Circassians or the Turkomen. All three of these peoples are nominally Mohammedans, and from them have come some of the ablest and best of the Turkish officials.

The Bulgarians have a government of their own, practically independent of Turkey. Many of these, however, dwell in Macedonia, together with Turks, Albanians, and Greeks, and so constitute an important part of the Macedonian question. These are Christian and were originally a part of the Greek Church, with headquarters at Constantinople. They are a sturdy, vigorous, and intelligent race.

Space forbids the mention of other minor races like the Yezidis, neither is there call for a description of the Arabs who dwell in Arabia and northward.

It is sufficient to say that all these divergent, crude, and often hostile races, each with a religion differing from that of all others, together constitute the people of the Turkish empire. The dominating class is the Turk, representing the Mohammedan faith, but far from harmonious even among themselves, except as they are practically united in a common hatred of the Christians and in a common purpose to keep them from gaining supremacy in wealth, number, intelligence, or influence.

Outside of the large coast cities there are but few people in Turkey who are not native to the country. Turkey has offered little attraction to people of other countries for colonization. Far more are seeking to leave that country than are attempting to enter it. The exactions of the government upon all who dwell within the empire, the insecurity of the protection afforded to life and property, and the risks which gather about trade and commerce are not calculated to attract foreign capital or induce natives of other lands to immigrate there.

VIII. TURKEY AND THE WEST

Only last year the Arabic paper, Es-Zahir, published in Egypt, said: “Has the time not come yet when uniting the suppressed wailings of India with our own groans and sighs in Egypt, we should say to each other, Come, let us be one, following the divine words, ‘Victory belongs to the united forces’? Certainly the time has come when we, India and Egypt, should cut and tear asunder the ties of the yoke imposed on us by the English.” On the other hand, Mohammed Husain, the editor of a paper at Lahore, wrote a treatise on Jihad (1893), stating: “The present treatise on the question of Jihad has been compiled for two reasons. My first object is that the Mohammedans, ignorant of the texts bearing on Jihad and the conditions of Islam, may become acquainted with them, and that they may not labor under the misapprehension that it is their religious duty to wage war against another people solely because that people is opposed to Islam. Thus they, by ascertaining the fixed conditions and texts, may be saved forever from rebellion, and may not sacrifice their lives and property fruitlessly nor unjustly shed the blood of others. My second object is that non-Mohammedans and the government under whose protection the Mohammedans live, may not suspect Mohammedans of thinking that it is lawful for us to fight against non-Mohammedans, or that it is our duty to interfere with the life and property of others, or that we are bound to convert others forcibly to Mohammedanism, or to spread Islam by means of the sword.”

So the question of “religion and the sword” is still an open one among Moslems. It must needs be so long as they obey the Koran and tradition, for Mohammed said, “He who dies and has not fought for the religion of Islam, nor has even said in his heart, ‘Would to God I were a champion that could die in the road of God,’ is even as a hypocrite.” And again, still more forcibly, “The fire of hell shall not touch the legs of him who is covered with the dust of battle in the road of God.” In spite of cruelty, bloodshed, dissension and deceit, the story of the Moslem conquest with the sword of Jihad is full of heroism and inspiration.

—S. M. Zwemer, F. R. G. S. in “Islam.”

Selim III, sultan of Turkey from 1789-1807, more formally and openly displayed the spirit and purpose of reform than had any of his predecessors. He had been carefully educated, and conceived the bold design of becoming the regenerator of the empire. He erected a printing-press at Scutari, welcomed intelligent foreigners, employed Christian workmen, and, among many other things, changed the system of taxation. He also called in European generals to train his army, and sought advice from the European residents of his capital. In the meantime, the invasion of Egypt by Napoleon had stirred up the passions of the populace of Constantinople, and the sultan with his unpopular reform measures tottered upon his throne. Russians marched into the Danubian provinces, while a British fleet passed the Dardanelles and anchored at the mouth of the Bosporus. The Janissaries mutinied in 1807 and Selim’s rule ceased. These internal imbroglios had attracted the attention of the world to Constantinople and Egypt, if not to all Turkey.

After the brief reign of Mustipha IV, Mahmud II ascended the throne in 1808. He possessed extraordinary energy and force, and warmly espoused the reform measures of Selim. Resisting Russia’s demand that all Greeks in Turkey should be placed under the immediate protection of Russia, he was soon at war with that country. Napoleon prevented the occupancy of Constantinople by the Russians, but most of the Danube province was lost. A Hellenic revolution was later fermented which broke into open conflict early in the beginning of mission work in Turkey.

Turkey as a government and as a factor in the relations of Russia to Europe was thus brought to the attention of the West. At the same time there was a revival of interest in the Jews, both in Europe and in the United States. There was a restudying of history and prophecy with new interpretations, which led to the formation of societies to circulate among them the New Testament and to preach to them the gospel of Christ. Naturally, Palestine and Syria came first of all to be recognized as a land that had peculiar claims upon Christians. There was a wide-spread belief that the Jews were about to return to their ancestral home, and that such return would be limited only by the obstructions put in their way by the Ottoman government. Levi Parsons, the first American missionary to Palestine, said, in 1819, just before sailing, “Destroy the Ottoman empire and nothing but a miracle will prevent the Jews’ immediate return from the four winds of heaven.” It was natural that, in their judgment, missionaries ought to be there to receive them when the Ottoman empire, then apparently in its death struggle, tottered to its fall.

Moreover, the Turkish empire embraced the lands of the Bible. There was in the minds and hearts of American Christians not a little of the spirit of the crusaders of the middle ages. Why should the soil trodden by the feet of the prophets and apostles, yes, even by the Lord himself, remain a stranger to the voice of the preacher of righteousness and untouched by the feet of the modern apostle? The instructions given to the first missionaries to Turkey dwelt upon this impressive and moving fact, as did the early letters of the missionaries. Unlike the crusaders, these aimed at a purely spiritual conquest, but it included the Christian subjection of all races and peoples.

As a part of this same impulse may be placed the interest in the historic Greek and Syrian Churches. Students of Church history were profoundly moved as they learned of the decadence of vital Christianity in these Churches, and they were thrilled with the desire to inaugurate among them a revival that should restore them to their former prominence and power. The purpose to reach Mohammedans does not appear prominent in the earlier documents of this period, although it is not by any means entirely wanting.

In view of these facts and also since Turkey was the most accessible to America of any Asiatic country, it is not strange that in 1819, with unusual enthusiasm, two missionaries, Levi Parsons and Pliny Fisk, were set apart for work in Turkey by the American Board of Commissioners, with special reference to the Jews in Palestine.

As a strategic center in which to begin to prosecute missionary work, few countries are more attractive than Turkey. It lies along the southern border of Russia throughout its entire length, except as separated by the Black Sea. Upon the east it borders upon Persia, and constitutes almost the only approach to this country of the shah, as well as to the Caucasus possessions of the czar. Arabia, Egypt, and North Africa all border upon the same Mediterranean Sea, and many important islands like Cyprus and Crete lie but little off its coast.

Constantinople, the capital of the Ottoman empire, occupies the most strategic position of any city in Europe and dominates both the European and Asiatic sides of the Bosporus. To this center all the great and historic cities of Turkey look for political direction, and to it come sooner or later representatives of every tribe and race in the empire. All traffic from the Black Sea to the outer world and even from Persia and southern and eastern Russia must perforce pass through Constantinople and the Dardanelles. It stands upon the highway and at the crossroads of commerce and travel. As a base for missionary operations, not only upon Turkey but upon adjacent countries as well, it is unexcelled. Smyrna upon the Grecian Sea, with immense populations behind it, by the strategic force of its location, commanded the early attention of those sent out to explore for location. Beirut in Syria attracted for the same reason the attention of the missionaries to Palestine.

There is an advantage in carrying on missionary work among sturdy races. When such are converted, they become a force in the work of the Church, the conduct of Christian institutions, and the propagation of the gospel. No country in the world could present such an array of ancient, historic, and hardy races as Turkey. Race survival there was under the law of the survival of the fittest. None but the invincible remained. Some had proven themselves invincible by arms, others had conquered by superior intelligence, strategy, and cunning. Each race remained because, in some particular, it had an advantage over its natural and persistent antagonists. The very fact that these races had kept themselves apart, resisting gradual absorption while repelling open attempts at conquest, and all for twenty centuries or more, testifies to their sturdy worth.

Some of these, like the Greeks, Armenians, Jews, and Arabs, had been masters of an ancient and proud civilization, in which learning had high place and religion was supreme. There was no ground for questioning native ability to grasp the principles of Christianity when once these peoples were enlisted. A modern Church and a modern civilization built upon such historic races, and propagated by such men, could not fail to become an irresistible force in that needy land. It is no wonder that the officers of the American Board of Missions early concluded that the Ottoman empire was a strategic point in which to plant modern Christianity and the institutions which it fosters and propagates.

While the sultan represents one sect of Mohammedanism, namely, the Sunni, and the Persians another, the Shiah, between whom there has existed great and often bloody hostility, yet the Persian Mohammedans make their pilgrimages to Mecca, pray towards that holy of holies, and reverence the sacred relics in the keeping of the sultan. However much the shah may bluster, he listens when the sultan speaks. His country can find outlet in the West only across Turkey, and much that comes from the outside world comes through some part of the Turkish empire. As the Nestorians and Armenians are found upon both sides of the line, and constitute the chief non-Moslem populations of Persia, it was most natural to connect the mission work of Persia directly with that in Turkey. Such a connection holds to the present time. In many respects Turkey was the key to Persia and is to-day.

At the beginning of mission operations, Russia was especially open to the circulation of the Scriptures in the vernacular. It was hoped and expected that soon the entire country would be accessible for direct Christian and educational operations among the millions of that empire. The whole Caucasus region can be easily approached by no other route than the Black Sea. The Armenians dwell in large numbers in that section of the country and are constantly passing back and forth in trade and commerce. Constantinople lies at the crossing of all roads from the Black Sea regions and beyond to the outer world and the West.

The Balkan peninsula and Macedonia, lying to the north and west, also center in the capital of the Ottoman empire. As the seat of government for Macedonia and the province of Adrianople, all political influence and movement are that way. For generations it was the capital of the Balkan provinces and even yet it is the great metropolis to which merchants, students, and workmen go for a longer or a shorter period of residence abroad. There is no other center so well calculated to be the base of operations upon all that region.

The American Board was organized in 1810 and its first missionaries were sent out in 1812. These went to the farther East, to India and Ceylon. It was not the intention of the Board to confine its foreign operations to these two countries. Christian leaders in America were surveying the world for the purpose of finding other countries in which to establish Christian missions. Explorations into the western parts of our own country resulted in beginning work among the Indians as early as 1816. It is not surprising that in their survey of the wide world, its special needs and promising openings, attention should have been early called to Turkey.

IX. A STRATEGIC MISSIONARY CENTER

In Constantinople one does not fail to meet Greeks and Armenians who are bright and entertaining and obliging, or Mohammedans who are noble and courteous, and thoughtful enough to make their acquaintance an acquisition. But every study of the people in mass is a revelation of arrested development, absence of initiative, and general uselessness by reason of narrow selfishness. The city, and with it the millions to whom the city is model, seems hostile to what is best in the world’s work. High-sounding phrases of lofty principle are heard in the city. Custom provides for this much of concession to the sensibilities of others. But the centuries seem to have frayed off the last semblance of meaning from the words. To quote a remark of a sage official in India which applies to the whole of Asia, “Whilst the mouth is proclaiming its enlightenment and progress, the body is waddling backward as fast as the nature of the ground will permit.” The bane of Constantinople is not solely poverty of resources; it is poverty of ideals.

—Henry Otis Dwight, LL. D.
in “Constantinople and its Problems.”

While the political and commercial importance of Constantinople is supreme, when considered in relation to the Powers of Europe and the far East, this is insignificant in comparison with its religious importance in relation to the Mohammedan world. So far as we can learn, this fact did not receive large consideration at the time missions in Turkey were begun. The truth is that it did not then hold the commanding relations to the Mohammedans of other countries that it holds to-day. The present reigning sultan, Hamid II, has done more than any of his predecessors to secure for himself recognition by all the faithful as the one supreme head, the caliph of Islam. He has sent presents with messages of sympathy and encouragement to Mohammedans in India, China, and Africa, and these have been received as from the great living head of the Moslem faith. When our government found itself in possession of a country in which a Mohammedan ruler was enthroned, it found it convenient to carry on negotiations for submission through the sultan of Constantinople. There are probably 230,000,000 Mohammedans in Turkey, Europe, Persia, Africa, India, China and other countries, who look upon the sultan of Turkey as the representative on earth of their revered prophet Mohammed. As such, he does not possess or assume temporal authority, or even well-defined spiritual prerogatives, but he does command an influence that has been secretly discussed in many European cabinets, and which has been taken into consideration in dealing with Moslem races and in administering ultimata to the head of the Ottoman empire. The sultan clearly represents a temporal and a religious power. The strength of the temporal influence lies in his relations religiously, not only to his own mediate and immediate subjects, but to all followers of the prophet Mohammed, whatever language they speak and in whatever land they dwell.

The official title of the sultan is padishah, father of all the sovereigns of the earth. This is the name exclusively used by the Turks in official communications. He is also called Imam-ul-Musselmin, the supreme pontiff of all Mussulmans or Mohammedans; Zilullah, the shadow of God; and Hunkiar, the slayer of infidels. By these and other similar titles he is known as far as the Mohammedan religion has gone. No one else claims such honors and to him they are conceded. Destroy his religious power and he would be the most impotent of monarchs, but with it he has defied for three generations the efforts of the Powers of Europe to secure some degree of justice and freedom for his oppressed subjects.

The sultan holds his religious power through two important facts. The first is that the two sacred cities of Islam in Arabia are within his empire and under his control—Mecca, the birthplace of the prophet, and Medina, which contains his tomb. This sacred territory is prohibited to infidels, but is the goal for tens of thousands of Moslem pilgrims each year. There is no faithful follower of Mohammed who does not dream of the time when he will be so blessed as to kiss the black stone of the Kaaba, drink of the well of Zemzem, or have a part in the prolonged ritual which shall entitle him during the rest of his life to the honored name of Haji.

THE BOSPORUS, CONSTANTINOPLE

A MOUNTAIN VILLAGE IN EASTERN TURKEY

The Mohammedans believe that the black stone came down from heaven and was connected with all the patriarchs and prophets, beginning with Adam. This is the great destination of all pilgrimages, as well as the earthly center of the Mohammedan world. To this point all faithful Moslems turn five times each day when they pray, and the lips which are permitted to kiss it are thrice blessed. Around this have grown up the Kaaba, the enclosing mosque, and other accessories too many even to name, all together constituting the holy temple of Islam where no infidel foot is permitted to tread, and upon which no vulgar Christian eye may look.

Medina, which contains a mosque supposed to cover the burial-place of Mohammed, is some seventy miles away. All faithful Moslems should visit Mecca once during their lives, but to add a visit to Medina increases their merit in the world to come. Outside of these sacred precincts all may travel, but woe be to the bold investigator who seeks to penetrate to the holy of holies of Islam. For the protection of these sacred cities the sultan of Turkey makes provision. He guards their sanctity against infidel invasion, and provides, as occasion may demand, a holy carpet for the holiest place. His soldiers safeguard the pilgrims, and his name is constantly appealed to as the slayer of infidels and shadow of God. The pilgrims from Africa, from Mindanao, from China and India and Ceylon, all return from these shrines of their faith indelibly impressed with the mighty power of him who rules at Constantinople.

The other fact which gives the sultan power over all Mohammedans is his custody of the Hall of the Holy Garment, which is next to the Kaaba, and perhaps upon a parity with it for sanctity. This hall is in the seraglio, upon the point of old Byzantium, which projects out into the Bosporus, dividing it from the Sea of Marmora. In it lie the mantle of the prophet Mohammed, his staff, his saber, his standard, and other relics. Among these, enclosed in a casket of gold, are two hairs from his beard. The sultan is supposed to make an annual visit to these sacred relics, of which he alone is keeper and guardian. The standard of Mohammed is the standard of Islam, consisting of a green silk flag about two feet square, embroidered with the inscription “There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.” It is said to have been carried by Mohammed himself and has since been regarded as the sacred standard of the entire Moslem world. If publicly borne by the sultan in the great mosques of Constantinople it would, it is said, be the signal for a general religious war. It is thought by many that should the sultan choose to use the power he possesses in this standard he could with it summon to his assistance all true Moslems and hurl them in fanatical zeal and fury against any infidel force. It is known everywhere that this standard and these relics are in the possession of the ruler of the Ottoman empire, and thus the sultan stands almost in the place of the prophet himself.

When Moslems pray they pray towards Arabia under the rule of the sultan, and when they think of their holy prophet their minds turn to the relics at Constantinople. In the face of these facts, it requires no demonstration to show that Constantinople and the Turkish empire constitute the political and religious center of Islam. Other countries may be important, this is supreme. Mecca and Medina cannot yet be entered, but Constantinople and all the rest of the Turkish empire is, by treaty, accessible for residence to the Christian of every race and name. To begin mission work here was to start at the fountainhead.

The fact that Christian preachers and teachers are permitted to reside at Constantinople and freely preach their faith, cannot but have favorable influence over intolerant Moslems in remote parts. They all have faith in the power of the sultan as well as in his supreme wisdom. If he permits this, why should they object? In several instances in India, when the writer was conversing with Mohammedans, it was almost amusing to see the keen interest they manifested in the progress of Christianity in Turkey. They were ignorant but were ready to listen, and undoubtedly went away to ponder upon what they had heard. Evidently one thing that impressed them was that while the sultan of Turkey is a mighty ruler he does not prohibit the teaching of Christianity, even within the Throne City. If he does not prohibit it, perhaps it is not so bad a religion after all.

It is also of no little value to print and send out from Constantinople large quantities of Turkish literature, and from Beirut, Arabic literature, the two languages which are most widely read by the Mohammedans. Every volume thus printed bears the stamp of approval by the government of his imperial majesty the sultan, assuring all who read that the book was issued with his sanction and authority. Under these circumstances a publishing house at Constantinople is calculated, by its very location, to reach millions who might otherwise refuse to read what is printed. In Arabia an Arabic Bible, at first rejected because it is an infidel book, is later accepted because it bears upon its title page the authoritative permission of his imperial majesty. As a strategic center for Christian work, calculated directly and indirectly to reach the two hundred and thirty million who bear the name of the prophet of Arabia, there is no place that can compare with Constantinople, resting upon two continents and swaying the most mighty religious empire on earth.

X. SOCIAL, MORAL AND RELIGIOUS
CONDITIONS

The second cause of the continuance of the Ottoman dominion has been less accidental. Like the early caliphs, and indeed all able Mussulman dynasties except the Persian, the ruling house of Turkey has for all these centuries maintained unbroken the principle that, apart from creed, ability is the only qualification for the highest service. Outside the navy, a Turkish grandee must be a Mussulman; but that granted, there is no obstacle of birth, or cultivation, or position standing in any man’s path. Even slavery is no barrier. Over and over again, a sultan apparently at the end of his resources has stooped among the crowd, clutched a soldier, a slipper-bearer, a tobacconist, a renegade, given him his own limitless power, and asking of him nothing but success, has secured it in full measure. Equality within the faith, which is a dogma of Islam, and next to its belief in a “sultan of the sky,” its grand attraction to inferior races, has in Turkey been a reality as it has been in no other empire on earth, and has provided its sovereigns—who, be it remembered, fear no rival unless he be a kinsman, an Arab, or a “prophet”—with an endless supply of the kind of ability they need. The history of the grand viziers of Turkey, were it ever written, would be the history of men who have risen by sheer force of ability—that is, by success in war or by statesmanship, or, in fewer instances, by that art of mastering an Asiatic sovereign and his seraglio in which fools do not succeed. The sultans have rarely promoted, rarely even used, men of their own house,—which is the Persian dynastic policy,—have hated, and at last destroyed, the few nobles of their empire; and capricious and cruel as they have been, have often shown a power of steadily upholding a great servant such as we all attribute to the founder of the new German empire. This equality, this chance of a career of great opportunities, great renown, and great luxury, brings to Constantinople a crowd of intriguers, some of them matchless villains; but it also brings a great crowd of able and unscrupulous men, who understand how to “govern” in the Turkish sense, and who have constantly succeeded in restoring a dominion which seemed hopelessly broken up. Every pasha is a despot, an able despot is soon felt, and he has in carrying out the method of Turkish government, which is simply the old Tartar method of stamping out resistance, an advantage over Europeans which is the third cause of the continuance of the Ottoman empire. He is tormented with no hesitations in applying force as a cure for all things. The man who resists is to die, or purchase life by submission.

—Meredith Townsend
in “Asia and Europe.”

The moral and religious condition of the people of Turkey, especially the non-Moslems, was, and still is, without a parallel in any country in the world.

Since Mohammedanism never encourages progress and education, and since the principles of Moslem rule in all countries and in all times have been based upon force, ignorance and fanaticism, it is not difficult to judge of the condition of these subject peoples, especially after many generations of oppression.

The most of the races that refused to embrace Islam and elected to pay a regular tribute for the privilege of continuing to live, were Christians, such as the Copts of Egypt, the Syrian Christians of Syria, the Jacobites of Mesopotamia, the Armenians of Armenia and sections of northern Syria and Asia Minor, the Greeks of Asia Minor, and the Bulgarians of European Turkey. While all these were Christians by profession, they had no ecclesiastical relations with each other. Each race and Church stood by itself, entirely independent of all the rest, fostering no sympathy the one with the other except in a common cause against a dominant race.

Under Moslem rule all education among the so called Rayas was discouraged, and some of the Moslem customs, like the veiling of their women, were adopted. The low estimate placed upon womanhood by the conquerors was accepted in a measure by these races, and some of the worst of the vices of the Moslems became common among the Christians.

With these surroundings, the Christianity of the earlier days so deteriorated that little remained except the name and the outward observances of the Church. Because of the absence of modern literature and general education, the spoken language of the common people changed to such a degree that the Bible and the rituals of the Church in the ancient language in which they were written became an unknown tongue to the masses. Their religion became a religion of form, and the Bible a closed and sealed book. Surrounded as they were by all the vices of a Moslem society, dominated by Moslem rulers, the character of the Christianity among them did not attract their Mohammedan neighbors, while there was no hope for reform from within.

Jealousies and discords sprang up between the Christians of various sects whenever they came into contact, like that between the Greeks and Bulgarians in Macedonia, and the Greeks and Armenians in Asia Minor, and the Syrians and Armenians in northern Syria. The reigning sultans have not been slow to note these jealousies and to take advantage of them in dealing with the various sects. Had the Christians of Turkey during the last century been united, they might have accomplished much by way of securing privileges for themselves. But even the people of a single national Church have not been able to agree upon many important questions, so that the sultan and his subordinates have not found it hard to control these superior races, superior in themselves in many respects to their masters. If any one seemed to be giving more trouble than usual, methods were found to divide still more, and so weaken and subdue them. The same methods have been constantly employed with the various religious bodies of his empire that have been successfully used with the European nations who have caused him trouble by interfering with his peculiar views of government or unjust methods of administration. He has usually succeeded in playing off the jealousies and cupidity of one against another so that concerted action became impossible and he has been left to work his own will in his own way. While the sultan has learned cunning by these conditions and gained no little advantage to himself, neither the subject Christian races of his empire nor the European nations outside have seemed to learn a lesson which is of service to them in changing existing conditions.

Under these circumstances, religion to most of the people of the country became but a form and a mark of nationality. No conversion, in the ordinary sense of the word, was required for admission to the Greek, Armenian, Bulgarian, or any of the Oriental Churches. All children were baptized in infancy and so grew up within the Church, with no religious instruction except as to fast and feast days and the proper forms to be employed in the ritual observed in the Churches. In all services the language used was no more understood by the people as a whole than Latin would be comprehended by an ordinary country audience in England or America. There was no educational or moral test for the priests except that they should be able to pronounce the words of the regular Church services and find the proper places from which to read. The writer once asked an Armenian priest where he studied. He said he was a baker and when he decided to become a priest he went to a monastery and studied for forty days. That comprised all of his schooling, except that he knew how to read simple narrative when he began. I asked him if he understood the ritual and the Scriptures that he read. He replied, “How should I know? This is the ancient Armenian.” Even as late as fifteen years ago it would have been difficult to find a Christian priest of any kind or class in the interior districts who clearly understood the ritual of the Church or the Scripture read in the service. Ordinarily the selection of priests was not based upon special ability, education, or moral worth. There were, of course, noble exceptions to this most general rule.