A HISTORICAL SK. 
 
 BY AN OLD INDIAN 
 
No. 
 
 
Tiu/an,roffa 
 
 STRAITS OF CONSTANTINOPLE 
 
 S ta,vro2l 
 
 Seva atop oil 
 Balahlava^ 
 
 Georyi*' 
 
 Mtro' 
 
 wHgVbur* 
 
 SECJJof 
 
 Kastajiiuiit 
 
 oZafargnhifi 
 
 Trrpoh 
 
 /Tcre boh A 
 
 
 Kfttdzta 
 
 T ale Sulim 
 BuhJce.' 
 
 ®Brnsa 
 
 Tubed 
 
 I ram 
 
 ,9. \ lEvjtidfrl \ 
 
 srX ^riSJwr Kof'ria 
 
 yS^fobrv?- 
 
 T^ujrdaJ^ 
 
 \hake' 
 
 , Ihrendeh 
 
 IA'RNa_ N^Uasher 
 
 
 
 [rbekij®— 
 
 °Sia*rek 
 
 ■'Mbistan 
 
 ieisha-x 
 
 j °Eretdi 
 
 :ax “?"“ Adana, 
 
 > Tersooso . 
 
 JinJ(ib 0 
 
 fRhodes) 
 (Iio<Les I 
 
 3 Gulf o/''—-x^ 
 < Adatui 
 
 CJShetidmcuL 
 
 rfHaleb 
 
 !(Aleppo 
 
 0 or Candi; 
 
 ( 1878 ) 
 
 Jaffa/ 
 
 TO ILLUSTRATE THE 
 
 CAIRO 
 
 : enw 
 
 _ 
 
 __-—T H 
 
 
 rU) 
 
 1 A 
 
 x. ! f 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
V!'\U\cyor\ Sirechm . 
 
 HISTORICAL SKETCH 
 
 OF 
 
 Brmenta anb the Brmemans 
 
 IN ANCIENT AND MODERN TIMES, 
 
 WITH 
 
 SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE PRESENT CRISIS. 
 
 AN OLD INDIAN. 
 
 * 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 ELLIOT STOCK, 62, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C 
 
 1896. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The author of these Historical Sketches has 
 drawn his information from a variety of sources, 
 only a few of the chief of which are indicated in 
 the course of the narrative. Every care, however, 
 has been taken to verify all statements. The 
 portions of the work directly relating to Armenia 
 and the Armenians have had the advantage of 
 having been revised, as to facts and dates, by an 
 Armenian scholar, an expert in this subject, as it 
 was passing through the press. 
 
 He thus writes, at date, as to the present 
 situation and cheerless outlook for his wretched 
 countrymen : 4 What about the next winter, when 
 the snow once more cuts off communications and 
 the Kurd and the Turk are the sole masters of the 
 situation, without even a watching eye to disturb 
 them ? ... It makes one more than sick to think 
 of it all.’ 
 
 As these lines are being traced there are tragic 
 indications of a revival of disturbances and 
 massacres, which are the manifest result, in the 
 first instance, of the misgovernment of the Grand 
 
IV 
 
 Preface 
 
 Turk, and in the next, of the apathy of the Euro¬ 
 pean concert. 
 
 The despatches just submitted to Parliament 
 (Turkey, No. 6, 1896), while sufficiently em¬ 
 phasizing the mistaken policy of certain agitators 
 for reform among the Armenians, yet present us 
 with the most ghastly picture of provincial mis¬ 
 rule as the real source of these terrible disorders. 
 
 Emphatic testimony is borne in these consular 
 reports to the complicity of the government of 
 the Sultan, whose deliberate policy, it is stated, 
 is to crush and stamp out the Christian population 
 of Asiatic Turkey. 
 
 In relation to this state of things, and in proof 
 that the attitude of the present Prime Minister of 
 England has not been misrepresented in these 
 pages, and is still unchanged, we submit a few 
 sentences from his latest utterances on this sub¬ 
 ject : 
 
 ‘ I shall be informed that I have threatened the 
 Ottoman Government, and am bound to carry the 
 threats out. I entirely demur to that criticism. 
 
 . . . A preacher may be very earnest in denouncing 
 sin, but he is not bound to come down from the 
 pulpit to take a big stick and inflict chastisement 
 on the impenitent ; and, therefore, when I say 
 that there is a gangrene in the extremity of 
 Europe, do not assume that I am making any 
 kind of implication that I intend to volunteer the 
 role of physician to cut it out.’ 
 
 A. O. I. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIANS IN ANCIENT 
 
 TIMES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Geographical position of Ancient and Turkish Armenia 
 —Historical sketch of the Armenians in earlier 
 times ------ i—18 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The introduction of Christianity into Armenia as the 
 national religion by St. Gregory the Illuminator and 
 his successors in the fourth century—Constitution of 
 the old Armenian Church - 19— 3 ° 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Arsacidan and Sassanian dynasties—Religious and 
 literary revival—Translation of the Scriptures by St. 
 Miesrop and St. Isaac—Sketches of Armenian history 
 from the introduction of Christianity by St. Gregory to 
 the rise of the dynasty of the Bagratidae, A.D. 860 31—5 
 
VI 
 
 Contents 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Dynasty of the Bagratidse— Rupenian kingdom of 
 Cilicia — Relations with the Crusaders — Close of 
 Armenian monarchy - 51—60 
 
 PART II. 
 
 ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIANS UNDER TURKISH 
 MISRULE—THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ARMENIA. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Turks and Saracens—Seljouk Turks—Togrul Beg 
 —Rise of the Ottoman Empire—Fall of Constanti¬ 
 nople—UDecline of the Ottoman Empire—Position of 
 Armenia ------ 61—76 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Islam as the religion of the Turk—Youth of Mahomet 
 —Mahomet at Mecca—Temptations of Mahomet— 
 
 The Sword and the Koran-^Qnfluence of Islam on 
 the character and government of the Turk^Forced 
 conversions - 77—95 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Glimpses of Armenian life since the final overthrow of 
 the monarchy on to the beginning of the present cen¬ 
 tury—Persian oppression—Shah Abbas—Armenian 
 patriarchs—Roman Catholic influence—Literary re¬ 
 vival of the eighteenth century—Summary - 96—104 
 
Contents 
 
 «® 
 
 vn 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 . . . PAGE 
 
 Political situation in Turkey towards the close of the 
 last, and during the first half of the present, century 
 —Degeneracy of the Turk—Russian advances—Peter 
 the Great—Traditional policy of Russia—Reforming 
 Sultans ------ I0 5—115 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 ^SNew phases of the Armenian Questiori^Gradual change 
 of policy of the reforming Turk—Protestant influence 
 —American missions—Conflicting verdicts—Political 
 reforms reviewed—Treaty of Adrianople, 1829—Hatti 
 Sherif, 1839—Protestant Charter, 1850—Hatti Huma- 
 youn in view of prospective demands of the Treaty 
 of Paris—Summary - 116—127 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 European concert and its relation to Turkey—Treaty of 
 Paris, 1856—Turkish diplomacy—Young Armenia — 
 National Constitution (1862), and National Commis¬ 
 sion (1871) — Situation before the Treaty of San 
 Stefano—Cyprus Convention, and Treaty of Berlin 
 (1878)—Sixty-first and Sixty-second Articles—Peace 
 with Honour—Summary - - - 128—149 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Position of Armenia after the Treaty of Berlin—Bright 
 prospects—Turkish reforms—Attitude of European 
 concert— Consular reports — Comments of British 
 press^-Hamidieh cavalry—Sassoun massacres, 1894 
 —New reforms - - - - - 150—174 
 
Vlll 
 
 Contents 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Renewal of massacres, 1895-96—The Hindchag’s Com¬ 
 munication to the Embassies—Collective Note—Illus¬ 
 trative cases — Trebizond and Ourfa — Attitude of 
 Prince LobanofT—Responsibility for the massacres— 
 Relation of the European Powers—The special re¬ 
 sponsibility of Great Britain—Question not closed— 
 Solutions of the problem—Conclusion -9 - 1 75 — 
 
 PAGE 
 
 ■200 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 Page 27 (line 3) delete sentence beginning—‘ It is further, &c.’ 
 
 Page 27 (line 13). For sentence beginning ‘ The dioceses, &c., 
 —read, ' The chief dignitaries of the Armenian Church are 
 five— viz., the patriarch of Etchmiadzin and Ardaghar in 
 Greater, and Sis in Lesser Armenia, with the titular patriarchs 
 of Constantinople and Jerusalem. The three first named also 
 receive the title of Catholicos. 
 
PART I. 
 
 ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIANS IN ANCIENT 
 
 TIMES. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 Geographical position of Ancient and Turkish Armenia— 
 Historical sketch of the Armenians in earlier times. 
 
 T HE regions lying in and around the north¬ 
 east corner of Asia Minor possess a unique 
 historical interest. They are the reputed 
 home of the human race. Across their steppes, 
 with herds and flocks, roamed the nomadic tribes 
 of the patriarchal age. By-and-by comes a move¬ 
 ment down to the plains. The arid uplands are 
 exchanged for the fertile valleys of the great rivers. 
 
 With the set seasons of agriculture the roving 
 life comes to an end. From the legal relations 
 arising out of a fixed tenure of the land appears 
 the first faint glimmering of citizenship and the 
 State. Contact with the sea introduces a new 
 element. Commerce assumes fresh aspects, and 
 the development of the uplands and of the river 
 valleys reaches its full maturity on the coast. 
 
 Here, then, through its three great stages, the 
 advance of civilization has been carried forward. 
 Even at the present day all three stages—the 
 nomadic, the territorial, the maritime—can be 
 
4 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 found co-existing where Europe and Asia blend 
 into each other. 
 
 On this borderland of two great continents were 
 laid the opening scenes of that abrupt historical 
 transition when, by the fall of Constantinople in 
 1453, the Middle Ages may be supposed to end 
 and modern history to begin. It is with that part 
 of these regions known from ancient times as 
 Armenia, and with its relations to the surrounding 
 countries, that we are now concerned. 
 
 It is certainly not the magnitude of the mother- 
 country of the Armenians, for at no time have 
 they possessed any vast territory; it is not their 
 numbers, for they have never been a great multi¬ 
 tude—it is not on either of these accounts that 
 they have come to occupy the prominent position 
 they have held, and still continue to hold, in the 
 history of the world. They have not, like their 
 present masters, the Turks, mustered their hordes 
 of lawless marauders; they have not spread deso¬ 
 lation along their line of march, nor have they set 
 up a rival imperium to the great forces of modern 
 civilization. Yet they assert a position of influence 
 and inherit a prestige which never can be asso¬ 
 ciated with the name of their barbarous oppressors. 
 
 Their peculiar claim to a place of honour among 
 the nations lies in their distinctive genius and 
 character, their realization of a principle of 
 national unity, and of a high ideal as to their 
 mission, to which they have clung amid every 
 change, every reverse of fortune. 
 
Geographical Position 
 
 5 
 
 We purpose to note, however cursorily, some of 
 the moulding influences of this character, as well 
 as some of its heroic achievements. 
 
 It .cannot, we believe, be without profit that we 
 tread, even in imagination, that ancient realm of 
 noble martyrdoms, of new-born aspirations, and 
 mark the recurring outflashes of spirit which lend 
 their mingled pathos and romantic charm to the 
 history of this remarkable nation. 
 
 Armenia looms forth from amid the mists of 
 antiquity a rugged, grim old fortress, often, 
 indeed, beleaguered, but never finally captured. 
 
 Ancient Armenia, in its palmiest days, overran, 
 if it did not take possession of, all the range 
 stretching from the Caspian to the Mediterranean 
 Sea. That range includes the wild fastnesses of 
 the Caucasus, what is now the Russian province 
 of Georgia, the mountains, plains and valleys of 
 Turkish Armenia and Anatolia, as well as the 
 maritime regions of the Euxine and the Bos¬ 
 phorus. 
 
 Turkish Armenia, to which we now confine our 
 survey, occupies the north-east corner of Asia 
 Minor. It is bounded on the north by the Black 
 Sea and the frontier of Russia, on the east by 
 Russia and Persia, on the west by Anatolia, 
 and on the south by the mountains of Kurdistan. 
 It is distant from Constantinople 600 miles. Its 
 extent from east to west is 430, and its breadth 
 from north to south 300 miles. 
 
 The original name Haiasdan was given to 
 
6 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 it from the national progenitor, Haig, whom 
 tradition asserts to have been the son of 
 Togarmah, the grandson of Japhet. 
 
 Armenia (a later designation, derived, it is said, 
 from one of the old kings, Aram, a descendant of 
 Haig) signifies highland. It is descriptive of the 
 surface of the country, which is mostly an elevated 
 plateau, from 4,000 to 7,000 feet above the level 
 of the sea, sloping downwards towards Persia on 
 the east, and Anatolia on the west. Its aspect, in 
 some of the mountain ranges, suggests an expansion 
 of the grandeur and beauty of the Trossachs. 
 Armenia contains large tracts of plain and valley 
 capable of a high degree of cultivation. The 
 Turkish despot, however, will do nothing worth 
 mentioning to encourage the rayah in his cultiva¬ 
 tion of the soil, even to enrich himself and his 
 rapacious pashas. The Armenian peasant, there¬ 
 fore, devoid of the appliances of science to his 
 occupation, does not thrive on agriculture. 
 
 The soil is rich in minerals such as coal, copper, 
 iron, lead, salt, and naphtha. These, however, 
 until quite recently, the unspeakable Turk would 
 neither work himself nor permit others more 
 competent to do so. Mr. Curzon, who comments 
 on the folly of this dog-in-the-manger policy, 
 bears ample testimony to the existence of bound¬ 
 less coal fields between the Bosphorus and 
 Heraclea, as well as to the facility with which the 
 coal cropping out of the sides of the hills could be 
 obtained. 
 
Geographical Position 
 
 7 
 
 The country, like the Highlands of Scotland, 
 suffers from a scarcity of wood. The neglect of 
 artificial means of irrigation condemns large 
 portions of the soil to barrenness. But this is 
 redeemed by the fertility of other regions. The 
 products are rice, hemp, flax, cotton, tobacco, 
 grapes, and a variety of fruits. Cattle-rearing is 
 more in favour than agriculture. 
 
 The climate of Armenia is temperate and 
 bracing. The Euphrates and Tigris are the 
 principal rivers. Rising in its mountain fast¬ 
 nesses, and uniting at last in the Shat-al-Arab, 
 they pour their waters into the Persian Gulf. 
 
 In like manner, the Araxes and Kur, rising in 
 the same centre, after traversing divergent routes, 
 unite in discharging their waters in one vast 
 volume into the Caspian Sea. Other streams, 
 such as the Jorokh and Rion, or Phasis, drain 
 Armenia in the direction of the Black Sea. 
 
 Along the banks of the two larger historic rivers, 
 the Euphrates and Tigris, even in the absence of 
 irrigation, vineyards and garden landscapes meet 
 the eye, giving the observant student of Scripture 
 some remote conception of the extent and delights 
 of the far-off Edenic paradise. 
 
 The natural guardian of Armenia is Agri-dagh, 
 or the ancient Ararat, rising in the east to the 
 height of 17,260 feet. It is known among the 
 natives and others as Noah’s Mountain. A fondly 
 cherished tradition declares that, in ‘the untrodden 
 solitude of Ararat’s tremendous peak,’ the ark 
 
8 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 may still be found embedded amid the eternal 
 snows. It is quite clear that these primitive 
 Orientals, wonderful as they were in many 
 respects, had not foreseen what troubles their 
 haphazard statements were laying up in store for 
 the exercise of the patience and industry of the 
 higher critics. 
 
 Somewhere in these regions which go by the 
 name of Ararat, the ark, we may be permitted to 
 suppose, did come to rest Hence Armenia’s 
 claim to be, if not the first, at least the second 
 cradle of the human race. The country east of 
 the Euphrates, when most fully organized for 
 political purposes, under a native dynasty, con¬ 
 sisted of fifteen divisions. The original Armenia 
 has now come to be portioned out as provinces of 
 Turkey, Russia and Persia. 
 
 Turkish Armenia at the present day, including 
 Kurdistan, forms a separate province of the 
 Ottoman Empire. It is subdivided into three 
 vilayets, or governments—Erzeroum, Mamouret- 
 ul-Aziz, and Diarbekir—with the adjoining regions 
 of Bitlis and Van. Erzeroum, the political capital 
 of Turkish Armenia, is favourably situated for 
 commercial and military purposes, being on the 
 highway between the East and the West* Van, 
 
 * Consul Hampson, writing from Erzeroum, December 19, 
 1891, says : ‘ As far back as the year 1850, Consul Brandt 
 drew the attention of the Embassy to the existence of 
 valuable coal mines in this neighbourhood. . . In spite of 
 the fact, however, that fuel is one of the great difficulties at 
 Erzeroum, both for household and manufacturing purposes, 
 that wood is brought every year from greater distances, and, 
 
Historical Sketch of the Armenians 9 
 
 one °f the old capitals, is, from its associations 
 with native and Assyrian story, foremost in 
 romantic and antiquarian interest. Batoum, 
 along with Kars, was ceded to Russia by the 
 Berlin Treaty, 1878. 
 
 From the fluctuations of the limits of Armenia, 
 as we have now indicated, it is difficult, or rather 
 impossible, to mention boundaries of a fixed kind. 
 The region just described may be regarded as the 
 mother-country. It contains a mixed population 
 of Turks, Kurds, etc., and only about 600,000 
 Armenians, or about one-fourth of the whole 
 number within the Turkish dominions. 
 
 The Armenians at present are said to number 
 about four millions. Of these there are about 
 two and a half millions in Turkey, one and a 
 fourth millions in Russia, 150,000 in Persia and 
 the East, 100,000 in Europe, and 5,000 in the 
 United States of America. 
 
 The Armenians claim to be the oldest nation 
 on the face of the earth. They date the origin of 
 their dynasties from the time when the ark rested 
 
 ■-— 7 -—-———--— — 
 
 consequently, continually increases in dearness, and that, 
 from this cause, the establishment of any machine-worked 
 industry is practically impossible here, the Government has 
 steadily refused all permission to exploit the coal which is 
 known to exist. . . . Nor is coal the only valuable natural 
 product thus neglected, although it is the one the necessity 
 lor which is most pressing. I am assured that within a 
 radius of three miles from one of the coal fields exist rich 
 silver and copper mines, permission to work which has also 
 been refused. Gold and boracite have also been found in 
 the same district, and in another district a spring of petroleum 
 of excellent quality is known to exist.’—‘ Blue Book,’ Turkey, 
 No. 3 (1896). 
 
IO Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 on the mountains of Ararat. They even go still 
 further back, and claim that the Armenian was 
 the language spoken in the Garden of Eden. 
 They designate themselves Haik, after the great- 
 grandson of Japhet, the reputed founder of their 
 nation. The Armenians are no doubt, like other 
 Aryan races, of the line of Japhet. They are dis¬ 
 tinguished by their native intelligence and spirit 
 of enterprise. In these and other respects they 
 resemble the Semitic character, and have often 
 been compared with the Jews. There is a some¬ 
 what cynical proverb, that it takes two Jews to 
 cheat a Greek, and two Greeks to cheat an 
 Armenian. 
 
 The Armenian is of striking personal appear¬ 
 ance, with keen, dark, flashing eyes and restless 
 temperament ; he is above the middle height; 
 the complexion is darkish brown or yellow ; the 
 forehead is broad and massive. 
 
 We turn to the page of sacred history for the 
 earliest reliable references to Armenia. There 
 we learn that the ark rested on the mountains of 
 Ararat. There are other and later references, as 
 that to the sons of Sennacherib, who, after slaying 
 their father in self-defence, escaped into Armenia. 
 Both Ezekiel and Jeremiah refer to it—the one to 
 its traffic in mules and horses with Tyre, the other 
 to its alliance with Cyrus in the siege of Babylon. 
 
 The oldest native histories are to a large extent 
 a mass of fable. Little more can be learned 
 from them than that in ancient times the 
 
Historical Sketch of the Armenians 11 
 
 Armenians were governed by independent or 
 tributary kings, and that the Assyrians, the 
 Medes, and Persians were in turn their con¬ 
 querors and oppressors. 
 
 This fabulous history has, however, some 
 passages of lively interest. Let us instance a few 
 of them : Haig, their natural progenitor, was, it 
 seems, a prodigy of valour and religious zeal. 
 He slew the tyrant Belus, who was the first to 
 introduce idolatry among mankind. He lived to 
 a great age; the chronicler does not affect pre¬ 
 cision on the point, but thinks it was probably 
 500 years. Armenac, the son of Haig, had twelve 
 brothers, named after the months of the year; 
 he had also twenty-four sisters, named after the 
 hours of the day. Aram, from whom the 
 Armenians are supposed by the romancer to get 
 their name, was the first to raise his people to a 
 position of renown among the nations. 
 
 One of the first historical personages to appear 
 on the stage of ancient Armenia is no other than 
 the famous Assyrian queen Semiramis. Those who 
 may have chanced to harbour a vague fancy that 
 Semiramis, from the masculine type of character, 
 is an old-world hero, will have their minds dis¬ 
 abused of that fallacy when we mention that she 
 appears as a royal lover smit with the charms of 
 the Armenian king Arab. She somewhat overdoes 
 her part, and makes him a proposal of marriage. 
 She offers him, along with herself, the Assyrian 
 crown. Arah does not see his way to accept of 
 
12 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 his good fortune. The royal passion suddenly 
 changes from love to revenge. She invades his 
 kingdom at the head of her army, and to her great 
 grief Arab is slain in battle. 
 
 To make what amends she now can, she 
 transfers her affection to Arah’s son and heir. 
 She places him upon his father’s throne. There¬ 
 after the love-lorn warrior-queen, conceiving a 
 liking for the climate and scenery of Armenia, 
 turns it into a summer resort. The spot chosen 
 for her residence is the romantic region in the 
 neighbourhood of Lake Van. There she builds 
 not only a royal palace or castle, but also the city 
 of Van. This region she continues to frequent 
 until she falls in battle fighting against her own 
 son, and by the side of her ally, the son of the 
 beloved Arah. To this day the name of Semiramis 
 survives in local designations in this spot. The 
 romance so far furnishes the key to the explorer 
 of the inscriptions about Lake Van. It enables 
 him to understand why those inscriptions are 
 entirely different from the Persian or Babylonian 
 character, and are mostly in the Assyrian style of 
 cuneiform writing. The historians Diodorus 
 Siculus and Strabo both confirm the accounts of 
 monumental erections in Armenia by Semiramis. 
 
 About the time when the Israelites departed 
 from Egypt, Armenia, we are told, was temporarily 
 subdued by Sesostris, the Egyptian king. The 
 reigning prince was then Pharnak, who soon 
 regained his independence. In the time of his 
 
Historical Sketch of the Armenians i 3 
 _ 
 
 successor, Soor, took place the conquest of Canaan 
 by Joshua. Many of the aboriginal Canaanites 
 took refuge in Armenia. One of these old 
 Armenian kings, named Zarmayr, was engaged in 
 the Trojan war on the side of Priam, and was 
 slain in single combat by Achilles. We have, 
 however, no Homer to describe the encounter, or 
 to rehearse the haughty colloquy which must 
 have preceded it. 
 
 In the reign of Paroyr, who was a contemporary 
 of Sennacherib of sacred history, Armenia threw 
 off the Assyrian yoke, and joined Arbaces the 
 Mede in his rebellion against Sardanapalus. On 
 the murder of Sennacherib by his two sons, 
 Adramelech and Sharezer, Paroyr received the 
 parricides into his dominions. The allegiance of 
 Armenia was now transferred to Media, the native 
 dynasty still holding its place. 
 
 After another long list of mythical kings, we 
 come to Hay Kak II. He was an ally of Nebu¬ 
 chadnezzar, King of Babylon. When the Jews 
 were carried by this monarch into captivity, Hay 
 Kak received into his kingdom a Jewish chief, 
 Shambat, with his family. This Shambat and his 
 posterity settled in the country, and his name is 
 revered as the ancestor of the great dynasty of 
 the Bagrat id 86, which was destined in due time 
 to occupy the throne of their adopted country. 
 
 During the period of Median supremacy there 
 seems to have been a revival of the native spirit 
 of independence. Tigranes I. distinguishes him- 
 
4 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 self by a victory over the Median king Ahasuerus, 
 whom he slays in battle with his own hand. The 
 victory is also due largely to the self-sacrifice of 
 Tigrana, a sister of the King of Armenia. The 
 wedded queen of Ahasuerus, she divulges his evil 
 designs against the throne of her brother, and 
 flees for protection to her native country. The 
 information had proved a timely warning, and 
 Tigrana ranks henceforth among the saviours of 
 Armenia. Not less interesting, and more authentic, 
 is the record of the alliance of Tigranes with 
 Cyrus, the Persian king, in the overthrow of 
 Babylon, and the liberation of the Jews from 
 captivity, b.c. 53 $* To this event Jeremiah is 
 supposed to refer in the prophecy, ‘ Call together 
 against her the kingdoms of Ararat, Minni and 
 Askenaz . . . to make the land of Babylon a 
 desolation without an inhabitant.’ 
 
 According to the chronology of both Jews and 
 Armenians, Tigranes was the Armenian king at 
 the capture of Babylon. Under all these changes 
 in her relations to her neighbours, Armenia con¬ 
 tinued to retain her native dynasties with more or 
 less show of independence. 
 
 There are frequent allusions to Armenia in both 
 the Institution and Expedition of Cyrus. In the 
 year b.c. 401, the Armenian satrap Teribazus was 
 startled by the approach of a vast body of armed 
 men from the south, bent, as he could not doubt, 
 on the invasion of his country. He prepared at 
 once to contest their passage of the small river 
 
Historical Sketch of the Armenians 
 
 J 5 
 
 Centrites, by which the Armenian frontier was 
 bounded. After some encounters, it was found that 
 the strangers harboured no designs on Armenia. 
 The relations now changed, and the chief troubles 
 of the retreating Ten Thousand arose, not from 
 a hostile people, but from the rigours of an 
 Armenian winter. The narrative of Xenophon, 
 with its side-lights on the habits of life, the earth- 
 dwellings and warlike character of the Armenians, 
 is familiar to every reader of the Anabasis. 
 
 But a conqueror from the West did at last 
 appear on the plains of Asia, through whom both 
 the Persian and Armenian prestige was destined 
 to receive a blow from which it was never fully to 
 recover. Vahey, the last of the Armenian kings, 
 and the ally of Darius, fell in battle, fighting 
 bravely against the enemy. That enemy was no 
 other than the victorious Alexander, the son of 
 the Macedonian Philip. Armenia now became a 
 Greek province. On the death of Alexander the 
 Great (b.c. 323), it fell to the lot of one of his 
 successors,- Seleucus, and was thereupon ruled by 
 the Syrian Seleucidae, until b.c. 246. They were 
 succeeded by the Arsacidae, who founded the 
 empire of the Parthians. 
 
 About b.c. 150, the Arsacidan or Parthian king, 
 Arsaces the Great (Mithridates I.), placed his 
 brother Valarsaces on the throne of Armenia. 
 This monarch, after having made some important 
 conquests, turned his attention to the administra¬ 
 tion of his dominions, and endeavoured to improve 
 
i6 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 the condition of his people. In this beneficent 
 labour he was ably assisted by Bagarat, his Jewish 
 minister, whose name was yet to become so promi¬ 
 nent among the rulers of Armenia. The Arsacidan 
 or Parthian dynasty continued until a.d. 226. 
 This, again, was succeeded by that of the Sassa- 
 nidse, which ruled for over 400 years. The power 
 of the Arsacidse over Armenia rose and fell with 
 the fortunes of Persia in her struggle with her for¬ 
 midable rivals. In these fluctuations the supremacy 
 of Rome asserted itself, and Armenia became a 
 Roman province. The raid of Antony into 
 Armenia, to humour the caprice of his mistress 
 Cleopatra, and the exhibition of an Armenian 
 king, in gilded chains, in the streets of Alexandria, 
 is a striking rather than influential episode in 
 the history of the country. 
 
 In the reign of Constantine the Great, Armenia 
 had acquired such a degree of independence, or, 
 in more modern phrase, Home Rule, as to have 
 its own tributary king. 
 
 We have thus briefly sketched the outline of 
 the earlier period of Armenian history. 
 
 The chief if not the only guides over this 
 period are the native writers—Moses of Chorene, 
 a disciple of Miesrop, belonging to the fifth cen¬ 
 tury; and Father Michael Chamich, who published 
 his history of Armenia in 1786. The latter work 
 was translated into English by Johannes Avdall, 
 Calcutta, 1827. Mr. Avdall belongs to a small 
 yet distinguished group of native Armenian 
 
Historical Sketch of the Armenians 
 
 *7 
 
 scholars, who have in recent times done good 
 service on behalf of the enlightenment of their 
 own country and of the Eastern world. 
 
 The earlier of these two histories, that of the 
 gentile Moses, extends from Haig, the great- 
 grandson of Japhet, on to a.d. 440. His narrative 
 must, from the lack of the necessary information, 
 as there are no ancient records, be largely of a 
 legendary character. A certain Syrian romancer, 
 Mar Ibas by name, seems to have had sufficient 
 resources to impose upon this lover of antiquarian 
 lore, and to mislead him into the acceptance of 
 much that was merest fable as veritable history. 
 And yet one ought not to forget that the Armenian 
 Moses did his best with an impossible task, and 
 if he does not much instruct, can hardly fail, now 
 and again, to amuse his reader. 
 
 As Father Chamich, whose history extends 
 from B.c. 2247 to the year of Christ 1780, rests 
 the earlier portion of his narrative on the authority 
 of his predecessor, we cannot wonder that his 
 record is not more successful. In the more clearly- 
 defined historic period, at which it may be supposed 
 we have now arrived, there are, of course, other 
 guiding lights. 
 
 We have, however, reached the limits of what 
 we had intended to say on the earliest times of 
 Armenia. 
 
 An incursion has been made into an ancient 
 realm which is not only the mother-country of the 
 Armenians, but of the human race. 
 
 2 
 
18 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 We cannot wonder that a halo of romance, in 
 the absence of the clear light of history, should 
 crown the brows of its hoary mountains, and 
 spread itself over its plains and lakes, its cities 
 and palaces. 
 
 As the enveloping mists from time to time roll 
 away, we can see that the drama of Armenian 
 life is no fiction, but a stern reality. To a closer 
 scrutiny there are not wanting proofs of a pro¬ 
 gressive national movement. The Assyrian, the 
 Egyptian, the Median, the Persian, the Greek and 
 Roman conquerors march stormfully across the 
 stage. 
 
 We see one ruthless hand after another made, 
 in some degree, to relax its grasp of the victim, 
 until at last a master appears, who can not only 
 control, but also educate his vassal. With the con¬ 
 quest of the Greek Alexander, and the subsequent 
 Roman domination, we enter upon a new era in 
 the history of Armenia. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Ihe introduction of Christianity into Armenia as the 
 national religion by St. Gregory the Illuminator and his 
 successors in the fourth century—Constitution of the old 
 Armenian Church. 
 
 T HE culture and civilization of the West had 
 begun to penetrate into Armenia with the 
 victorious legions of the Greeks and 
 Romans. Another of the many deluges which 
 have swept over this unhappy land was showing 
 tokens of subsidence, and the ark was once more 
 nearing a place of rest. 
 
 The inauguration of this new era was the 
 acceptance of the Christian religion as the 
 national faith. This was the grand decisive 
 event which was destined to draw forth the 
 noblest qualities of the Armenian people, and to 
 preserve to this day their national unity. Some 
 conception of the character of this movement is 
 thus necessary to enable us to understand their 
 subsequent history. For the accounts we have of 
 this change of the national religion, we are mainly 
 indebted to the father of Armenian history— 
 Moses of Chorene. His narrative is none the 
 
20 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 less valuable that we know it to be confirmed, in 
 some portions, by collateral evidence. 
 
 The calendar of the Armenian Church records, 
 giving specific dates, the casting of its founder, St. 
 Gregory, into the pit, the taking of him out of it, 
 and the finding of his body in Mount Sebuh. 
 Chrysostom is one of his many panegyrists. A 
 history of events from the time of Abgar, with a 
 Life of St. Gregory, had been written by Agath- 
 angelos, but it is a tissue of fable. There is also 
 a modern life in Armenian, by the Uniat Vartabed 
 Matthew, translated into English by Rev. S. C. 
 Malan, 1868. Even with these and such-like 
 authorities we can hardly wonder that it is not 
 always easy to say what is fact and what is fiction. 
 
 It is not possible to give specific information 
 on the original forms of the religion of the 
 race. They claim, indeed, for their ancestor the 
 distinction of having slain Belus, the first pro¬ 
 pagator of idolatry. His descendants, however, 
 would seem to have, in course of time, devised a 
 religious cult of their own, as well as to have 
 yielded so far to the idolatrous nature-worship of 
 their neighbours. Immediately before the intro¬ 
 duction of Christianity ‘ the prevailing religion 
 was a mixture of Persian fire-worship and Greek 
 idolatry.’ To this, no doubt, we may add the 
 worship of their own native divinities. 
 
 The Armenians were the first nation to accept 
 the Christian religion. The Roman Empire was 
 a full generation behind them in taking this 
 
Introduction of Christianity 21 
 
 j 
 
 step. Some thirty-seven years elapsed from the 
 baptism of Tiridates, his household, courtiers and 
 others, to the publication of the edict for the 
 toleration of the new faith by the Roman 
 Emperor. 
 
 The founder of the national Armenian Church had 
 seen his wondrous visions of the Only Begotten, 
 and built the Cathedral of Etchmiadzin, under 
 the shadow of Mount Ararat, before Constantine, 
 as the result of his vision of the luminous cross 
 and its motto, had given instructions that it 
 should replace the eagle on the standards of his 
 armies. The ancient chroniclers claim for the 
 Armenian Church an Apostolic origin and con¬ 
 stitution. Abgar, the Arsacidan king, who reigned 
 from b.c. 5 to a.d. 32, wrote, we are told, a letter 
 to Jesus. The king requested the Saviour to 
 cure him of some disease, and to come and live 
 at his court. A reply was sent through the 
 Apostle Thomas, assuring him of the cure of 
 his distemper, and promising him in due time 
 spiritual life for himself and his people. 
 
 In fulfilment of this promise, it is related Thad- 
 deus, Bartholomew, and Jude preached the 
 Gospel and suffered martyrdom in Armenia. 
 
 Legend apart, it is not unlikely that the Gospel 
 was preached in Armenia by some of the converts 
 of the Apostolic Churches of Asia Minor, either in 
 the first or second century. But there is suffi¬ 
 cient evidence that, under the persecutions which 
 followed, the people again fell back into idolatry. 
 
22 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 The revival of the faith, culminating in a per¬ 
 manent national acceptance, dates from the time 
 of St. Gregory, the Illuminator of all Armenia. 
 His Armenian epithet is Lusavoritch, Greek 
 Photistes. St. Gregory was the youngest son of 
 an Arsacidan prince, Anak, who mortally stabbed 
 the reigning Armenian king, Chosroes, a.d. 232. 
 The dying king ordered the instant slaughter of 
 his murderer and all his family. At this critical 
 juncture took place the birth of Gregory, the 
 youngest son of the doomed household. The 
 child was preserved by the devotion of his nurse, 
 a Christian woman, who got him conveyed to the 
 protection of a Christian noble of Caesarea, called 
 Euthalius. Here he was educated in the faith of 
 the Gospel. Afterwards he carried on his studies 
 in Athens and Rome. Returning to Caesarea, he 
 married a lady like-minded with himself. We are 
 told that her name was Mary, and that she was the 
 mother of two sons, destined to do noble service 
 to the cause of Christ in Armenia. The narrative 
 goes on to say that three years after the birth of her 
 youngest son she and her husband separated by 
 mutual consent, to serve God by a closer union. 
 She spent the rest of her life in a nunnery. 
 Whatever may be said of this story, the Armenian 
 Church does not enjoin celibacy upon its priest¬ 
 hood. St. Gregory’s experience may thus have 
 taught him a useful lesson, from which others 
 were to profit in the years to come. Free from 
 family ties, imbued with the culture of Greece and 
 
Introduction of Christianity 
 
 2 3 
 
 Rome, and, above all, burning with Apostolic zeal 
 for the spread of the Gospel among his country- , 
 men, Gregory returned to Armenia. Preserving 
 his incognito for a time, he gained admission into 
 the royal household, and established himself in the 
 favour of King Tiridates, the son of the murdered 
 Chosroes. Tiridates was a violent persecutor of 
 the Christians. It had been his great object to 
 utterly exterminate the few still to be found in his 
 kingdom. 
 
 Not aware of the creed of Gregory, Tiridates 
 had ordered him to crown his favourite goddess, 
 Anahit, with garlands. Gregory avowed his faith 
 in Christ, and boldly refused to participate in 
 idolatry. Tiridates subjected him, it is said, to 
 twelve different species of torture, and finally cast 
 him into a noisome pit. He remained in prison 
 for thirteen, some say fifteen years. 
 
 At length St. Gregory, having cured the king or 
 his sister of a terrible disease, was set at liberty. 
 He at once began to preach the Gospel. He now 
 numbered among his converts the persecutor 
 Tiridates himself, his queen, and his sister. Of 
 the last it is naively said by the historian that she 
 was a remarkable woman, who ‘did not, like other 
 females, let loose her tongue, even when she was 
 not a Christian.’ 
 
 Agathangelos says, mistaking a parable for a 
 merely grotesque miracle, that the king was 
 transformed into a boar, and came to the feet 
 of St. Gregory, who restored him to his original 
 
24 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 form. The change was no doubt typical of that 
 which passed on many others as well as the king. 
 Brutal ferocity began to give place to the supre¬ 
 macy of a new spirit. It has ever ,been the glory 
 of the Gospel of Christ that its strains have 
 effectually subdued and softened wilder and more 
 savage natures than were wont to be swayed by 
 the lyre of Orpheus. 
 
 How far the conversion of the nation was a real 
 transformation of character we cannot say. 
 
 The courtiers, so far as outward conduct went, 
 largely followed the example of the king. The 
 movement became national. The notions of pro¬ 
 pagating religion in those early times were not 
 what, under a better understanding of its spirit, 
 they have since become. The primitive African 
 chief, who ruled his tribesmen by club-law alone, 
 could not understand why the missionary should 
 trouble himself reasoning with and exhorting them 
 to receive the Gospel. All that was necessary, as 
 it seemed to him, was to send round among them 
 a peremptory order, to be enforced, if need be, by 
 the headsman’s application of the cowhide. 
 
 The same rough-and-ready method for the de¬ 
 fence and propagation of the Gospel has ever had 
 its attractions for not a few, since Peter first drew 
 his sword against his Master’s foes in the Garden 
 of Gethsemane. But it has not been resorted to 
 by our wisest reformers. St. Gregory was a true 
 Christian missionary. Brave in suffering, diplo¬ 
 matic in action, considerate and generous in deal- 
 
Introduction of Christianity 
 
 2 5 
 
 ing with the prejudices and foibles of men, he saw 
 that the revolution at which he aimed could only be 
 effected by spiritual forces. These he could exercise 
 and utilize with a genius and energy all his own. 
 
 At the desire of Tiridates, Gregory went to 
 Caesarea, and was there, a.d. 302, consecrated 
 by Leontius, the Archbishop, Patriarch of all 
 Armenia. He then set himself to organize the 
 new Church, and to establish a system of schools. 
 
 He gathered together a number of rough country 
 boys, and instructed them particularly in the know¬ 
 ledge of the Scriptures. His presence and teaching 
 wrought a marvellous change upon their characters. 
 They saw him setting aside every consideration of 
 ease and safety in the pursuit of his mission. No 
 service was too lowly or trying for him to render 
 to others; no opposition could quench or even 
 damp his enthusiasm. The priests of the decay¬ 
 ing idolatry received his instructions and prof¬ 
 fered their services the more gladly that he was 
 careful of their worldly interests and continued 
 to them their former emoluments. 
 
 Having completed the magnificent temple of 
 The Only Begotten at Etchmiadzin, and carried 
 through what personal service he could render to 
 the cause to which he had devoted his life, St. 
 Gregory, now an aged man, retired to Mount 
 Sebuh, to end his days in solitary communion 
 with God. His son had already been appointed 
 as his successor at Etchmiadzin. 
 
 He died alone, unattended. The body was 
 
26 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 covered with a heap of stones by some shepherds 
 about the mountain. Some years afterwards it 
 was removed, and laid to rest in the village of 
 Thorkan, in Mount Sebuh. 
 
 Since then, tradition assures us, the sacred 
 body of St. Gregory has been distributed over a 
 large area of Christendom. The head and prison- 
 chains were conveyed to Naples; the left hand 
 was conveyed to Etchmiadzin, and the right to 
 Sis. 
 
 Under such circumstances did the Church of 
 St. Gregory—the most ancient of national Chris¬ 
 tian Churches—find a place in Armenia. The 
 central temple stands where it has stood since 
 the days of its founder, at Etchmiadzin, at the 
 base of Ararat, in the fertile valley of Erivan in 
 Upper Armenia. It has belonged since 1828 to the 
 Russian division of Armenia. It is the residence 
 of the chief patriarch of the Armenian Church. 
 His title, no doubt somewhat more complex since 
 the simple times of St. Gregory, runs thus : ‘ The 
 servant of Jesus Christ, and by the grace of God 
 Catholicos of all the Armenians, and Patriarch of 
 the Holy Convent of Etchmiadzin.’ 
 
 The list of the successors of the first patriarch 
 is of great length, extending from his son Aristaces 
 on to the present day, and to his Holiness Muger- 
 ditch Khrimian, the present Catholicos of Etch¬ 
 miadzin. He is represented as a man of large 
 and liberal views, anxious for a progressive move¬ 
 ment. As one glances over the Armenian Church 
 
Constitution of the Old Church 27 
 
 calendar, he is struck not only by the array of 
 sacred feasts, but also by their frequent and 
 severe fasts. It is further noteworthy that they 
 not only keep Sabbath in commemoration of the 
 resurrection of Christ, but Saturday also, in 
 memory of the finished work of creation. 
 
 The form of government is episcopal. The 
 chief patriarch is chosen by the representatives 
 of the dioceses, met in regular synod at Etchmi- 
 adzin. The nomination is then submitted to 
 the Emperor of Russia, who, when he gives his 
 approval, notifies the appointment to the Govern¬ 
 ments of Turkey and Persia. The dioceses are 
 five, the principal being those of Etchmiadzin 
 and Constantinople. In the case of the others, 
 the title of patriarch is merely honorary.* 
 
 There are two religious orders of men among 
 the Armenians: one follows the rule of St. 
 Anthony, the other that of St. Basil. The robing 
 of the priests when about to celebrate the 
 Eucharist is a highly symbolical ceremony. 
 
 The Armenian Liturgy is regarded as one of 
 the most ancient and beautiful of its kind. It 
 was compiled originally from liturgies used by 
 St. Gregory, St. Basil, and St. Athanasius. It 
 was revised, in the fifth century, by the transla¬ 
 tors of the Scriptures into the Armenian tongue. 
 The liturgy regulates the Communion Service. 
 That service is conducted with an attention to 
 
 * Dr. Wilson’s ‘Lands of the Bible’ (Armenian Church), 
 vol. ii., pp. 481, 482. 
 
28 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 elaborate ceremonial which has well-nigh turned 
 the heads of some of our English ritualists who 
 have witnessed its observance. Apart from its 
 flavour of idolatry, it has its attractions for the 
 ordinary Protestant worshipper. 
 
 The National Church of Armenia was soon 
 tested by a bloody persecution. In the reign of 
 Julian the Apostate it so pressed upon the people 
 that many of them relapsed into heathenism. The 
 nobles drove from the throne Chosnes, the son of 
 Tiridates. Then followed an ordeal of suffering 
 in which nearly all the prelates and priests were 
 martyred, including Husak, son of Vertannes, 
 the Patriarch of Armenia. 
 
 In a.d. 345 Chosnes was restored to the throne, 
 and Christianity made a further advance as the 
 national religion. From a.d. 364, when Arsaces, 
 King of Armenia, created Nierces, the grandson 
 of Husak, Primate of Armenia, Etchmiadzin be¬ 
 came the seat of an independent hierarchy. 
 
 The translation of the Scriptures, which be¬ 
 longs to a still later period, may be said to have 
 completed the national revolution. That revolu¬ 
 tion was not, indeed, the work of any one man, 
 or even generation of men, but rather of a 
 succession of national reformers. 
 
 The Armenian Reformation, which we have 
 been chiefly considering, was an event for which 
 there had been a long Providential preparation. 
 It is one of those formative periods of history 
 which powerfully impress the student with the 
 
Constitution of the Old Church 
 
 2 9 
 
 conviction of a Divine idea, working with creative 
 energy, amid the seemingly aimless commotions 
 of individuals and communities. Nothing can 
 well be a more striking illustration of the guiding 
 principle which constitutes the philosophy of 
 history. 
 
 Yet the principle in question is ordinarily em¬ 
 bodied in the person and career of either a single 
 individual or cluster of individuals, and so the 
 history of the great movements of the world is, 
 at bottom, the history of its great men. In this 
 sense the story of St. Gregory is largely, for this 
 period, the story of Armenia. In it also we find 
 the key to much otherwise utterly unintelligible 
 in its subsequent history. 
 
 We have therefore traced the general course of 
 this life-story. The scenes have flitted across the 
 canvas somewhat swiftly and indistinctly. Yet 
 the central figure has been ever before us. 
 
 First it is that of a helpless, doomed Armenian 
 child, saved from the family massacre by a kind- 
 hearted Christian nurse. In the next stage, we 
 have an eager student of Western culture and the 
 Scriptures in Caesarea, the city of Cornelius and 
 of the imprisonment of the Apostle of the Gentiles. 
 In the third stage he steps forth a daring witness 
 for Christ at the heathen court of one of the most 
 relentless of the Armenian persecutors of the 
 faith. In the last stage he appears as the Illumi¬ 
 nator, carrying the light of the Gospel into all 
 the dark corners of his native land. Never since 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 3 ° 
 
 that time has this light wholly faded. The life- 
 story of this, the grandest of all the Armenian 
 saints, is an abiding record of labour, suffering, 
 and success. Every step of the Apostolic career 
 is full of interest, until the figure vanishes from 
 our view into its quiet devotional retreat in the 
 
 solitudes of Mount Sebuh. 
 
 Thus far the story of the founder of the national 
 
 Church of Armenia. 
 
 We have also glanced at that old Armenian 
 Church itself, its origin and constitution. We 
 have tried to see it at the far-off end of a long 
 retrospective vista, and before it had become, to 
 some degree, changed for good or evil by those 
 testing experiences through which it has since been 
 destined to pass. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Arsacidan and Sassanian dynasties—Religious and literary 
 revival—Translation of the Scriptures by St. Miesrop and 
 St. Isaac—Sketches of Armenian history from the intro¬ 
 duction of Christianity by St. Gregory to the rise of the 
 dynasty of the Bagratidse, A.D. 860. 
 
 W E can only glance rapidly at some of the 
 more important events and tendencies 
 in the history of Armenia during this 
 period. In the absence of reliable informa¬ 
 tion, largely accounted for by the unhappy 
 circumstances of the country and people, that 
 history, even at its best, is to some extent 
 mythological. The principal native chronicler, 
 Father Chamich, when he is not compiling a 
 somewhat dry catalogue of Armenian kings, 
 princes, and military chiefs, not to mention 
 patriarchs and priests, is wont to regale his per¬ 
 severing reader with wonderful stories of super¬ 
 natural agencies. If there is too frequently a 
 monotonous repetition of calamity upon calamity, 
 like a succession of wave-lines on mid-ocean, there 
 is, at the same time, the most piquant variety in 
 
3 2 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 the standing miracles which embellish the national 
 record. 
 
 The storms which swept over ancient Armenia, 
 with tornado-like violence, buried among their 
 debris large portions of the national record. 
 While we have here and there a chapter of 
 horrors which seems, somehow, like a facsimile 
 of a former chapter in the long-drawn-out tragedy, 
 there are not a few manifestly missing. Others 
 are so blotted and blurred with blood and tears as 
 to be far less decipherable than those strange 
 runic characters on the rocks about Lake Van 
 which have so severely taxed the ingenuity and 
 patience of the disciples of Rawlinson and Layard. 
 
 But we return to our sketch. We have seen 
 how the Armenian Church, the oldest national 
 Church in Christendom, was founded by the 
 Apostolic St. Gregory. We have traced some of 
 his more immediate reforms, in which he was 
 assisted so nobly by his royal convert Tiridates. 
 
 Tiridates was certainly one of the bravest and 
 best of all the race of the Arsacidan kings which 
 ruled over Armenia. When nearing the close of 
 a long and brilliant career, seeing the Armenian 
 chiefs relapsing into their former idolatrous habits 
 and abandoning the sanctity of the Christian 
 faith, Tiridates convened them together and re¬ 
 monstrated with them on their apostasy. As this 
 produced no good results, he resigned the sceptre, 
 and retired to spend the rest of his days on Mount 
 Sebuh, where St. Gregory had passed in devout 
 
Arsacidan and Sassanian Dynasties 33 
 
 seclusion the last years of his life. His turbulent 
 courtiers urged him in vain to resume the reins of 
 government, and exasperated by his persistent 
 refusal, they put an end to his life by poison. 
 
 So fell the first Christian King of Armenia, a 
 martyr to the faith of which at one time he had 
 been the most relentless persecutor. He died in 
 the eighty-fifth year of his age, and after a reign 
 of fifty-six years. His body was interred in the 
 fortress of Ani, a name which also recalls what 
 was for long afterwards one of the royal cities of 
 Armenia. 
 
 We may, perhaps, as well here indicate the 
 position and duration of the two main dynasties 
 which belong to this period, i.e., those of the Arsa- 
 cidse and Sassanidae. Some idea of their general 
 position and character is desirable for a better 
 understanding of their influence in Armenia. The 
 Arsacidan or Parthian dynasty succeeded that of 
 the Seleucidae in the East, b.c. 246. It became 
 extinct in Persia a.d. 226. The Arsacidae are 
 said by Father Chamich to have been of the 
 race of Abraham through Keturah. Gibbon 
 describes them as an obscure horde of Scythian 
 origin from all the provinces of Upper Asia. 
 They were beyond doubt a bold, warlike dynasty, 
 not much concerned about any form of religion, 
 and so, while subduing the Persians, did not much 
 interest themselves in their fire-worship. Their 
 successors, the Sassanidae, claimed to be of 
 the ancient blood royal of Persia, and with 
 
 3 
 
34 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 them it was a sacred mission to revive and 
 extend the faith of Zoroaster. This will explain 
 how it comes to pass that the fiercest and most 
 bloody religious persecution in Armenia was 
 carried on by the Sassanidse, whose object was to 
 convert the Armenian nation to this alien creed. 
 
 Now, the Arsacidan dynasty, which occupied 
 the Persian throne until a.d. 226, was long sur¬ 
 vived by its offshoot which ruled in Armenia. 
 The latter was the tributary dynasty of the 
 former, which regarded Armenia as a province 
 of its empire. This relation it still held to Persia 
 after the accession of the Sassanian dynasty 
 to the Persian throne. The Sassanian Kings of 
 Persia accordingly sanctioned the appointment of 
 Arsacidan sovereigns in Armenia, and this went 
 on until the deposition of the last Arsacidan 
 Armenian monarch, Arlashir, by the Persian king 
 Baharam V. (Chamich, Viram) in a.d. 428. The 
 Sassanidae continued to reign in Persia until they 
 were overthrown by the Saracens on the plains of 
 Cadesia in a.d. 636.* 
 
 During the reign of these Persian dynasties 
 they assumed an over - lordship of Armenia 
 and its tributary kings. When at length the 
 semblance even of monarchy disappeared with 
 the last Arsacidan King of Armenia, the op- 
 
 * ‘Who on Cadesia’s bloody plains 
 Saw fierce invaders pluck the gem 
 From Iran’s broken diadem, 
 
 And bind her ancient faith in chains.’ 
 
 Moore's ‘ Fire-worshippers' 
 
Religious and Literary Revival 
 
 pression of the Sassanidae became more intoler¬ 
 able, and a new era of endurance opened up for 
 the subject country. 
 
 Before we proceed to this stage, we must again 
 retrace our steps and note some earlier occur¬ 
 rences. On the death of Tiridates and the settle¬ 
 ment of his son, Khosrove II., by Greek force on 
 the throne of Armenia, a fierce war broke out 
 between the new sovereign and Sapor (Chamich, 
 Shapuh), which resulted in bloody engagements, 
 and was continued, on one pretext or another, 
 over the reigns of two other Armenian kings, 
 Tiran and Pap. The character of the Armenian 
 kings down to the close of the fourth century is 
 such as modifies our regret that we do not know 
 more about them. They were manifestly a rather 
 low type—sensual, perfidious and cruel. 
 
 But if the palaces of Armenia were not during 
 this period abodes of either virtue or piety, such 
 the Chronicler assures us was not the case with 
 the dwellings of the patriarchs and higher priest¬ 
 hood. This testimony is all the more pleasing 
 since after-ages have so often had too good reason 
 to comment on the degeneracy of the patri¬ 
 archate, through the degradations to which, 
 especially under Moslem tyranny, it has been 
 systematically subjected. 
 
 In Armenia, as elsewhere, the Christian religion 
 has been the source of all the great movements 
 which elevate and consolidate a nation. The 
 revolution originating with the primary labours of 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 St. Gregory was taken up by his son, St. 
 Vertannes, amid increasing difficulties. It found 
 a champion worthy to take the place of Gregory 
 himself in Nierses, one of the grandest pro¬ 
 phetic characters in Church history. While an 
 apostate race of sovereigns were living in open 
 debauchery, and cultivating alliances with the 
 infidel Julian, St. Nierses and some other like- 
 minded men were carrying through the stupendous 
 enterprise of what was in reality a second reforma¬ 
 tion in Armenia. St. Nierses was appointed Patri¬ 
 arch of Armenia in a.d. 366. The Church became 
 at once a centre of new life. The mode of worship, 
 its outward forms, and, above all, its spirit, were 
 improved. Convents were built to the number of 
 2,000, when the ideal of monastic life had not yet 
 been degraded by the corruptions of after-times. 
 Public schools, asylums for widows and orphans, as 
 well as other beneficent institutions, began to rise 
 over the land. A true patriot, Nierses again and 
 again risked his life to deliver his country from 
 trouble incurred by its foolish rulers in their rela¬ 
 tions with the Greeks or Persians. He fell at last 
 a martyr to the cause which he had served with 
 such unwearied devotion. 
 
 Having ventured to admonish the reprobate 
 King Pap for the betrayal of his faith, that mis¬ 
 creant secretly put him to death by poison. We 
 can hardly wonder that to the glowing imagina¬ 
 tion of his co-patriots and co-religionists a vision 
 of unearthly glory seems ever to surround the 
 
Religious and Literary Revival 
 
 person of such a man, and that at last it was 
 averred that he had been seen ascending to heaven, 
 accompanied by a host of angels. 
 
 Yet all this Christian activity was little else 
 than the prelude to greater and more enduring 
 labours. This was the religious and literary revival 
 connected with Miesrop, the secretary, and St. 
 Isaac, the son, of Nierses. St. Isaac became 
 Patriarch of Armenia in a.d. 390. In a.d. 393 he 
 began, in conjunction with Miesrop, a movement 
 for the improvement of the vernacular language. 
 Hitherto the Armenian had possessed no native 
 characters. In the east they employed the Persian, 
 and in the west of Armenia the Syriac, character. 
 The chronicle relates that St. Isaac and Miesrop 
 having both failed to do what they had purposed, 
 i.e., to invent a native alphabet, Miesrop went to 
 Somosata. In the act of prayer, so runs the 
 legend, he received the necessary help, and, rising 
 from his knees, he at once invented all the Arme¬ 
 nian characters in exquisite perfection. This his¬ 
 torical event, however mixed with fabulous details, 
 took place in a.d. 406. When the invention was 
 made public there were great rejoicings in Armenia. 
 St. Miesrop was borne in triumph into the capital, 
 and public thanks were returned to the Bestower 
 of all good. The new alphabet was now taught 
 in the schools. 
 
 Thus, as is ever the case, the Christian religion 
 brought with it a new intellectual era. Before 
 this time the Armenians had got what little culture 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 they had from the Assyrians and Medo-Persians. 
 But except a few old songs and ballads, the pre- 
 Christian literature of Armenia has ceased to exist. 
 
 The surviving literary treasures are thus sub¬ 
 sequent to the fourth century, and are largely 
 historical. Poetry and fiction have not been 
 much cultivated by the Armenians. They are 
 a practical rather than a sentimental race, 
 receiving from those who know them best in 
 the business of life the designation of the Dutch¬ 
 men of the East, and this practical cast of 
 thought and utterance is characteristic of their 
 literary efforts. Their native tongue, or the old 
 Armenian, belongs to the Indo-Germanic group of 
 languages. It has no distinction of genders, and 
 abounds in irregularities of declension and conju¬ 
 gation ; has, it seems, a harsh sound, and is the de¬ 
 spair of the foreigner as to mastery of pronuncia¬ 
 tion. With the impulse derived from Christian 
 thought, the Armenians now began to study the 
 works of the Greek philosophers and historians, the 
 masterpieces, indeed, of both Greek and Roman 
 culture, and to admire and copy these models.* 
 
 ♦Speaking of St. Miesrop, Mr. Tozer says: ‘His name, 
 though little known in Europe, is still in great repute in his 
 native country, and with good reason ; for if any holy men 
 deserve to be held in pious remembrance, those have an 
 especial claim who, like Ulfilas, the Apostle of the Goths, 
 and Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles of the Slavonians, 
 and Miesrop, have invented alphabets for those among whom 
 they preached the Gospel. In their time and for the nations 
 they evangelized, they did hardly a less important work than 
 the inventors of printing subsequently did for the world at 
 large. From a political point of view, also, St. Miesrop 
 
Translation of the Scriptures 
 
 39 
 
 A few of their more promising disciples were 
 now despatched by St. Miesrop and St. Isaac to 
 Edessa and Constantinople to translate into 
 Armenian some of the learned works of other 
 nations. There they found and brought back 
 with them to their masters a correct version of 
 the Septuagint. Up to this time the Syrian 
 version of the Bible had been used in Armenia, 
 and an interpreter was needed to translate into 
 the vernacular the portions of Scripture read at 
 public worship. 
 
 This translation of the Scriptures into the 
 Armenian tongue contains more books than 
 those of the Western Churches. These addi¬ 
 tional books in the Old Testament are : (i) The 
 Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, the sons of 
 Jacob ; (2) The History of Joseph and his wife 
 Asenath; (3) The Book of Jesus, the son of 
 Sirach. In the New Testament the additions are : 
 
 (1) The Epistle of the Corinthians to St. Paul; 
 
 (2) St. Paul’s Third Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 These additional books are considered apocryphal. 
 
 The Bible so translated into the vernacular is 
 the oldest Armenian book extant, the next being 
 that of Moses of Chorene, which was composed 
 about half a century later. It is the crown of all 
 the literary labours of the period to which it 
 
 was a great benefactor to his countrymen, for, whereas, up 
 to that time, from the absence of a native version of the 
 Scriptures and liturgy, they had been ecclesiastically, and to 
 some extent politically, subject either to the Greeks or the 
 Syrians, they were thenceforward able to assert their inde¬ 
 pendence.’ (Tozer’s ‘Turkish Armenia,’ pp. 252, 253.) 
 
4° Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 belongs. All agree that it is the highest model of 
 literary style. Thus, the Armenian version of 
 the Scriptures holds the same relative place to 
 other works as the version of Luther in Germany, 
 or the Authorized Version in our own country. 
 
 As the literary movements advanced, transla¬ 
 tions were made of such works as the Chronicles 
 of Eusebius, the Discourses of Philo, the Homilies 
 of St. Chrysostom, Servianus, Basil the Greek, and 
 Ephraim the Syrian. Among the more prominent 
 literati who composed or translated were David, 
 the translator and commentator of Aristotle; 
 Esnik, the author of certain works against the fire- 
 worshippers; Goriun, the Xenophon of Armenian 
 literature, the biographer of Miesrop. Moses of 
 Chorene and Elisseus, a disciple of Miesrop, are 
 the chief native historians of this period. 
 
 The Armenians were now the foremost Chris¬ 
 tian nation in a double sense. They were experi¬ 
 encing the beneficial effects of a revival of their 
 national faith. But a testing ordeal was at hand. 
 We have said that the Arsacidan dynasty was not 
 to be regarded as an enthusiastic defender of the 
 creed of Zoroaster. It was not a life purpose with 
 them to impose it on their Armenian or other sub¬ 
 jects. This temper changed at once with the ac¬ 
 cession of the Sassanidse. Their first sovereign, 
 Ardisher (Roman, Artaxerxes), succeeded in pro¬ 
 curing the assassination of Khosrove, the Arsacidan 
 King of Armenia, by Anak, the father of St. Gregory. 
 His son Tiridates would never have come to the 
 
Sketches of Armenian History 41 
 
 throne of Armenia had not the opposition of the 
 Sassanian king been overborne by the Greek 
 legions. All through their connection with this 
 Persian dynasty the Armenians were ever turning 
 for succour to their co-religionists at Constanti¬ 
 nople. Bound together by a common creed, and 
 by the recent acceptance by both of the decrees 
 of the Council of Nice, a.d. 325, they often 
 took the field side by side in opposition to the 
 grand scheme of the Sassanian kings. That 
 scheme, as we have already said, was to con¬ 
 vert Armenia to the religion of the Magi. The 
 persecution which thus ensued was not that of 
 a single despot, but of a whole Magian dynasty, 
 renewed at intervals over four centuries, and em¬ 
 bittered from the peculiar relation of the oppressor 
 and the oppressed, beyond all precedent, during 
 the latter half of this period. Among the Persian 
 kings most prominent in these bloody persecu¬ 
 tions were Sapor; Yezdejirt I. and II., in whose 
 reigns the atrocities were again revived; and 
 Baharam V. (Chamich, Viram II.), who deposed 
 the last Arsacidan King of Armenia. 
 
 The resistance of the Armenian nation to these 
 long-continued attacks on their faith gives to this 
 whole otherwise doleful era in their history the 
 distinction of noble martyrdom, demanding the 
 most heroic courage and devotion. Armenia thus 
 stands forth as an Eastern realm which could not 
 be coerced into an alien faith either by the 
 scimitar of the Persian or the sword of Mahomet. 
 
42 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 As we cannot go into details with this recital, we 
 select a single persecution for a passing reference, 
 as a specimen of many others, and of the spirit 
 in which they were met by the Armenians. 
 
 Yezdejirt II., a.d. 450, had finally resolved that if 
 oppressive taxation, torture, or any other of the 
 approved weapons of Oriental imperialism, could 
 accomplish it, Armenia must be made to embrace 
 the Persian religion. The experiment, hitherto, 
 had failed.* At length the despot wrote a letter, 
 peremptorily demanding submission, and sent 
 along with it an exposition of the tenets of the 
 Magian creed. The demand was considered in an 
 assembly of the chiefs and people convened by 
 the pontiff St. Joseph in the city of Artashat. 
 The assembly decided on a resolute rejection of 
 the infamous injunction. The enraged king sum¬ 
 moned the recalcitrant chiefs to his court, and 
 threatened to send them in chains as exiles into a 
 distant land, if they did not worship the sun on 
 the following morning. Hoping to escape by a 
 compromise, they did so—thinking this mean¬ 
 time the best course—to enable them ultimately 
 to abide by the cause of their religion. On their 
 return to their own country, they did not consider 
 themselves bound by a concession wrung from 
 them by tyrannical force. Under their leader 
 Vartan they took the field against the invading 
 Persian host, and fought with such valour that 
 they completely routed the enemy. They de- 
 
 * See Neander’s ‘Church History,’ vol. iii., pp. 149-152 ; 
 also p. 161. 
 
Sketches of Armenian History 43 
 
 molished the fire temples, and rebuilt the profaned 
 and ruined churches. The brave Vartan per¬ 
 formed prodigies of valour; ‘ wherever he pre¬ 
 sented himself, the enemy were mowed down by 
 his sword, as blades of grass by the sickle,’ but ere 
 the struggle was over he fell with nine other chiefs. 
 
 Thus the remorseless conflict went on, the 
 Armenians ever presenting, as a nation, a resolute 
 front to the foe. Towards the close of the sixth 
 century, Vahan, a Christian prefect, was ap¬ 
 pointed, and the Christian religion regained its 
 legitimate place in the nation.* At this tempo¬ 
 rary resting-place, we shall now note the position 
 of the Armenian Church, as regards her relation 
 to the Greek and Roman communions, and also 
 to the heresies of this period. 
 
 The harassed condition of the country, both in 
 Eastern and Western Armenia, continued under 
 the entire sway of the Sassanidas, and was only 
 intensified by the Saracen invasions which then 
 took place, on to the close of the Saracenic rule 
 and the rise of the Bagratian dynasty. These 
 incessant national troubles account for the fact 
 that during the four centuries which follow the 
 golden age of Armenian literature there is little 
 or no intellectual advance. This condition of 
 mental torpor, due to the political circumstances 
 of Armenia, was also in part the cause and in 
 part the consequence of the rise of heresies and 
 divisions in the national Church. These arose 
 largely from the ignorance of the Church leaders. 
 
 * Chamich, vol. i., p. 323. 
 
44 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 The Armenian Church remained in touch with 
 the orthodox Greek and Latin Churches until 
 the Council of Chalcedon, 451—the fourth General 
 Council. The proceedings of this Council were 
 fraught with disaster to the Armenian Church. 
 The decrees of the three first Councils had 
 been accepted by the Church of St. Gregory. 
 Owing to a mistaken translation or some other 
 cause, the Armenian Church condemned the de¬ 
 crees of the Council of Chalcedon, on the assump¬ 
 tion that they tolerated or approved the Nestorian 
 and Eutychian heresies. This condemnation 
 was finally and formally made at the Synod of 
 Thevin, 536. It has thus ever since underlain a 
 plausible charge of heresy. Hence we trace the 
 first stages of the schism which in 551 clove 
 asunder the ancient Armenian Church into the 
 two sections of the Church of St. Gregory and 
 the Georgian Church. The latter removed the 
 ban from the Council of Chalcedon, and so came 
 into line with the Greek Church. 
 
 The Eastern and Western Armenian Churches 
 were still further separated by some changes of 
 ceremonial. The Western section began to use 
 leavened bread and to mix the wine with water 
 in the Eucharist. They also changed their 
 Christmas Day to December 25, at the same time 
 adopting some other innovations.* 
 
 * About this time, i.e . 562, the Armenian calendar was 
 remodelled, and this date was fixed as the commencement 
 of a new Haican era. 
 
Sketches of Armenian History 45 
 
 In order to understand the distinctive types 
 of thought in the Eastern and Western Churches, 
 and even the special heresies to which they gave 
 rise, we must take into account the character 
 and training of those who constituted their com¬ 
 munions. 
 
 The Roman mind had for ages found the fullest 
 exercise of its activities in the study of law. 
 These habits of thought were brought to the 
 problems of theology. 
 
 This peculiar influence was apparent in their 
 first doctrinal discussions, and has continued to 
 characterize those of subsequent times, as may 
 be seen in the two great theological systems of 
 the West, Arminianism and Calvinism, in regard 
 to which it has been said, that it would be diffi¬ 
 cult to decide which is the more markedly legal 
 in its tone. 
 
 Obligation, restitution, atonement, man every¬ 
 where in his legal relationships, such were the 
 questions with which the Western Church chiefly 
 busied herself. Far different were the problems 
 which were moved in the Eastern Communion. 
 The nature of the Godhead, the Divine attributes, 
 the person of Christ, such were the subjects 
 of eager and often bitter discussion in her 
 councils. 
 
 Two distinct tendencies ere long appeared. 
 The one, concentrating exclusively on the human, 
 lost sight of the divine; the other, concentrating 
 on the divine, lost sight of the human. 
 
46 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 It was to the latter of these tendencies that 
 the Armenian Church had now inclined.* 
 
 The fortunes of Armenia were now to be in¬ 
 fluenced by a new power, to which allusion has 
 already been made, replacing that of the Sassa- 
 nidse, at Bagdad, in a.d. 637. This was the 
 dominion of the Saracens—a general designation 
 of the Greeks and Romans for the tribes inhabiting 
 Arabia. Nothing is more striking, more of the 
 essence of historical romance, than the origin and 
 rapid advance of this new race of conquerors— 
 the followers of their prophet Mahomet. When 
 Mahomet died in a.d. 632, Arabia had been subdued. 
 In the course of less than a generation, and within 
 the reign of the first four caliphs, his successors, 
 Syria, Persia and Egypt had also been conquered. 
 
 * ‘One of the Vartabdds here [Uchkeliseh] .... intro¬ 
 duced, of his own accord, the monophysitism of his Church, 
 by declaring that it receives only the first three of the 
 General Councils. Nestorius, he said, held to a perfect 
 separation of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, and 
 Eutyches taught that his humanity is absorbed in his 
 Divinity. The Armenians, agreeing with neither, believe 
 that the two natures are united in one, and anathematize all 
 who hold to a different creed. In this he spoke advisedly, 
 for it is well known that Eutyches is acknowledged by 
 neither of the three monophysite sects—the Armenian, the 
 Jacobite Syrian, and the Coptic, including the Abyssinian, 
 to which his controversy gave birth—and that his alleged 
 dogma of a confusion in the natures of Christ is the reason 
 of his rejection, though, perhaps, a candid investigation will 
 hardly find him chargeable with such an opinion. Another 
 intelligent ecclesiastic had told us that not only does his 
 nation hold to one nature, but also to only one will, in 
 Christ, thus making the Armenians partake in the mono- 
 thelite as well as in the monophysite heresy.’—Smith and 
 Dwight, ‘ Researches/ pp. 419-421. 
 
Sketches of Armenian History 47 
 
 The internal dissensions of the faithful, dividing 
 them so early into Sunis and Shias (the latter of 
 whom do not recognise the first three caliphs as 
 true successors of the Prophet), did not prevent 
 them from at once entering upon a course of 
 conquest unrivalled in the history of the human 
 race. We cannot here further describe this move¬ 
 ment, as it spread eastward and westward, and 
 threatened to revolutionize the history of the 
 world. 
 
 The first conquest outside of Arabia—that of 
 Syria—was also the first stroke dealt by the 
 Saracens to the prestige of the old Greek Empire. 
 The occupant of the throne of the Csesars— 
 Heraclius—saw the victorious Omar establish his 
 Syrian capital at Damascus, amid indescribable 
 carnage, in a.d. 636. Jerusalem was already in 
 the hands of the infidel, and in a.d. 637 the 
 Mosque of Omar was erected on the site of the 
 ancient Jewish Temple. In the same year the 
 Saracens, under their leader Abdorrahman, in¬ 
 vaded Armenia, and imposed a tax on the 
 males of the district of Taron, carrying away 
 wives and children into captivity. The atrocities 
 were renewed three years later, and such was the 
 devastation of the whole country that the pontiff 
 Ezr died heart-broken for the sorrows of Armenia. 
 The sack of Duin about this date recalls the 
 horrors of the destruction of Jerusalem and the 
 massacres of more modern times. Twelve thou¬ 
 sand of its citizens were cruelly butchered, and 
 
48 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 thirty-five thousand taken captive. For fully 
 another generation there was a ceaseless and 
 bloody struggle for the mastery of Armenia be¬ 
 tween the Saracen and the Greek emperors. 
 
 In a.d. 685, Ashot, a Bagratian chief, became 
 Governor of Armenia, and made peace with the 
 Saracens. Two years later the Saracens assumed 
 the government of Armenia. In a.d. 704 one of 
 their former oppressors, Abdullah, became Caliph 
 of Damascus, and inflicted terrible sufferings on 
 the Armenians. 
 
 In a.d. 743 the Saracens built Bagdad, levying 
 heavy taxes on the Armenians in aid of this under¬ 
 taking. To Bagdad, soon after, the caliphate was 
 removed. From this new centre were sent forth a 
 succession of merciless tyrants to perpetrate every 
 description of Moslem crime on their miserable 
 victims. 
 
 In a.d. 849 Armenia revolted from its Saracen 
 masters. This was followed by a series of 
 massacres, which may well rank side by side 
 with the most tragic occurrences in the history of 
 this ill-fated country.* 
 
 * See Father Chamich’s History, vol. i., p. 404: ‘He 
 directed (Bulah) to march immediately into Armenia to 
 take vengeance for the late defeat. Bulah also received 
 orders to seize all the Armenian chiefs and send them in 
 chains to Bagdad, and to kill all whom he found in a con¬ 
 dition to carry arms. Any of the people, however, who 
 consented to forsake Christianity and embrace the religion 
 of the Saracens he received directions to spare, provided 
 they were strong and handsome. If they were homely, 
 notwithstanding their inclination to abjure their religion, 
 
Sketches of Armenian History 49 
 
 In due time a better relationship was estab¬ 
 lished between Armenia and its superior, the 
 Caliph of Bagdad, resulting in the change of 
 government which will be considered in our next 
 chapter. 
 
 The student of this period will find a suggestive 
 theme in tracing the course of Armenian influ¬ 
 ence in connection with the rise and progress 
 of the Byzantine Empire, from the time of 
 Leo III., its first sovereign, and the founder of 
 the Isaurian dynasty. Leo was himself a native 
 of Armenia. Lrom his time Armenians became a 
 dominant power around the throne in Constanti¬ 
 nople. Leo was the first Christian sovereign 
 who arrested the tide of Mohammedan conquest. 
 Lrom the time of Heraclius the Roman Empire 
 had seemed hastening to hopeless ruin. Leo 
 has earned a right to be regarded as its saviour. 
 He reorganized its government, corrected abuses 
 in Church and State, and, in short, infused such 
 life into all departments that it was now able to 
 oppose a firm front to the assaults of the invader. 
 
 Another Armenian noble, Artavasados, son-in- 
 law of Leo, assumed the purple, and bore the title 
 of emperor for two years. Of the others who 
 held this honour, the most distinguished was the 
 Armenian Leo V. (813-820), who was chosen by 
 the troops as the only one worthy to ascend the 
 
 they were to be delivered to the sword. The refuse of the 
 people he was commanded not to notice, they being beneath 
 the anger of the caliph.’ 
 
 4 
 
50 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 throne. It is also a suggestive circumstance that 
 the Byzantine historians have claimed, by way of 
 compliment, for Basil, the founder of a new dynasty, 
 an Armenian descent. 
 
 These fragmentary references are sufficient to 
 prove the high character of the Armenian, even 
 during this period of terrible oppression, both for 
 military and civil affairs. 
 
 We have thus had a passing glimpse of Armenia 
 during her golden age. We have seen the Scrip¬ 
 tures translated into her vernacular and circulated 
 over the land. We have seen religion and litera¬ 
 ture shedding their united blessings on the people. 
 Again the carnage is renewed, and a race of brave- 
 martyrs for their still young faith succeeds to a 
 race of Christian scholars, whose function is to 
 proclaim, expound, and enforce it by research and 
 argument. 
 
 In these circumstances the Sword of God is 
 unsheathed on the banks of the Yermuk, and that 
 great victory is won the results of which were to 
 influence so radically the destinies of Armenia, first 
 from the supreme seat of the caliph in Damascus, 
 and thereafter from his throne at Bagdad. 
 
 Through the mists of sorrow, of bewildering 
 error in creed and life, Armenia is still holding on 
 her way, not without indications of her high and 
 commanding spirit, until an era is reached which 
 once more carries with it the promise of a return 
 of the long-lost sceptre of her kings to her still 
 imperial hand. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Dynasty of the Bagratidae—Rupenian Kingdom of Cilicia 
 Relations with the Crusaders — Close of Armenian 
 Monarchy. 
 
 W E ought to premise that the term ‘dynasty/ 
 as applied to the rulers of Armenia 
 during especially the periods known as 
 those of the Bagratian and Rupenian rule, is 
 rather a designation of courtesy than of correct 
 description. During the long centuries of their 
 blood-stained annals, they are seldom free from 
 the oppressive patronage or undisguised tyranny 
 of the Persian caliph, on the one hand, or the 
 Greek emperor on the other. 
 
 When Ashot, the first of the Bagratian dynasty, 
 assumed the sceptre of Armenia in 885, the two 
 most interested powers, the Persian and Greek, 
 were both favourable to this change, and no doubt 
 both expected to benefit by it. Under these 
 auspices a dynasty, the descendants of Sumbat 
 and Bagarat, and hence of the direct line of 
 Israel, took possession of the Armenian throne. 
 During the period of wellnigh two hundred years 
 of their troubled sway, the history of Armenia 
 
52 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 has little other interest save what attaches to a 
 condition of incessant commotion and massacre, 
 arising from the alternating oppressions of Per¬ 
 sians and Greeks, as they saw it to be for 
 their advantage to intervene in her affairs. The 
 effusive friendship of both Eastern and Western 
 patrons had begun to visibly cool before a single 
 generation of the new regime had passed away. 
 Issuf, a creature of the Persian caliph, after 
 carrying on hostilities against the Bagratian king, 
 Sumbat I. (the second of the dynasty), seized 
 him and tortured him to death. This miscreant 
 continued his invasions of Armenia in the reign of 
 Sumbat’s successor, Ashot II., and spread desola¬ 
 tion over the whole land. 
 
 Amid these troubles we need not wonder that 
 the condition of the people was not progressive. 
 There does not seem to have been much cultivation 
 of either learning or piety in the pontifical circles, 
 and what feeble Church life there was spent itself 
 in fruitless controversy about the relations of the 
 Armenian and Greek Churches and their doctrinal 
 differences. Perhaps one of the most touching of 
 all the testimonies to the genuine patriotism of 
 the pontiffs of this era is the fact that more 
 than one of them is related to have died of a 
 broken heart for the sorrows of his countrymen. 
 
 Owing to the victories of the Byzantine arms, 
 the Saracens were so weakened that the Chris¬ 
 tians of Armenia raised their banner, and, with 
 the assistance of a division of Greek troops, 
 
Dynasty of the Bagratidas 
 
 53 
 
 ‘pushed their conquests to the Lake of Van, and 
 forced the Saracens of Aklat and Betlis not only 
 to pay tribute, but to allow the cross to be 
 elevated in their cities higher than the domes of 
 their mosques.’ 
 
 The Byzantines and Armenians were not long 
 destined to fight their battles side by side. In 
 1022 the Emperor Basil II. compelled the 
 Armenian king, Johannes Sumbat, to sign a 
 treaty, ceding at his death the city of Ani, with 
 the province in which it stood, to the Greeks. 
 Constantine IX. called upon Gaghik, the last 
 of the Bagratian kings, to implement this 
 treaty. On his refusal, Constantine, forming an 
 alliance with the Saracen Emir of Tovin, laid 
 siege to Ani. The treachery of the Armenian 
 chiefs aided the project of the emperor. Gaghik 
 surrendered, and, receiving a safe conduct, set 
 out to Constantinople to plead his cause. Mean¬ 
 time the city of Ani was captured by the Byzan¬ 
 tine forces (1045). This fatal blow to the Bagratian 
 monarchy, coming from the hand of a Christian 
 power, destroyed not only an Armenian dynasty, 
 but the only barrier to the advances of the 
 Seljouk Turks. It was therefore in due time 
 destined to recoil with direst results upon the 
 head of the assailant. 
 
 Following close upon the surrender of Ani, the 
 Seljouk Turks made repeated incursions into 
 Armenia. In the third of these incursions they 
 captured the city of Arzen, ‘and massacred in 
 
54 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 cold blood 140,000 people; the remnant they 
 carried away into captivity.’ The native historian 
 adds that the same cruelties were perpetrated by 
 this barbarous horde on many other cities of 
 Armenia. Ani meantime was occupied by 60,000 
 Greek troops under the command of Camenas, 
 and these were v/ell pleased to look on with com¬ 
 placency at the sufferings of the Armenians. 
 
 In 1062, after the death of Togrul, his successor 
 invaded Armenia and captured Ani. 
 
 The energetic reforming labours of the patri¬ 
 arch, Gregory Vikayaser (lover of martyrs), whose 
 influence extends into the next dynasty, deserve 
 mention here. Like his great predecessor, the 
 Apostle of Armenia, whose name he assumed 
 when he became pontiff, he retired from public 
 life to end his days in devout seclusion. His 
 retreat was the Black Mountain, in the regions 
 of Taurus, where with a few friars he took up his 
 residence. 
 
 We have now reached the close of our brief 
 survey of the general character of the Bagratian 
 dynasty. The termination of the chequered 
 career of the exiled King Gaghik is tragic in 
 no ordinary degree. Father Chamich gravely 
 relates how the exiled king visited Marcus, the 
 Metropolitan of Cassarea, with a few attendants. 
 He had heard that Marcus kept a huge dog, 
 which, to show his contempt, he named Armenian. 
 Marcus made a show of giving the ex-king a 
 cordial welcome, and prepared for him a feast 
 
Dynasty of the Bagratidae 55 
 
 on the evening of his arrival. Gaghik desired 
 his host to call his large dog. The animal, 
 on being brought in, was saluted by his master 
 by the name Armenian. On a given signal, 
 the attendants of Gaghik seized the dog and 
 put him into a large bag. They forthwith threw 
 the metropolitan in beside him, and securely 
 fastened the bag. The dog was then severely 
 beaten, and so, becoming furious, he worried his 
 master to death. Falling into the hands of the 
 Greeks, Gaghik was, in revenge, subjected to the 
 most horrid cruelties, and, after being put to death, 
 his bloody corpse was suspended from the walls of 
 Kigistra, to strike terror into his followers. So 
 perished, says Chamich, Gaghik in the fifty-fifth 
 year of his age. He had been three years in pos¬ 
 session of the throne of Armenia, and thirty-five 
 years in exile. The same authority observes : * A 
 want of prudence removed the crown from the 
 Arsacidas, and a melancholy want of unanimity 
 caused the downfall of the Bagratians.’ 
 
 With the overthrow of the Bagratian dynasty, 
 the fortunes of Armenia sunk to a still lower ebb 
 than ever they had done before. A portion of the 
 conquered dominions was seized by the Greeks, 
 while the Turks and Kurds did their best to estab¬ 
 lish a claim to the rest. At this stage took 
 place a general movement of the Armenians into 
 different provinces of the Turkish Empire, par¬ 
 ticularly into the regions lying to the west and 
 south of their ancient settlements. Only one or two 
 
56 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 native princes continued to maintain their inde¬ 
 pendence. Of these Rupen, related to the Bagra- 
 tidae, extended the limits of his dominions, and 
 his successors advanced to Cilicia and Cappa¬ 
 docia, where they established what is known as 
 the Rupenian kingdom and dynasty. 
 
 In the time of Rupen the patriarchate was 
 weakened by divisions. Instead of one, the 
 Armenian Church set up four rival pontiffs, but 
 the general voice was in favour of St. Gregory, to 
 whose character and reforms we have already 
 alluded. Around him and successive pontiffs 
 gathered groups of studious and scholarly men, 
 whose names and works are still held in honour. 
 While Rupen and his successors styled them¬ 
 selves kings, it was not until the time of Leo II. 
 (1198) that the Rupenian kingdom was formally 
 constituted and recognised by other powers. In 
 that year, Pope Celestinus III., at the instigation 
 of the German emperor (Henry VI.), sanctioned 
 the coronation of Leo, and sent him a magnifi¬ 
 cent crown by the hand of Conrad, Archbishop of 
 Moguntia. The emperor sent him at the same 
 time a splendid standard, having in the middle a 
 lion rampant, in allusion to his name. This 
 device was henceforth adopted by the Armenian 
 kings in lieu of the ancient design of the eagle, 
 pigeon, and dragon.* 
 
 But we have anticipated the grand event 
 which, in some measure, renders memorable 
 
 * Chamich, vol. ii., p. 215. 
 
Relations with the Crusaders 
 
 57 
 
 this era in the history of the Cilician kingdom 
 of Armenia. This was its temporary connection 
 with the Crusades. While the new sovereignty 
 on the west of Asia Minor was struggling 
 into and for existence first with Greeks, and 
 then again with Persians, a new enterprise was 
 rousing to its inmost depths the heart of the 
 nations of Christian Europe. This was the con¬ 
 ception of a grand Crusade, whose object should 
 be to wrest Palestine and Jerusalem, and Con¬ 
 stantinople as well, from the grasp of the infidel. 
 It was true that at this stage the deliverance of 
 Constantinople was only prospective, as it was 
 not yet in the hands of the advancing foe. But 
 it was easily seen that, with the Turkish camp 
 already pitched on the eastern shore of the 
 Bosphorus, this could only be a question of time. 
 Peter the Hermit, laden with the benediction of 
 Urban II., and supported by a countless host of 
 warriors bearing on their breasts or shoulders the 
 sign of the Red Cross, was now at Constantinople 
 on the way to deliver Jerusalem. Under the 
 leadership of Godfrey of Bouillon, this motley 
 group had made its way to this its first friendly 
 resting-place and object of succour. 
 
 Crossing into Asia Minor, it had found itself in 
 the horrors of famine and pestilence. The 
 Armenians both of Eastern and Western Asia 
 sent abundant supplies, and by their seasonable 
 services earned the gratitude of the leaders of the 
 Crusade. The same friendly spirit was shown 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 also in the case of the second Crusade. On the 
 capture of Jerusalem in iogg, the leader of the 
 first Crusade sent the Armenian prince Con¬ 
 stantine valuable presents, created him a marquis, 
 and conferred on him the honour of knighthood. 
 
 Amid the turmoil of Saracen conquest, under 
 Saladin, at Jerusalem (1187), Turkish raids and 
 consequent capitation taxes, one sees, with some 
 natural misgiving as to the result, a young girl 
 of sixteen, the only child of the deceased Leo, 
 ascend the throne of Armenia. The princess, 
 however, is beloved from the first by her people, 
 and though unfortunate in her first husband, 
 and married against her better judgment to the 
 second, she is every way worthy of her royal 
 station. The name of Isabel, the daughter of 
 Leo II., thus holds an honoured place among 
 the rulers of Armenia. 
 
 But the troubles of the Armenians in Cilicia 
 and elsewhere were increasing. 
 
 The Egyptian sultans, of the race of the Mame¬ 
 lukes, had been making repeated incursions in this 
 direction, and spreading desolation over the 
 kingdom of Western Armenia. As a Christian 
 power, and one which had conspicuously aided in 
 the enterprise of the Crusades, Armenia seemed 
 to them a barrier to their scheme of conquest. 
 The sultan, Shaban, accordingly resolved to 
 utterly overthrow the dominion of the Rupenian 
 kings, and to exterminate the nation. He 
 marched into Cilicia at the head of a powerful 
 
Close of Armenian Monarchy 59 
 
 army, took possession of the capital, Sis (1374), 
 and devastated the whole region, putting the 
 inhabitants to the sword and demolishing all their 
 convents, churches, and other buildings.* Leo VI. 
 seeing no way of escape, surrendered to the con¬ 
 queror (1375). He was put in chains, carried 
 captive to Egypt, and spent seven years in prison 
 in Cairo. 
 
 Released at last from his captivity, he visited 
 Jerusalem, Rome, Spain, Paris, and even Eng¬ 
 land. In vain did he appeal to Charles V. of 
 France, and Richard II. of England, to embark 
 on a new Crusade for the recovery of the Holy 
 Land, and his own restoration to the throne of 
 Armenia. He died in Paris, 1393. The dead 
 body was decked out in white royal robes, ac¬ 
 cording to the custom of his country, with an 
 open crown upon his head and a golden sceptre 
 in his hand.f 
 
 From this time Armenia can no longer lay 
 claim to even the shadow of royalty. But the 
 crown of martyrdom still remains, nor did the 
 national aspirations perish with the extinction 
 of the monarchy. We do not here enter into 
 any discussion of the question as to whether 
 Armenia has still claims to be regarded as a 
 nation. This will appear more manifest as we 
 continue our narrative. But we may note even 
 at this stage that a claim to nationality is not 
 
 * Chamich, vol. ii., p. 305. 
 
 f Curzon’s ‘Armenia,’ pp. 252, 253. 
 
60 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 dependent on any form of civil government, and 
 is not weakened by any circumstances of bondage 
 and oppression. 
 
 The insignia of a national status are a common 
 race, a common language, a common religion, 
 and as the result, common aims and aspirations. 
 
 All these characters of nationality distinguish 
 in a high degree and to the present hour the 
 Armenian people. For long centuries they have 
 been deepened under the influences of the national 
 faith, however degenerate it may have often be¬ 
 come, either in form or substance. Nor are 
 there wanting in these times tokens of a wide¬ 
 spread revival of the patriotic spirit. 
 
 Following close on the overthrow of the 
 monarchy by the Mamelukes come the devasta¬ 
 tions of Timour, the Tartar sovereign (1403).* 
 
 The grim form also of a new tyrant is coming 
 more and more clearly into view, as he makes his 
 way through blood and slaughter to his seat on 
 the throne of the old Greek emperors at Con¬ 
 stantinople. Armenian royalty has indeed fallen, 
 but another and more boastful sovereignty does 
 not long survive. Twice over the grand old-world 
 stage is cleared. The actors have come and gone, 
 and all their scenic surroundings are gone with 
 them. A new group is crowding on to the stage, 
 and a new era has opened in the history of the 
 world. 
 
 * Chamich, vol. ii., p. 315. 
 
PART II. 
 
 ARMENIA AND THE ARMENIANS UNDER TURKISH 
 MISRULE.—THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ARMENIA. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Turks and Saracens—Seljouk Turks—Togrul Beg— 
 Rise of the Ottoman Empire—Fall of Constantinople— 
 Decline of the Ottoman Empire—Position of Armenia. 
 
 W ITH the entrance of the Turkish despot 
 upon his blood-stained career, first in 
 Asia Minor and next in Eastern Europe, 
 a new chapter opens, as we have already indi¬ 
 cated, in the history of the world. To no portion 
 of his dominions has this change of regime been 
 fraught with more disastrous consequences than 
 to Armenia, where he has indeed proved the very 
 Scourge of God. 
 
 To understand, therefore, the tragedy of 
 Armenian history in modern times, as well as 
 what is known as the Eastern Question, as it 
 concerns Armenia, we must be content to deal 
 for a little with the Turkman and his aggressive 
 movements. 
 
 The Turks, as this people have been designated 
 from the Middle Ages, are a Scythian race. Their 
 original haunts are to be found in Tartary, and 
 are happily involved in an almost impenetrable 
 cloud of obscurity. In the seventh century after 
 
64 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Christ, this pastoral, roving tribe had overrun 
 and taken possession of the territory—wild and 
 inhospitable as its rude invaders—lying between 
 the Black and the Caspian Seas. 
 
 Urged on, like the tiger, by a native thirst for 
 blood and brute force supremacy, they were 
 soon engaged in endless strife with all comers, 
 and with all others who could not keep out 
 of the course of their predatory incursions. 
 The first time we hear of their connection with 
 civilization, and with the reigning power in Con¬ 
 stantinople, is when, while still a horde of lawless 
 marauders, scattered over his Eastern dominion, 
 Heraclius, the Greek emperor, succeeded in 
 securing them as his allies in his campaigns 
 against the Persians, about 622. 
 
 They shared in the triumph of that great 
 general on his return to his capital on the 
 Bosphorus. 
 
 Their next alliance was with the Saracen 
 caliphs, to whom for a time they acted as a 
 body-guard. It was then and afterwards the 
 custom of Oriental sovereigns to depend, in 
 emergencies, on a royal guard of foreigners 
 rather than of their own proper subjects, as more 
 likely, among other reasons, to remain aloof from 
 contending factions, and to espouse on all occa¬ 
 sions the quarrel of their paymaster. Hence, 
 we have the Armenian guard (while that people 
 still claimed national independence) and the 
 Varangians at the court of Constantinople, the 
 
The Turks and the Saracens 
 
 Mamelukes in Egypt, and the Janissaries of the 
 Moslem sovereigns. 
 
 To the Saracens the Turk was drawn by 
 numerous affinities. As long as the Saracens 
 remained united and devoted to the one purpose 
 of extending the faith of the Prophet, they carried 
 everything before them. In the tenth century 
 they were the most successful warriors in Asia 
 and Europe, and their conquests extended from 
 India in the Far East to the Pillars of Hercules 
 in the Far West.* Yet in this same century 
 the Saracen Empire was dismembered, and the 
 sultans of different countries began to contend 
 for supremacy. 
 
 The Saracens, then, while still enveloped in 
 this halo of military glory, not only gratified the 
 warlike propensities of their Scythian ally, but gave 
 him, what he chiefly prized, a Divine sanction for 
 all his nameless barbarities as directed against 
 the infidel. Such, at least, was the Turk’s con¬ 
 ception or misconception of the provisions of his 
 new-found military creed. In excess of zeal, the 
 neophyte soon surpassed his instructor. It is 
 this picture of a Mohammedan savage which 
 Moore draws with such a masterly hand in the 
 well-known lines : 
 
 ‘ Hard, heartless chief, unmoved alike 
 ’Mid eyes that weep and swords that strike, 
 
 * Hallam, ‘ Europe during the Middle Ages/ chapter vi. : 
 ‘ History of the Greeks and Saracens.’ 
 
 5 
 
66 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 One of that saintly, murderous brood 
 To carnage and the Koran given, 
 
 Who think through unbelievers’ blood 
 Lies their directest path to heaven ; 
 
 One who will pause and kneel unshod 
 In the warm blood his hand hath poured, 
 
 To mutter o’er some text of God 
 Engraven on his reeking sword ; 
 
 Nay, who can coolly mark the line, 
 
 The letter of those words Divine, 
 
 To which his blade with searching art 
 Had sunk into his victim’s heart.’ 
 
 From being the mere acolyte of the Saracen, 
 the Turk became himself the superior. In due 
 time he no longer cared to cultivate an alliance 
 in which he was regarded as little else than the 
 ready tool of a power now entering upon the 
 stage of decline. Withdrawing for a time from 
 the position of an ally, the Turkish freebooter 
 found congenial occupation in robbing and 
 slaughtering his hapless neighbours. 
 
 At last the motley host found a leader worthy 
 of their cause in Togrul Beg, grandson of Seljouk, 
 a notable chief, who had undergone conversion 
 to the Moslem faith. We need not be too in¬ 
 quisitive about the antecedents of the new con¬ 
 vert, but he was a brave soldier and an ardent 
 believer. His family had resided during a brief 
 season in Armenia, from which they had carried 
 away, if nothing else, at least a deep-rooted 
 hatred of the precepts of the Christian faith. 
 
 Togrul was not without the graces of his 
 great ancestor Seljouk; his personal devotion to 
 Islamism was even more conspicuous. 
 
Seljouk Turks—Togrul Beg 
 
 The hour had now come when the Turk must 
 choose for himself a king, and by universal 
 acclaim this honour fell to Togrul. Taken 
 almost directly from the sheepfold, Togrul thus 
 became the first of a dynasty of shepherd-kings. 
 Under such auspices arose the empire of the 
 Seljouk Turk. His accession to the throne 
 was signalized by a formal acceptance by himself 
 and his followers of the creed of Islam as the 
 national religion. 
 
 The accession of Togrul dates from 1038, when, 
 having made himself master of Ispahan and 
 Bagdad, he was crowned Sultan of Persia, and 
 received the title of Defender of the Faith and 
 Protector of the Caliph of Bagdad. 
 
 In 1052 Togrul began that series of invasions 
 of the Byzantine dominions which was, in the 
 end, to prove so disastrous to the independence 
 of Armenia. The discipline and valour of the 
 Franks and the Verangian guard so impressed 
 him that he retired from his meditated attack 
 on Constantinople without hazarding an engage¬ 
 ment 
 
 In 1055 he vindicated his title to the Pro¬ 
 tector of the Caliph of Bagdad, by espousing 
 successfully his side in a contest for superiority 
 incited by the Caliph of Egypt. 
 
 His successor, Alp Arslan, took up the pious 
 scheme of Togrul, and carried devastation and 
 ruin into the ancient kingdom of Armenia. In the 
 
68 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 person of Malekshah, the son of Alp Arslan, the 
 Seljouk dynasty reached the zenith of its power, 
 and this Sultan was dignified with the title of the 
 Commander of the Faithful. The rest of the 
 history of the dynasty (extending in all from 
 1038 to 1307) is a record of disunion and gradual 
 decay. The final dissolution was hastened by 
 the irruptions of Genghis Khan, but ere this 
 time a new master was eagerly pressing forward 
 his claims to sovereign empire. 
 
 In this season of dissolution of the Seljouk and 
 enfeeblement of the Greek empires, a tribe of nomad 
 Turks, under their leader Orthogrul, had settled in 
 the dominions of Aladin, the last of the Sultans 
 of Iconium. He had pitched his camp of four 
 hundred tents on the banks of the Sangar, where 
 he ruled as a petty independent chief under the 
 aegis of the expiring Sultan. To his descendants 
 belongs the distinction of laying, broad and deep, 
 the foundations of an empire of which it has 
 been said that it advanced to greatness more 
 rapidly than that of Rome, and whose power has 
 proved more durable than the empire of Alexander. 
 The honour of this achievement belongs, in the 
 first place, to the son of Orthogrul, who began 
 his reign in 1299, and continued to extend and 
 wisely govern his dominions for the next twenty- 
 seven years. The times were favourable for 
 his ambitious enterprise. The Seljouk dynasty 
 was defunct. The Greek Empire was also ex¬ 
 hibiting symptoms of decay, and lay exposed by 
 
Rise of the Ottoman Empire 69 
 
 the blunders of its rulers to an inroad of the 
 adversary through the now defenceless passes of 
 Olympus. The failure also of the Crusaders 
 might well suggest dreams of conquest were the 
 Moslem now in his turn to inaugurate an era of 
 a gazi, or holy war, against the infidels at Con¬ 
 stantinople and elsewhere. 
 
 In 1299, accordingly, Othman entered Nico- 
 media, and gave his name to a new race of 
 Turkish sovereigns, and to what has from this 
 period been known as the Othman or Ottoman 
 Empire. The origin of this new dynasty is com¬ 
 puted from the occupation of Brusa as the 
 capital, an event which took place in the closing 
 years of the reign of Othman. Marvellous as 
 was the success of Othman, it was yet exceeded 
 by the victories of his son Orkhan, who was 
 not less great in peace than he was in war. In 
 a higher sense than can be said of his father 
 Othman, Orkhan stands forth as the real founder 
 of the Ottoman dominion. * He is,’ says Finlay, 
 ‘ one of the few legislators who created a nation 
 and founded an empire by his own legislative 
 enactments.’ 
 
 Having gone into some detail as to the rise 
 of the Ottoman Empire, we shall now pass very 
 rapidly over our survey of its progress and the 
 circumstances of its incipient decline. The in¬ 
 stitution of the military force of the Janissaries 
 belongs to the reign of Orkhan. In the reign 
 of his successor, Amurath I., the Turk had 
 
jo Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 crossed the Bosphorus, and Adrianople became 
 the capital of the Ottoman Empire. 
 
 Bajazet, his successor, carried his victorious 
 arms from the Euphrates to the Danube. But 
 for his defeat by Timour at Angora, 1402, there 
 is little doubt he would have forestalled the over¬ 
 throw of the Byzantine Empire by half a century. 
 But the hitherto irrepressible Turkish Sultan 
 was thus arrested in his victorious progress to 
 what seemed boundless European conquest, con¬ 
 fined in an iron cage, and carried to Samarcand, 
 where he died in captivity. The Ottoman 
 Empire was now somewhat consolidated under 
 Mahomet I. The aggressive operations were 
 once more resumed under Mahomet’s successor, 
 Amurath II., who laid siege to the Greek capital, 
 Constantinople. 
 
 In 1453, Mahomet II., the most remarkable, 
 perhaps, of all the sultans, stormed and took the 
 city which was henceforth to be the seat of the 
 Ottoman Empire. 
 
 The siege and fall of Constantinople rank 
 among the most imposing events in the transi¬ 
 tion from ancient to modern history. Constan¬ 
 tine XI., the last of the Greek Caesars, had 
 appealed for help to the Christian powers of 
 Europe—but in vain. The disputes between the 
 Eastern and Western Churches had rendered 
 the prospect of the fall of the former a matter 
 of indifference, if not an object of desire, to the 
 Papal see. The spirit of the Crusades was also 
 
Fall of Constantinople 
 
 7 1 
 
 largely quenched, and so the citadel of Eastern 
 Christendom, in it 3 hour of supreme need, was 
 left to its own unaided resources. We cannot 
 rehearse the story of the fifty-three days’ siege. 
 The forces of the attack and the defence were 
 in sad and suggestive contrast. Around a city, 
 whose Greek population the recent calamities 
 had reduced to about 100,000 souls, with an 
 enfeebled garrison, there gathered the 258,000 
 soldiers of the Turk, with 320 sail, including all 
 kinds of craft. 
 
 The day fixed for the final onslaught, i.e., 
 May 29, 1453, was set apart by the Sultan as a 
 religious festival. 
 
 The preceding night witnessed a magnificent 
 illumination of the Moslem camp and ships, 
 transforming the harbour of the Golden Horn, 
 and its vicinity, into a scene of splendour such 
 as, perhaps, had never been witnessed before, or 
 was ever to be witnessed again in the history of 
 Oriental display. 
 
 The stated calls to prayer rose upon the 
 still air without, while the pathetic cry of 
 4 Kyrie eleeson ’ resounded within the doomed 
 
 city. 
 
 The attack commenced in the early morning, 
 and by mid-day Mahomet II. was riding in 
 triumph into his new capital by the gate of St. 
 Romanos. He rode past the dead body of the 
 Greek emperor, buried beneath a heap of the 
 slain. The grand old emperor, whose courage 
 
72 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 had supported his people through the horrors of 
 the siege, had already taken his last Sacrament 
 in the Church of St. Sophia, and bidden 
 farewell to his household, ere he went forth 
 cheerfully to sacrifice his life in defence of the 
 throne of the Caesars. But the heroic effort was 
 in vain. The blow long pending had fallen : the 
 Roman Empire was no more. 
 
 From that period onward, for over two hundred 
 years, the Turkish warriors were the terror and 
 amazement of Europe. They conquered and 
 annexed, to a large extent, the old territories 
 of Greece and Epirus, also Bulgaria, Servia, 
 Bosnia, and the countries up to the Danube. 
 The Ottoman Empire had become in the reign 
 of Solyman the Magnificent (1520) the most 
 powerful in the world. In every quarter, east 
 or west, on even to the Portuguese dominions in 
 India, he carried forward his conquests. In his 
 reign, historians agree, the Crescent had at¬ 
 tained its utmost altitude. 
 
 Before we notice the causes and stages by 
 which this imposing fabric began to hasten to 
 its decay, we may here mention some of the 
 chief causes which are supposed to account for 
 its rapid rise and progress. These causes were 
 the superior discipline of the Turkish soldier, 
 the existence of a standing army, a well-regulated 
 system of finance, and, lastly, the efficiency of 
 the artillery. The Turks were the first to 
 
Decline of the Ottoman Empire 73 
 
 adopt the extensive use of gunpowder, and the 
 use of battering-trains in the siege of fortified 
 places. 
 
 Over and above all this we must place their 
 religious fanaticism—the fanaticism of the banner 
 —which so incited and exalted in their heated 
 imagination their native propensities to relent¬ 
 less spoliation and oppression of the infidel. 
 New influences, however, were now at work, 
 and had been for some half a century, 
 which were destined gradually to undermine 
 the vast superstructure of an alien dominant 
 race at Constantinople. These consisted partly 
 in a series of disasters to the Turkish arms, 
 partly in the steadily ascending power of 
 Russia. 
 
 In the reign of Selim II. the tide had fairly 
 turned. The battle of Lepanto, in 1571, gave 
 the first overt signal to Europe of the change 
 in the fortunes of the empire. The prestige of 
 former exploits, however, continued to stand 
 them in good stead until their defeat in 1664 at 
 St. Gothard, by Montecuculi. In 1673 they 
 were again still more signally defeated by Sobieski. 
 The conclusive proof that the Turkish Samson 
 (to adopt the happy phrase of De Quincey) was 
 at last shorn of his strength was not afforded 
 until the great catastrophe of 1683, five years 
 before the English Revolution. In that year 
 an army of 150,000 Turks undertook the siege 
 
74 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 of Vienna, and a thrill of horror passed over the 
 Christian world. 
 
 Then one of those daring feats was undertaken, 
 and accomplished, which justify what otherwise 
 might be denounced as culpable rashness.* The 
 Polish patriot Sobieski, at the head of a hetero¬ 
 geneous host, less than half the number of the 
 enemy, fell upon, defeated, and utterly routed 
 this formidable army. 
 
 The victory over the Turks was followed by 
 the treaty of Carlovitz, in 1699, which stripped 
 the Porte of Transylvania, Hungary, the Ukraine, 
 and other provinces. The seat of the Turkish 
 Sultan was now becoming increasingly unsafe 
 and uneasy. The Janissaries, who were wont 
 to constitute a redoubtable bodyguard to a strong 
 ruler in prosperous times, now grew discontented 
 and insubordinate. In short, things had come 
 to such a pass that ‘ Europe ceased to dread 
 the Turks, and began even to look upon their 
 
 * ‘ Oh for a kindling touch from that pure flame 
 Which ministered erewhile to a sacrifice 
 Of gratitude beneath Italian skies 
 In words like these : Up, voice of song, proclaim 
 Thy saintly rapture with celestial aim ; 
 
 For, lo, the imperial city stands released 
 From bondage threatened by the embattled East, 
 
 And Christendom respires ; from guilt and shame 
 Redeemed, from miserable fear set free, 
 
 By one day’s feat, one mighty victory. 
 
 Chant the deliverer’s praise in every tongue ! 
 
 The Cross shall spread, the Crescent hath waxed dim 
 He conquering, as in joyful heaven is sung— 
 
 He conquering through God, and God through him.’ 
 
 Wordsworth. 
 
Position of Armenia 
 
 75 
 
 existence as a necessary element of the balance 
 of power among its states/* 
 
 During the period we have been reviewing, 
 Armenia continued to be the battle-ground 
 between the Turk and the Persian. From the 
 time of Selim II. it may be said to have been 
 incorporated with the Turkish dominion. In 
 the wars of Turk and Persian, Armenia was 
 again and again devastated, and its inhabi¬ 
 tants subjected, as so often in later times, 
 to the cruelty and lust of the soldiers. A 
 great calamity befell the Armenians in 1605, 
 when Shah Abbas overran the country, perpe¬ 
 trated great cruelties on the people, and trans¬ 
 ported twelve thousand families to Ispahan, in 
 Persia. 
 
 We do not purpose to follow the course of 
 the history of the relations of the Turk and the 
 Armenian into detail, on through the period of 
 the dispersion of the latter over the Ottoman 
 Empire, and beyond its bounds, until they come 
 in recent times into prominence through the 
 operation of those causes which have given rise 
 to the Eastern Question, as it respects Armenia 
 in particular, and especially to those massacres 
 of our own day, which are the reproach, not 
 only of the misrule of the Turk, but also of the 
 civilization of modern Europe. But in order 
 that we may approach those more critical, and 
 let us hope the final, stages of the tragedy, with 
 
 * Gordon’s ‘ History of the Greek Revolution.’ 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 a better understanding of its character and malign 
 design, we must linger a little longer over the 
 constitution of the Turkish Government, the 
 relation of Turkish fanaticism to civil and religious 
 liberty, and, above all, towards the Christian 
 faith. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 Islam as the Religion of the Turk—Youth of Mahomet— 
 Mahomet at Mecca — Temptations of Mahomet—The 
 Sword and the Koran — Influence of Islam on the 
 Character and Government of the Turk—Forced Con¬ 
 versions. 
 
 W E have already referred to the conversion 
 of the Turk, and the motives which led 
 him to embrace the faith of Islam so far 
 as they bore upon his military career. This change 
 of religion had also far-reaching results on his 
 whole character, and particularly as the despotic 
 ruler of a great empire. This was most conspicu¬ 
 ously illustrated in connection with his Christian 
 subjects. These were found in far greater 
 numbers under the Moslem dominion of the 
 Turk than in any other of the earlier conquests 
 of the followers of the Prophet. In Arabia, Syria, 
 Egypt, Persia, the subject races, with the excep¬ 
 tion of the second of these countries, were 
 less obnoxious to the Defender of the Faith of 
 Islam than those of an empire which compre¬ 
 hended within its limits the two earliest nations 
 
78 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 to embrace the religion of Christ. Of these, for 
 many obvious reasons, Armenia has been by far 
 the greatest sufferer. 
 
 To understand this state of affairs, we must not 
 only have some knowledge of the character of the 
 Turkish barbarian, but of the new religion of 
 which he is, in many respects, the most remark¬ 
 able proselyte. We have, therefore, to look a 
 little more closely at what Islamism really is, and 
 how it originated. 
 
 This will be best done by a slight sketch of its 
 founder Mahomet, and its exposition in the 
 Koran. 
 
 Little is known of Arabia before the seventh 
 century. There are floating traditions of Abraham, 
 Hagar, and Ishmael, associated especially with 
 Mecca and the Kaaba. On one point all seem 
 agreed, that there was no record of a rise and 
 progress—that, in short, the Arabia of the seventh 
 century did not materially differ from the Arabia 
 of Abraham and Job. The tribes existed in 
 separate divisions and subdivisions, defying all 
 attempts at national union until the appearance 
 of Mahomet As to its religious condition, a 
 deep-rooted system of idolatry, whose head¬ 
 quarters were at Mecca, had existed for untold 
 ages, and seemed as firmly planted on its soil as 
 the rugged, bleak mountain ranges which stretched 
 along its inhospitable interior. The Christian 
 missionary had been repelled from its borders by 
 its colonies of hostile Jews, and by an idolatrous 
 
Youth of Mahomet 
 
 79 
 
 system which had incorporated much of a corrupt 
 Judaism into its national rites. Nor in any case 
 was it easy to evangelize the ever-restless Bedouin, 
 who was no sooner caught than he was sure to 
 find some means of eluding the fixed grasp of the 
 missionary. To Mahomet belongs the distinction 
 of welding these heterogeneous elements into a 
 single mass, and bringing them in his own life¬ 
 time under the sway of a common faith. 
 
 Mahomet was born at Mecca, August 20, 570. 
 His father’s name was Abdallah, the son of Abdal 
 Muttalib, the foremost chief of Mecca and guardian 
 of the Kaaba. He belonged to the Koreish tribe, 
 whose chief enjoyed the honour of holding the 
 charge of this central sanctuary of idolatrous 
 pilgrimage. 
 
 Mahomet’s father died before the birth of his 
 son, and his mother Amina only survived until he 
 was seven years of age. The orphan boy was 
 committed to the tender care of his grandfather, 
 whom he was wont to accompany to the Kaaba, 
 until the death of the latter, which happened at 
 the end of the second year of his custody of the 
 child. After this he was taken in charge by his 
 uncle Abu Talib, who cared for him with parental 
 fondness, as long as he needed such assistance. 
 With him the orphan boy went on a journey to 
 Syria, and was initiated into the mysteries of 
 Arab mercantile life. But the lad was more given 
 to solitary musing than noisy public affairs, and 
 found, perhaps, more congenial occupation as a 
 
8 o 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 youthful shepherd tending his sheep on the 
 mountain slopes which overhung his native Mecca. 
 In after-years he was wont to recur lovingly to 
 the memory of these happy, peaceful days, recalling 
 as they did to him the similar avocations of 
 Moses and David, and he would declare to his 
 followers, ‘Verily there hath been no prophet 
 raised up who performed not the work of a shep¬ 
 herd.’ 
 
 The youth of Mahomet was characterized by 
 noble aspirations, by exemplary purity, and by a 
 deeply meditative nature. The sights of Mecca 
 naturally led his acute mind to muse on the folly 
 of idolatrous practices, of which he was a daily 
 witness. Its victims seemed to him, to borrow 
 the metaphor of the Koran, as shipwrecked sailors 
 tossed upon a tempestuous sea, with dark thunder 
 clouds rolling over their heads. 
 
 When twenty-five years old, he married Khadija 
 of the same tribe, a noble and wealthy lady, who 
 proved the guardian angel of a long period of 
 his life. Mahomet is described as, at this period, 
 in the flush of youthful manhood, of striking and 
 attractive personal appearance. He was slightly 
 above the middle height, of spare though hand¬ 
 some figure. His head was of the largest calibre, 
 with regal brow. His hair was glossy as a 
 raven’s wing, and fell slightly curling over his 
 ears. The eye was dark, flashing, piercing, and 
 the face glowed with animation and intelligence.* 
 * Sir W. Muir’s £ Life of Mahomet,’ p. 26. 
 
Mahomet at Mecca 
 
 81 
 
 This commanding presence was a gift which no 
 doubt served the prophet well in his stormy inter¬ 
 course with his tribesmen at the outset of his 
 career, as well as with others, and at a later 
 stage in his enterprise. 
 
 During the early period of his married life, 
 Mahomet was content to enjoy the quiet peace 
 of a happy home. The period, however, of dreams 
 and visions of a higher vocation has begun. He 
 is anxious to assure himself that he has a divine 
 mission to regenerate his people. At length he 
 announces the assurance has been given. He 
 has met with the Angel Gabriel, who brings him 
 his commission, and sends him forth with his 
 message. The supernatural appearance and the 
 message verbally inspired, are minutely set 
 forth. 
 
 Returning from the scene of revelation in the 
 cave on Mount Hira, Mahomet becomes for the next 
 ten years an unwearied and vehement preacher of 
 his evangel to the people of Mecca and outlying 
 mission fields. That evangel was little else than 
 the world-wide text of Islam : ‘ There is no other 
 god but Allah, and Mahomet is the prophet of 
 God.’* It was a direct attack on the ancestral 
 
 * ‘ Nothing,’ says De Ouincey, ‘ but the grossest ignorance 
 in Mahomet, nothing but the grossest non-acquaintance with 
 Greek authors on the part of the Arabs, could have created 
 or sustained the delusion current amongst that illiterate 
 people that it was themselves only who rejected Polytheism. 
 Had but one among the personal enemies of Mahomet been 
 acquainted with Greek, there was an end of the new religion 
 in the first moon of its existence. Once open the eyes of the 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 and all other idolatry. Converts came in slowly, 
 and from the immediate circle of his relatives and 
 friends. First came Khadija; then the circle 
 widened, until, at the close of the first year’s 
 labours, he had some forty followers. 
 
 As partial success appeared, the Koreish tribe 
 were alarmed ; and during the remainder of the 
 prophet’s ministry in Mecca, he and his followers 
 were the subject of a fierce persecution. In 621 
 Khadija died, and almost immediately thereafter 
 took place the Hegira, or flight to Medina. It 
 was preceded by some astute negotiations with 
 the leaders of his adherents in Medina, and by 
 fresh revelations. The faith in his Divine mis¬ 
 sion was not wont to fail him in even the 
 direst emergencies. On the eve of his flight he 
 was driven, along with his faithful companion 
 Abu-Beker, to seek refuge in a cave near Mecca 
 on the summit of Mount Thaur. It was here 
 his comrade whispered, that they were only two 
 as against a host of the enemy. ‘ Think not 
 thus, Abu Beker,’ was the reply ; ‘ we are two, but 
 God is in the midst—a third.’ 
 
 Arabs to the fact that the Christians had anticipated them in 
 this great truth of the Divine unity, and Mahometanism 
 could only have ranked as a sub-division of Christianity. 
 Mahomet would have ranked only as a Christian schismatic, 
 such as Nestorius or Marcian at one time, such as Arius or 
 Pelagius at another. In his character of theologian, there¬ 
 fore, Mahomet was simply the most memorable of blunderers, 
 supported in his blunders by the most unlettered of nations.’ 
 —De Quincey’s Historical Essays (‘ Greece under the 
 Romans ’), pp. 276, 277. 
 
Temptations of Mahomet 
 
 The date of the Hegira is June 20th, 622. We 
 cannot enter into a description of the next ten 
 years, the remaining period of Mahomet’s life. 
 During that period Medina was the centre of 
 those forays and battles in which Arabia was at 
 last subdued to Islam. We shall not here trace 
 the course of the successive temptations before 
 which Mahomet fell until at last he gave out that 
 he had received a Divine commission to propagate 
 his religion by the sword. 
 
 Students of his life have been struck by the 
 parallel between the temptations of Mahomet 
 and those of the Saviour in the wilderness. 
 
 They were, in the case of Christ, temptations 
 to employ supernatural power for the supply of 
 personal wants, and the extension of His dominion 
 by illegitimate means, as well as to convert that 
 spiritual dominion into a coarse and evanescent 
 worldly power. In the case of our Lord the 
 temptation was strengthened by the long cherished 
 desire and expectation of the Jews for a great 
 temporal prince in the person of their Messiah. 
 
 The victory of Christ has transmitted to His 
 followers the heritage of a perfect character, 
 and an enduring empire over the hearts and con¬ 
 sciences of men. 
 
 The failure of Mahomet, under the same 
 ordeal, has bequeathed to the motley throng of 
 his devotees the record of a broken character, 
 which does not improve with years, of a cor¬ 
 rupt worldly policy, and a dominion of brute 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 force which has been long sinking to hopeless 
 decay. 
 
 The progress of Mahomet’s own spiritual life 
 may be best studied in the successive Sowar of 
 the Koran.* They reveal its original sincerity and 
 depth, but they show also to the careful student 
 the not less certain marks of later degeneracy. 
 The Koran grows worse and worse as it advances 
 to completion. Its closing utterances lack the 
 inspiration and high ideal of the earlier sowar. 
 A similar decline appears in the character of 
 Mahomet himself. He exchanges a life of purity 
 for the indulgences of the sensualist. He turns 
 the very Koran itself into an apologist for his 
 vices. 
 
 As to the relation of Mahomet to Christianity, 
 he gives it honourable mention in the Koran. 
 Yet all its distinctive doctrines are either ignored 
 or repudiated, such as the divinity of Christ, His 
 atonement and resurrection. This may have been 
 partly due to ignorance, but largely also, there 
 can be no doubt, to an instinctive recoil from its 
 pure and lofty spirit. As Mahomet laid the reins 
 upon the neck of his lusts, and began to wield the 
 
 * 4 The Koran is divided into one hundred and fourteen 
 larger portions of very unequal length, which we call 
 chapters, but the Arabians Sowar, in the singular Sura, a 
 word rarely used on any other occasion, and properly 
 signifying a row, order, or regular series. ... It is the same 
 in use and import with the Sura or Tora of the Jews, who 
 also call the fifty-three sections of the Pentateuch Sedarim, 
 a word of the same signification.’—Sale’s Koran, ‘ Prelimi¬ 
 nary Discourse,’ pp. 40, 41. 
 
The Sword and the Koran 85 
 
 sword in the promotion of his cause, his deep 
 hatred of the Christian religion becomes the more 
 apparent, as seen in the mirror of the Koran. The 
 Christian comes, in the mind of the prophet, to 
 rank with the unbeliever. His was the very worst 
 
 form of infidelity. 
 
 # 
 
 It has been said that the Mohammedan religion 
 is considerate in its directions for the treatment 
 of the unbeliever. It does not, it has been pleaded, 
 encourage its followers to kill their enemies, though 
 it fails to restrain the human disposition to do 
 so. Now, the Moslem Turk at least was never 
 much concerned about extracting from the con¬ 
 tradictory doctrines of his faith a code of exem¬ 
 plary toleration, supposing such to be found in it. 
 Enough for him that it does not restrain his 
 human, or, rather, inhuman, disposition to 
 massacre, lust and spoliation. ‘ The sword,’ says 
 Mahomet, ‘ is the key of heaven and hell; a drop 
 of blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent 
 in arms, is of more avail than two months ot 
 fasting or prayer : whosoever falls in battle his 
 sins are forgiven ; at the day of judgment his 
 wounds shall be resplendent as vermilion and 
 odoriferous as musk, and the loss of his limbs 
 shall be supplied by the wings of angels and 
 cherubim.’ 
 
 The question now arises, How does all this 
 bear on the character of the Turk and his govern¬ 
 ment of an empire embracing, as we have seen, so 
 considerable a section of a Christian population ? 
 
86 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 We have considered how Islamism affects the 
 character of the Turk as a warrior and conqueror. 
 We have now to inquire how far it helps or 
 hinders him in the nobler task of ruling his con¬ 
 quered dominions. The Mohammedan religion, 
 in its aggressive character, has been compared to 
 a mighty rushing flood, whose tendency, as it 
 flows on, is to purify its waters. But when its 
 inspiring battle-cry dies away into silence, and 
 peace comes to claim its victories, Islamism 
 becomes this same stream gathering in a sluggish 
 pestilent swamp, a reservoir of ever-exhaling cor¬ 
 ruption. 
 
 The process of deterioration was therefore not 
 at first apparent in the rule of the earlier caliphs, 
 Abu Beker, Omar, Othman, and Ali. As an 
 illustration of their simplicity and austerity of 
 life, the dialogue between the Emperor Heraclius 
 and one of the faithful on the entry of Omar into 
 Jerusalem has been often instanced. 4 Why,’ 
 inquired the emperor, 4 does he go in patched 
 clothes, and not richly clad like other princes ?’ 
 ‘ Because he cares only for the world to come, 
 and seeks favour in the eyes of God alone.’ ‘ In 
 what kind of palace does he reside ?’ * In a 
 
 house built of mud.’ 4 Who are his attendants?’ 
 4 Beggars and the poor.’ 4 What tapestry does 
 he sit upon?’ 4 Justice and equity.’ 4 What is 
 his throne?’ 4 Abstinence and true knowledge.’ 
 ‘ What is his treasure ?’ 4 Trust in God.’ 4 And 
 
 what his guards?’ 4 The bravest of the Unitarians.’ 
 
Influence of Islam on the Turk 
 
 The above colloquy could hardly, by any stretch 
 of imagination, be supposed to describe either the 
 character or habits of life of the caliphate suc¬ 
 cession, which has now, for five hundred years 
 and upwards, revelled amid the delights of the 
 paradise of the Sultan in Constantinople. 
 
 ‘ A rapid degeneracy,’ says Hallam, £ enfeebled 
 the victorious Moslems in their career. . . . Such 
 is the outline of Saracenic history for three cen¬ 
 turies after Mahomet—one age of glorious con¬ 
 quest ; a second of stationary, but rather pre¬ 
 carious, greatness ; a third of rapid decline.’ 
 
 The vices of the Saracen were reproduced and 
 intensified in Islamism as represented in the 
 person of the Turk. The Turkish sovereigns also 
 who ruled at Bagdad were outdone in degeneracy 
 by their successors, the caliphs of Constantinople. 
 
 In regard to government, the Moslem civil law 
 is based on the Koran, as the civil laws of the 
 Jews were on those of the Pentateuch. The 
 author of the Koran was familiar enough with 
 anarchy and despotism, but ignorant of Roman 
 jurisprudence, or of the elementary principles of 
 constitutional government. The idea of religious 
 toleration will be sought for in vain from such 
 a source. In its place will be found the injunction 
 to war to the death against the infidel. The 
 Moslem is wont to parade his toleration even in 
 the face of this. This is especially so as regards 
 the Turkish despot. We admit that more than 
 one Sultan has played at a game of toleration, and 
 
88 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 proved an expert in that exercise. They have 
 formulated the principle in treaties with other 
 governments, as it has suited their convenience, 
 but never attempted seriously to carry it into 
 practice. Despotic as the Sultan is, he is not 
 above the sacred law of the prophet; by it he 
 rules, and must rule. He must also receive the 
 law as expounded by the Sheik-ul-Islam, the head 
 of the Ulema, or general body of the lawyers and 
 theologians. 
 
 This law, as we have said, gives clear directions 
 as to the treatment of the infidel. The non- 
 Moslem, and especially the Christian, is to be 
 treated harshly, beaten and dragged along the 
 ground if he prove unable or unwilling to pay the 
 excessive taxation—a ransom for the right to drag 
 on a miserable and forfeited existence. To enable 
 his oppressor to carry out his purpose—to perpe¬ 
 trate every description of inj ustice and indignity 
 —the law forbids the non-Moslem to carry arms. 
 The Christian is thus left defenceless amid his 
 deadliest enemies, armed to the teeth, on every 
 side of him. He must not wear the same colour 
 of clothes, or enter the same bath with a Moslem. 
 The non-Moslem must treat his oppressor with 
 ceremonious respect, in all posible and impossible 
 forms. Any failure in this is punishable with 
 death. 
 
 Nor are these oppressions only to be found in 
 the degenerate legislation of the Turk. The 
 following passage from Washington Irving’s ‘ Sue- 
 
Influence of Islam on the Turk 89 
 
 cessors of Mahomet ’ furnishes a striking illus¬ 
 tration of the spirit of Islam before it was still 
 further corrupted by Turkish influence: ‘ The 
 
 articles of surrender (of Jerusalem) were drawn 
 up in writing by Omar, and served afterwards as a 
 model for the Moslem leaders in other conquests. 
 The Christians were to build no new churches in 
 the surrendered territory. The church doors were 
 to be set open to travellers, and free egress to be 
 permitted to Mohammedans by day and night. 
 The bells should only toll, and not ring, and no 
 crosses should be erected on the churches, nor 
 shown publicly in the streets. The Christians 
 should not teach the Koran to their children, nor 
 speak openly of their religion, nor attempt to 
 make proselytes, nor hinder their kinsfolk from 
 embracing Islam. They should not assume the 
 Moslem dress, either cap, slippers, or turban, nor 
 part their hair like Moslems, but should always 
 be distinguished by girdles. They should not use 
 the Arabian inscriptions on their signets, nor salute 
 after the Moslem manner, nor be called by 
 Moslem surnames. They should rise on the 
 entrance of a Moslem, and remain standing until 
 he should be seated. They should entertain every 
 Moslem traveller three days gratis. They should 
 sell no wine, bear no arms, and use no saddle in 
 riding; neither should they have any domestic 
 who had been in Moslem service. Such were 
 the degrading conditions imposed upon the proud 
 city of Jerusalem, once the glory and terror of 
 
9° 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 the East, by the leader of a host of wandering 
 Arabs. They were the conditions generally im¬ 
 posed by the Moslems in their fanatical career of 
 conquest. Utter scorn and abhorrence of their 
 religious adversaries formed one of the main pillars 
 of their faith.’ 
 
 It appears, then, that even from the outset of 
 Mohammedan dominion, and when the sword was 
 just transferred, still warm, from the hand of Abu 
 Beker, the immediate successor of the prophet to 
 his intimate friend and faithful follower Omar, 
 
 4 utter scorn and abhorrence of their religious 
 adversaries formed one of the main pillars of their 
 faith.’ 
 
 This accounts not only for individual oppressive 
 enactments, but the whole character of Moslem 
 legislation. The administration of the law has 
 been carried on in the same spirit. And this 
 applies, of course to all its departments, civil and 
 religious. 
 
 Not only in all the social relations of daily life 
 do we find this demoniac influence operative. It 
 shapes the whole ordeal of procedure in the 
 gravest concerns of life and death, in and around 
 every Moslem tribunal. No evidence from the 
 lips of a Christian, in a court of justice, is con¬ 
 sidered of any value as against a Mussulman. 
 Any lying story from the Mussulman is legal 
 evidence against the Christian. It is a capital 
 crime to convert a Moslem to the Christian faith. 
 Yet the self-complacent despot prides himself on 
 his liberal, large-hearted toleration. 
 
Influence of Islam on the Turk 
 
 9 1 
 
 These evils we may expect to see in their worst 
 form in the person of the ruling Turk. His rela¬ 
 tion to Islamism so far explains this. Possessed 
 as he is of the qualities which befit the lawless 
 freebooter—the qualities of courage and enter¬ 
 prise—he could not fail to be fascinated by the 
 bloodthirsty spirit of Islamism as a military code. 
 As a system of revealed truth, which it claims to 
 be, the Turk was mainly interested in the sanction 
 it gave to his propensities for war and plunder. 
 Elaborate propositions of principles of govern¬ 
 ment were alien to one who saw no reason why 
 his trusty sword should not serve him equally well 
 for a sceptre as it had done as a weapon of con¬ 
 quest. On these matters it was not easy to bring 
 such a neophyte as the Turk up to a respect¬ 
 able standard of even Mohammedan orthodoxy. 
 Though changed by the influences of Islamism in 
 a very sensible degree, he could hardly be said to 
 be soundly converted. Accordingly, when he as¬ 
 sumed the position of a ruler, a legislator, or 
 administrator of the law, he carried with him into 
 those high functions the instincts and training of 
 his unregenerate existence. 
 
 Our discussion of the relation of Islamism to 
 the Christian religion could not, we think, be more 
 fittingly closed than by a reference to the most 
 recent evidence submitted to the British Parlia¬ 
 ment on the subject of forced conversions to 
 Mohammedanism.* That evidence establishes the 
 
 * Blue Book, Turkey, No. 5 (1896). Reports by Vice- 
 Consul FitzMaurice. 
 
9 2 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 fact beyond all possibility of cavil, in spite of all 
 that has been said of Moslem toleration, that 
 forced conversions to Islam are going on, as the 
 outcome of a system of organized outrage and 
 massacre, instigated by the Turkish government. 
 This is, of course, no new thing in Turkey, but 
 the scale of magnitude is certainly more appalling 
 than on most former occasions. 
 
 Mr. FitzMaurice’s report comes to us with the 
 authority of an eye and ear witness, and also of one 
 writing under a strong sense of official responsi¬ 
 bility. He has made searching inquiry, as British 
 delegate to the Turkish commission at Birejik, 
 into the state of matters in the vilayet of Aleppo, 
 and particularly at Birejik, Ourfa, Adiaman, 
 Severek, Behesni and neighbouring districts. He 
 has proved by careful induction of facts that over 
 6,000 forced conversions of Armenians to Islam 
 have quite recently taken place within the single 
 vilayet of Aleppo, and as the outcome of a scheme 
 of avowed extermination of the infidel. 
 
 The story of the massacres and conversions at 
 Birejik alone is ample proof of the charges in¬ 
 volved, and is, besides, as told by the vice-consul, 
 of such thrilling interest as can never be forgotten 
 by the most cursory reader. 
 
 For two months the Armenian quarter in 
 Birejik was a scene of Moslem outrage, of daily, 
 hourly mortal agony under present and prospective 
 sufferings. Life had become an ordeal of pro¬ 
 tracted misery and degradation. But the worst 
 
Forced Conversions 
 
 93 
 
 still remained to be experienced. On the morn¬ 
 ing of January ist, 1896, the trumpet sounded 
 forth the summons to enter upon the massacre. 
 The assailants rushed upon the Armenian quarter 
 of 240 houses. They 4 were divided into three 
 parties, one to break in the doors and walls, the 
 second to plunder, and the third to massacre all 
 males above a certain age.’ Every house was 
 pillaged, the churches desecrated and reduced to 
 ruins. The perpetrators of these crimes boldly 
 declared that they were acting under the orders 
 of the Sultan. ‘Our Padishah,’ they said, ‘has 
 ordered that the Armenians are to be massacred, 
 and that no Christians are to be left in the 
 country.’ 
 
 As the proceedings of this fatal day drew to 
 a close, the infuriated mob were just about to 
 break into the houses of one or two Mussulmans 
 who had sheltered the fugitives, with loud cries 
 of extermination to the infidel, when an event 
 occurred which arrested the awful carnage. We 
 give it in the words of the Vice-Consul: ‘Seeing 
 their desperate determination to break in and 
 exterminate the Christians, an Armenian woman 
 ascended to the roof with a white flag, and 
 declared that they had all become Mussulmans. 
 The remaining Armenians thereupon repeated the 
 formula of the Moslem creed, and the mob was 
 induced to retire on the ground that they were 
 now attacking their fellow Mussulmans.’ Such 
 is the character of the present conversions to 
 
94 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Islam, which the Sultan recognises as genuine, 
 and cannot see his way to discourage. 
 
 In the case of these Armenians, there was no 
 ground for any charge of political agitation. 
 Their only offence was that they were Christians. 
 For such in Turkey, so far as the Sultan dares 
 to touch them, the alternative is a horrible death, 
 or apostasy from their faith. 
 
 To renounce the new creed thus imposed upon 
 them is also death by the Sheri Law, as inter¬ 
 preted and executed by the Mussulman. A 
 return to the Christian faith by these Armenians 
 would, therefore, bring about another wholesale 
 massacre. Nay, the very appeal to outside 
 Christian sympathy is a capital offence by the 
 Sheri Law. 
 
 Mr. FitzMaurice is well aware that his state¬ 
 ments constitute a grave charge against the Otto¬ 
 man Government, and is duly impressed with 
 the responsibility of embodying them in an 
 official report. On the subject of the forced con¬ 
 versions he thus sums up : 4 This conversion 
 
 question, if not the most serious, is the ugliest 
 feature of recent massacres. It is also the most 
 difficult of remedy, for, though enlightened in¬ 
 terpretations of the Mussulman religious and civil 
 law do not sanction such peculiar changes of 
 religion, yet the ignorant masses of the Mussul¬ 
 man population, whose fanaticism has been 
 deeply stirred, and who have now for some time 
 regarded and treated the new converts as Moslems, 
 
Forced Conversions 
 
 95 
 
 would, in case of their reverting to Christianity, 
 consider them as renegades, and thus punishable 
 by death, according to the precepts of the Koran.’ 
 
 Here for the present we must conclude our 
 survey. 
 
 In our episode we have sought to trace some 
 portions of the career of the man whose spirit 
 lives and breathes in all Moslem rule. We have 
 looked upon him in the freshness and purity of 
 his youth, and as at the close of his ever- 
 memorable career, he bequeaths to his followers 
 as his last woeful legacy his Koran and his sword, 
 the instruments of his temporal greatness, and the 
 memorials of his betrayal of a heaven-sent trust. 
 
 We have witnessed the accession and new¬ 
 born zeal of the Turkish proselyte to the faith 
 of Islam. We have noted the spirit and some 
 of the maxims which characterize his despotic 
 rule. We. have further shown by bringing our 
 survey down to the present day that this spirit 
 and these baleful influences are still at work, and 
 with as disastrous, if not more disastrous, con¬ 
 sequences than ever before within the limits of the 
 dominions of the Turk. And, in short, we have 
 seen reason enough to lead us to the settled con¬ 
 viction that from such a source nothing could 
 be expected but tyrannical oppression, not only 
 for his Christian subjects, but for all others who 
 might have the misfortune to own his sway. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 Glimpses of Armenian life since the final overthrow of the 
 Monarchy on to the beginning of the present century— 
 Persian oppression—Shah Abbas—Armenian Patriarchs 
 — Roman Catholic influence — Literary revival of the 
 eighteenth century—Summary. 
 
 F ROM the overthrow of Leo VI., the last of 
 the Rupenian dynasty, in 1375, the Arme¬ 
 nian Monarchy ceased to exist. From 
 that time forward even the semblance of civil 
 autonomy disappeared. Whether, and when, it 
 is destined to reappear, as the outcome of the 
 present situation, is one of the questions which 
 is still awaiting solution. The absorption of 
 Armenia, now deprived of her kings, first by 
 Persian and again by Turkish rulers, makes it no 
 easy matter to trace the course of her chequered 
 history. 
 
 There is no longer a royal centre around which 
 the drama of the national story may revolve. 
 The rallying point is now transferred to the 
 Church of St. Gregory—the institution whose 
 preservation still, apart from other considerations, 
 
Persian Oppression 97 
 
 entitles the Armenian to lay claim to national 
 unity.* 
 
 The sufferings of the Armenians during this 
 period are largely endured in defence of their 
 ancient Church. The record of these persecutions 
 at the hands of their Persian and Turkish spoilers 
 is without a parallel in the annals of martyrdom. 
 Nowhere have we such a long continued tragedy, 
 such multitudes of slaughtered victims — men, 
 women, and children. 
 
 Unable to alienate them from their ancestral 
 faith by the sword of the Prophet, the Turk re¬ 
 sorted to those diplomatic devices, sanctioned by 
 his religion, in which he has been long so notori¬ 
 ously an adept. 
 
 The Sultan Mahomet II. had, from the first, 
 encouraged Armenian families to settle in Con¬ 
 stantinople, and made it the residence of a new 
 Patriarch ' or head of the Armenian Church. 
 This dignitary (recalling the somewhat similar 
 functionary known in Scottish Church history as 
 the tulchan bishop) was called into existence for 
 merely political and fiscal purposes, and was not 
 owned by the orthodox Armenians as their eccle¬ 
 siastical head. 
 
 The Patriarch of Etchmiadzin still remained 
 
 * Chamich, ii., part vii. Father Chamich thus opens 
 this portion of his narrative: ‘The order of our history is 
 veil connected during the time the Armenians were governed 
 by kings or chiefs. This state being destroyed, we must 
 consider the detail of their actions by the pontificates still 
 permitted to exist, casting an eye at the same time to the 
 contemporary patriarchates of Constantinople.’ 
 
 7 
 
98 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 the Patriarch of the Church quoad spiritualia. 
 The newly-created Patriarch, however, was the 
 only legitimate organ of communication between 
 the Sultan and his tributary Armenian subjects. 
 
 He was, for obvious reasons, likely to be the 
 subservient tool of his Moslem master. 
 
 The patriarchal chair, both at Constantinople 
 and Etchmiadzin, was in the gift of the Sultan, 
 and was sold to the highest bidder. The Patri¬ 
 archs were thus often men of low, sometimes 
 grossly scandalous, character. In the same way 
 lower places in the Church came to be filled with 
 hirelings. 
 
 In these circumstances one of the best of their 
 number, the Patriarch Melchizedek (1603), made 
 some effort at reformation. Groaning, like his 
 predecessor who still survived, under the ruinous 
 exactions of the Turks, he took a leading part in 
 calling in the assistance of the Persian shah, Abbas 
 the Great. 
 
 Abbas did indeed deliver the Armenians for a 
 time from the oppression of his Turkish rival, but 
 only to replace it by a still worse oppression of his 
 own. The Persian protector of the Armenians 
 devastated their country, turned loose upon its 
 defenceless inhabitants his brutal soldiery, who 
 inflicted on them all the horrors with which we 
 are now unhappily so familiar, as the accompani¬ 
 ment of an Armenian massacre. The residue of 
 the people on the scene of these atrocities was 
 collected on the plain of Ararat, driven as so 
 
Shah Abbas 
 
 many herds of cattle to Persia, and there settled 
 in a suburb of Ispahan. 
 
 Twelve thousand Armenian families, and soon 
 after other ten thousand, were thus expatriated 
 amid barbarities such as baffle all description. 
 Among these the massacre of the thousand refu¬ 
 gees in the rock cavern overhanging the Valley 
 of Gelard is ever memorable. The Women, to 
 avoid a dishonour worse than death, 4 rushed to 
 the mouth of the cavern and threw themselves 
 on the rocks below, where they were dashed to 
 destruction.’ 
 
 Nothing more revolting can well be conceived 
 than the passage by the exiles of the river Arax. 
 As Abbas urged despatch in the transit, crowds of 
 them were huddled indiscriminately into the fragile 
 boats, and these proving insufficient, hundreds of 
 both sexes and all ages, some sick and maimed, 
 were thrown into the river, so that those who could 
 swim might escape to the other side, and those 
 who could not might drown. Many were thus 
 abandoned to their fate, while piteously pleading 
 for help to the last moment of sustaining them¬ 
 selves on the surface of the water.* 
 
 On their settlement in Persia, the conqueror 
 treated them with more consideration. He knew 
 their talents for business and enterprise, and 
 hoped from this source to reap no small advan¬ 
 tage in the future. 
 
 The Armenians henceforth, or such as remained 
 * Chamicb, vol. ii., pp. 353-355. 
 
ioo Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 in their own country, came under the sway of 
 Persian or Turk, according to the fortunes of 
 their frequent conflicts. 
 
 In 1655 one of the ablest of the Patriarchs, 
 Philip, Catholicos at Etchmiadzin, was invested 
 with office. In his time Sis yielded the supre¬ 
 macy to the successor of St. Gregory, and the old 
 Church was consolidated and strengthened. This 
 reforming Patriarch, after wisely governing the 
 Church for twenty-two years, according to some 
 accounts, suddenly took ill and died when preach¬ 
 ing a sermon on the text, ‘ Give an account of 
 thy stewardship, for thou mayest be no longer 
 steward.’ Father Chamich, who is not wont to 
 mince his statements of the wonderful, and who 
 assures us that Philip more than once performed 
 miracles, does not corroborate the story of the 
 Patriarch’s so sudden demise. His account is 
 that the preacher during his sermon had a sudden 
 presentiment of an early death, that a few hours 
 after leaving the pulpit he took ill, and died within 
 height days. 
 
 After his death, and for the next century, the 
 Armenian Church was constantly subjected to 
 persecution. During this period she sunk lower 
 than she had yet done in ignorance and the 
 vicious lives of her priesthood. The lowest point 
 in her degradation is supposed to have been 
 reached in the patriarchate of Lazar—one of the 
 worst who had ever disgraced the throne of St. 
 Gregory. He died in the year 
 
Roman Catholic Influence 
 
 101 
 
 We need not follow the not very profitable 
 recital of the frequent changes of the patriarchate 
 on to the close of the period under review. 
 
 We have said nothing of what may be regarded 
 as missionary enterprise in Armenia, by any out¬ 
 side Church. The Church of Rome continued 
 to make vigorous efforts, through her Jesuit mis¬ 
 sionaries and others, either to bring the Armenian 
 Church over to herself as a whole, or, if not, 
 to weaken it by schism. In this latter device she 
 succeeded. 
 
 As early as the fourteenth century, Peden, a 
 Dominican Father, had drawn away a section to 
 the Roman Catholic see. By-and-by a new 
 liturgy was prepared, and the Latin or Uniat 
 Armenian Church now existed side by side with 
 the old National Armenian Church. The Patri¬ 
 arch of Sis is the spiritual head under the Pope 
 of all the Uniat Armenians in the dominions of 
 either Turkey or Persia. 
 
 To this period belongs a movement which bears 
 evidence to the capacity of the Armenians for 
 culture and patriotic enterprise. This is the 
 religious and literary revival which took place in 
 the Uniat Armenian Church in the beginning of 
 the eighteenth century. 
 
 An Armenian, named Mechitar, born at 
 Sebaste, in Asia Minor, 1676, having concluded 
 his studies for the priesthood at Etchmiadzin, 
 went to Constantinople. There he fell in with 
 some of the leaders of the Latin Armenian 
 
102 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Church. Convinced that the claims of the Pope 
 were valid, he joined their ranks. He afterwards 
 founded a monkish order, which came in due 
 course to take up its abode at St. Lazarus, in 
 Venice, in 1717. 
 
 This society became not less a literary than a 
 religious centre of influence. The monks were 
 united by the common bond of a vow to devote 
 their lives to study and prayer. This Venetian 
 society has republished Armenian classics, as well 
 as produced many original works. Other literary 
 centres are to be found in Vienna, Paris, Moscow, 
 and the schools in Constantinople and Tiflis. 
 These centres, it will be observed, are all outside of 
 Armenia proper, unless we include Tiflis in Georgia 
 as a part of the original Armenian dominion. 
 
 These are only a few indications of Armenian 
 life and character in this obscure period in their 
 history. They are, however, sufficient to show 
 the tenacity with which they have clung to their 
 great national institution, and thus, amid inces¬ 
 sant changes and dispersions, preserved so largely 
 their unity as a people. 
 
 While other nations, such as their tyrants the 
 Turks, accepted the bloodthirsty creed of Islam 
 without a struggle, the Armenians retained their 
 ancient faith, and laid down their lives rather 
 than accept the alien religion. They preferred 
 the ‘ crown of martyrdom to the white turban of 
 Mohammed.’ 
 
 At the same time it has appeared, even in our 
 
Summary 
 
 io 3 
 
 brief survey, that a process of decadence has been 
 going on in the Old Armenian Church. This has 
 certainly not been arrested by the zealous mission¬ 
 aries of the Romish propaganda. Their influence 
 has been rather to weaken and divide than to 
 unite and strengthen. It is clear that other 
 influences must be brought to bear upon the old 
 Church of St. Gregory, before she returns to her 
 primitive position and function, when her greatest 
 ornament was designated the Illuminator. Her 
 hope of recovery and of noble service in the 
 future lies in her character as a popular institu¬ 
 tion, around which cluster all the most sacred and 
 enduring associations of long ages of martyrdom. 
 
 Her doctrinal errors are rather misconceptions 
 of controversies which wasting persecution allowed 
 her no time sufficiently to master, than direct 
 perversions of the essentials of the faith. Nor 
 does she, like the Church of Rome, mix up the 
 teaching of Scripture with authoritative tradition, 
 or withhold the sacred volume from the perusal 
 of her members. Her present decadent position 
 is suggestively connected with centuries of enjoy¬ 
 ment of Turkish toleration. During that time 
 this principle has been in active operation. The 
 Turk has massacred without compunction those 
 who would not embrace his creed. But he has 
 spared the greater portion alive, knowing how 
 useful they might be in raising enormous taxes, 
 and how completely it was in his power to make 
 existence for them a prolonged misery. The Turk 
 
104 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 in his magnanimity, has always preferred a slow 
 to a sudden death. 
 
 Meantime, no sooner does the Armenian breathe 
 a little of the air of genuine liberty, even in the 
 most questionable companionship, than the native 
 spirit once more revives with those aspirations and 
 activities which shed their undying glory on the 
 eras of St. Gregory, Tiridates, St. Isaac, and 
 St. Miesrop. The intellectual awakening of the 
 eighteenth century, though rather outside than 
 inside the bounds of the mother-Church, is at 
 once a pleasing memory of the past, and, let us 
 hope, a happy omen of the future. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Political situation in Turkey towards the close of the last, 
 and during the first half of the present, century—De¬ 
 generacy of the Turk—Russian advances —Peter the 
 Great—Traditional policy of Russia—Reforming Sultans. 
 
 ' I HE Turkish Empire had reached the 
 JL zenith of its power in the reign of Soly- 
 man the Magnificent—the contemporary 
 of Charles V., Francis I., and Henry VIII. Since 
 this date the process of decline has been at work. 
 The symptoms of its fatal progress became 
 gradually more apparent, until at length -they 
 arrested the attention of Europe in the defeat at 
 Vienna, 1683, which shattered beyond recovery 
 the strength of her land forces, as that of Lepanto 
 had done the strength of her naval power more 
 than a century before. Since the later crisis, 
 Turkey has been sensibly and steadily retro¬ 
 grading as the other Powers, whose very existence 
 she had at one time menaced, have been not less 
 steadily advancing. Some of the causes, internal 
 and external, may well arrest the attention of the 
 student of history. 
 
106 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 When wars and conquest were the objects of 
 Turkish ambition, the creed of Islam added the 
 sanction of religion to the grossest indulgence of 
 all his strongest, most cherished native propensi¬ 
 ties. It had no corresponding inspiration for its 
 rude warrior, when he assumed the role of a 
 despotic ruler of his vanquished subjects. 
 
 Meantime, in the hands of the non-progressive 
 Turk, even war began to lose something of its 
 terrors for the advancing civilization of Europe. 
 Among the nations of Europe science was re¬ 
 modelling the old, and devising new and vastly 
 more effective, methods of warfare. It was 
 strengthening their fortresses against the vigorous 
 onslaughts of the barbarian, and providing 
 departments of aggressive assault in new con¬ 
 trivances of artillery, which impressed their 
 astonished antagonists with a sense of the 
 miraculous. Considerable as their own primitive 
 attainments had been in this their only school of 
 education, they did not equip them for these 
 higher studies. 
 
 In this state of stagnation or retrogression of 
 the Turkish warrior, medicine was launching its 
 beneficent mission to the camp and the battle¬ 
 field of his adversary. Considerate attention to 
 the wants of a military force, as to quarters and 
 provision, resulting in a reconstruction of the 
 commissariat, was improving on all hands the 
 efficiency of the soldier. Above all, a tendency 
 to cohesion and patriotism was making its ap- 
 
Degeneracy of the Turk 107 
 
 pearance among the quasi-independent provinces 
 where the paramount government was conducted 
 on principles of equity and humanity. 
 
 In these circumstances the Turk lost for ever 
 his one golden opportunity, and has now for the 
 last two centuries and upwards been relapsing 
 into a darker Tartarus than that from which he 
 originally sprung. Another cause of the internal 
 decline of Turkish prestige is the quite startling 
 physical degeneracy, the outcome of the moral 
 ulcer of Islamism, as embodied in its sensual 
 character, and so mournfully apparent in Mahomet 
 himself in his closing years at Medina. This is 
 bringing about by the operation of a natural law 
 a rapid decrease of the Turkish race. It has 
 been estimated that within fifty years of the 
 present century the Turkish population of Europe 
 has dwindled from 2,700,000 to 1,150,000. But 
 we turn now to the external influence or influences 
 which have been also at work in hastening the 
 process of dissolution. Chief of these is Russia. 
 
 The relation of Turkey to Russia, and the 
 encroachments of the latter upon her dominions 
 and prestige, must therefore for a little engage 
 our attention. Russia, towards the close of the 
 tenth century, so far emerged from her primi¬ 
 tive barbarism as to embrace the Christian 
 religion. Her choice of a national faith was 
 conducted on the eclectic principle as the 
 result to some extent of inquiries into existing 
 religious systems. The Greek Church was fixed 
 
io8 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 upon in preference to other rivals for political 
 reasons, and reasons personal to the first royal 
 convert. The Emperor Vladimir, the first to 
 embrace the new faith, was about to ally him¬ 
 self to the reigning sovereign at Constantinople 
 by a marriage with his sister Anne. One of the 
 stipulations was his conversion to Christianity. 
 From this point the supremacy of the Greek 
 Church was recognised in Russia. 
 
 Thus had come into existence a slowly rising 
 power to the north of Constantinople, which 
 was yet destined to castigate the Moslem tyrant, 
 whose boast it was that he had erected the 
 standard of the Crescent on the ruins of the 
 Christian dominion of the East. The vanquished 
 religion, corrupt as in many respects it had 
 become, at ]ength reappeared as the fostering, 
 guiding spirit of the new political power, whose 
 advances were to shape into form, and to enter 
 so largely into the solution of, what has now 
 been so long known as the Eastern Question. 
 
 The main steps of the Russian advance are 
 these : With the accession of Peter the Great 
 (1689) a new era had commenced in the destiny 
 and place of Russia among the European 
 powers. 
 
 Before this time Russia had not a single port 
 on the Baltic ; her only commercial emporium 
 was at Archangel. But the new Czar at once 
 set himself to lay the foundations of a great and 
 lasting empire. His visit to England in the 
 
Peter the Great 
 
 109 
 
 reign of William III., his enthusiasm in the 
 ship-building yards and demeanour at White¬ 
 hall, excited the curiosity and wonder of the 
 courtly and fashionable circles in London and 
 elsewhere. ‘ His stately form/ says Macaulay, 
 ‘ his intellectual forehead, his piercing black eyes, 
 his Tartar nose and mouth, his gracious smile, 
 his frown, black with all the stormy rage and 
 hate of a barbarian tyrant, and, above all, a 
 strange nervous convulsion which sometimes 
 transformed his countenance during a few mo¬ 
 ments into an object on which it was impossible 
 to look without terror; the immense quantities 
 of meat which he devoured, the pints of brandy 
 which he swallowed, and which it was said 
 he had carefully distilled with his own hands, 
 the fool who jabbered at his feet, the monkey 
 which grinned at the back of his chair, were 
 during some weeks popular topics of conversa¬ 
 tion.’ 
 
 In carrying out the programme he had laid 
 down for the formation of a new Russia, Peter 
 the Great took the first aggressive step towards 
 hostilities with the Turkish Empire. In 1696 
 he gained a decisive victory over the Sultan, 
 Mustapha II., and took from him the port of Azof, 
 thus opening up the Black Sea to the Russian 
 fleet. Three years later Turkey was compelled 
 by the Treaty of Carlowitz to renounce her claims 
 upon Transylvania, and the country between the 
 Danube and the Theiss. 
 
11 o Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 In 1730, in the reign of the Empress Anne, 
 some other triumphs were gained over the Porte. 
 The most formidable, however, of all the Russian 
 foes of Turkey was the sovereign who most fully 
 realized the ideal of Peter the Great, Catherine II. 
 (1762-1774). Not only did she carry on suc¬ 
 cessful wars against the Sultan, but she projected, 
 consistently advocated, and, so far as she could, 
 gave practical effect to a definite scheme to expel 
 the Turk from Europe, and re-establish the 
 Byzantine Empire. This project she prosecuted 
 to her last breath, bequeathing it as a legacy to 
 her successors. Russian aggression therefore 
 steadily continued until, in 1802, the Emperor 
 Alexander annexed Georgia. Further progress 
 was delayed for a time by the meteoric transit of 
 Napoleon across the path of Russian policy. 
 When Napoleon was finally defeated at Waterloo, 
 Russia found herself in possession of a consider¬ 
 able portion of Turkish Armenia. By the peace 
 of Tiflis, in 1813, she gained all the territory west 
 of the Caspian Sea between the Kur and the 
 Arax, Georgia having been already annexed. 
 
 The Turks had all along suspected Russia of 
 favouring the insurrection which had lost her 
 Greece in 1822. On the re-enslavement of that 
 noble race, Russia once more moves forward, 
 and the naval victory of Tchesme, in the time of 
 Catherine, with the further concessions of the 
 peace of 1774, are crowned by the decisive 
 engagement at Navarino (1827), and the peace 
 
Russian Advances 
 
 111 
 
 of Adrianople, which at last fully secured the 
 emancipation of the Greeks. 
 
 In 1828 war was again declared by Russia 
 against Turkey, and over and above other suc¬ 
 cesses in Europe, the Russian general Paskiewitch 
 took by storm the fortress of Kars, the central 
 point of Turkish Armenia, and finally conquered 
 the whole pachalic of Bagazid as far as the 
 Euphrates. In 1829 Paskiewitch continued his 
 victorious course, and took possession of Erze- 
 roum, the centre of Asiatic Turkey. 
 
 Peace was then concluded, and Russia was 
 pleased, for reasons satisfactory to herself, to 
 spare the political existence of her adversary. 
 The chief reason was indeed subsequently stated 
 by a Russian authority to be that the Czar con¬ 
 sidered he could best advance his own interests 
 by a protectorate over an enfeebled Ottoman 
 Empire. The Sultan then solemnly engaged, as 
 he has so often done, to give religious freedom to 
 all his subjects. 
 
 Russia now remained for a season inactive. 
 But the fondly cherished project of Catherine II., 
 if at times somewhat modified, and again and 
 again verbally repudiated, was still, in its spirit, 
 the guiding principle of Russian policy. Turkey 
 must remain, if a power at all, a merely nominal 
 power. To enable Russia to dominate the Black 
 Sea, and establish in due time her coveted pro¬ 
 tectorate over Turkey, the strong fortress ot 
 Sebastopol was erected in the Crimea, and a 
 
I 12 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 powerful Russian fleet now occupied the waters 
 of the Euxine. 
 
 Thus the encroachments of Russia upon Turkey 
 were part of a settled policy, either for the com¬ 
 plete overthrow or the depletion of the Ottoman 
 prestige. 
 
 Always protesting that she wished no more 
 accessions to her already too vast dominions, 
 Russia went on extending her boundaries into 
 Turkey, both in Europe and Asia.* 
 
 The desire of Russia to advance to Constanti¬ 
 nople has for long ages been more than an open 
 secret. The Emperor Nicholas, who personally 
 disclaimed it, declared that you might as soon 
 arrest the rushing stream in its headlong descent 
 from the mountain source as arrest the course of 
 this national sentiment. 
 
 An old-world prophecy, engraven centuries ago 
 on an equestrian statue, foretold the final victory 
 of the Sclav, and his triumphant entry into 
 Constantinople. 
 
 In Turkey itself the presentiment had been 
 meantime gathering strength, that unless some¬ 
 thing were done the Ottoman Empire was hope¬ 
 lessly doomed. The old system of laissez faire , 
 
 * The Russian policy has been thus characterized by 
 their own historian Karamsin : ‘ The object and the 
 
 character of our military policy has invariably been to seek 
 to be at peace with everybody, and to make conquests with¬ 
 out war ; always keeping ourselves on the delensive, placing 
 no faith in the friendship of those whose interests do not 
 accord with our own, and losing no opportunity of injuring 
 them without breaking our treaties with them.’ 
 
Reforming Sultans 11 3 
 
 it was seen, must be exchanged for one of vigor¬ 
 ous action, inspired by the instinct of self-preser¬ 
 vation. Such was the state of things in Turkey 
 towards the close of the last century. 
 
 The emergency called forth a series of actively 
 reforming Sultans who, for a season, did much to 
 arrest the downward course. Selim III. (1789- 
 1807) was the first of this new order of Sultans. 
 He set about internal reforms, favoured commerce 
 and culture, and made some attempts to reorganize 
 the military system, or, in other words, to suppress 
 the Janissaries, and substitute an army modelled 
 on the civilization of Europe. 
 
 This was the proverbial last straw : the Janis¬ 
 saries rose in rebellion and deposed their sove¬ 
 reign. The same fate overtook his successor, 
 Mustapha II., whose reforms and reign together 
 extended only over the space of a year. 
 
 The ablest and most successful of the reform¬ 
 ing Sultans was Mahmoud II. (1808-1839), who 
 during his long reign, did much to consolidate 
 the Ottoman Empire and give it a new lease of 
 existence. Mahmoud abolished the old Turkish 
 aristocracy, and made the Sultan the fans et origo 
 of all rank and distinction within the empire, 
 interesting himself in the welfare of all races 
 and creeds of his people, and was even ostenta¬ 
 tiously liberal towards his non-Moslem subjects. 
 
 He was at the same time a merciless tyrant, 
 resorting to the coarse methods of Islam for the 
 advancement of his most beneficent measures. 
 
 8 
 
114 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Blood flowed along his path like water. His 
 destruction of the Janissaries was a display of 
 barbarism only conceivable, as to its grim acces¬ 
 sories, by the pagan despot. The hapless victims 
 were driven into an enclosure which could be 
 overlooked by the exulting Sultan and. his minions. 
 They were then slaughtered in cold blood, man 
 by man, the Sultan gloating over the scene as 
 some debauched old Roman tyrant may be sup¬ 
 posed to have luxuriated over a scene of blood¬ 
 shed in the amphitheatre. 
 
 His attention was in due course distracted from 
 these orgies by the aggressive movements of his 
 Northern foe. His war with Russia cost him 
 Bessarabia and part of Moldavia. The Greek 
 revolution, to which we have already referred, 
 further seriously curtailed his European do¬ 
 minions. 
 
 Abdul Mejid (1839-1861) pursued the same 
 general policy, but amid growing opposition. 
 The Crimean war occurred in his reign, and gave 
 rise to a new departure in the treatment of the 
 Eastern Question. So closes this period in the 
 history of Turkey. The degeneracy and misrule 
 of ages had alienated her subjects and laid her 
 open to Russian intrigue and Russian conquest. 
 The advances of Russia, under the banner of the 
 Cross, however unworthily borne, were to some 
 extent a boon, for the time being, to the oppressed 
 Christians of Armenia. 
 
 The annexation of Georgi ai>d other Armenian 
 
Reforming Sultans 
 
 11 5 
 
 reforms brought a measure of relief to those 
 Christians who had so long been outraged by the 
 Moslem tyranny of both Persian and Turk. 
 
 The reforms at the Divan were late in the day 
 —too late. They were utterly alien to the 
 Moslem spirit, and could not by any possibility 
 be of long continuance. They ran a brief and 
 troubled course towards the close of the last 
 and the first half of this century, but are now 
 as entirely a thing of the past as the early con¬ 
 quests of the Turkish Caliphs of Constantinople, 
 and the prestige itself of the old Ottoman 
 Empire. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 New phases of the Armenian Question—Gradual change of 
 policy of the reforming Turk—Protestant influence— 
 American missions—Conflicting verdicts—Political re¬ 
 forms reviewed—Treaty of Adrianople, 1829—Hatti Sherif, 
 1839 — Protestant Charter, 1850 — Hatti Humayoun in 
 view of prospective demands of the Treaty of Paris— 
 Summary. 
 
 T HE Turkish reforms may be said to have 
 reached their climax ere the close of the 
 long and vigorous reign of Mahmoud II. 
 (1808-1839). 
 
 During this period many abuses were appar¬ 
 ently terminated and many beneficial changes 
 introduced into the military and civil affairs of 
 the empire. The Sultan made considerable pro¬ 
 gress in liberalizing the old despotism, in the 
 promotion of education, industry, commerce, and 
 in certain measures of religious freedom. His 
 son, Abdul Mejid, as we have already seen, con¬ 
 tinued these reforms, but with far less efficiency 
 and success. He was harassed, as his prede¬ 
 cessor had so long been, by the persistent 
 rebellion of his Egyptian viceroy, Mehemet Ali, 
 whom it required the assistance of the English 
 
Change of Policy 117 
 
 fleet, under Admiral Stopford and Sir Charles 
 Napier, to compel to restore the provinces of 
 Syria to the Sultan. His attention was also dis¬ 
 tracted by increasing complications with Russia 
 and their outcome in the Crimean war. His 
 reforms were opposed with growing obstinacy by 
 a revival of the old conservative spirit, and 
 especially as they seemed to aim at religious 
 toleration for the non-Moslem. The truth was 
 that the era of reform at Yildiz Palace had 
 already closed. New forces were coming into 
 play which were to dissipate the still lingering 
 reforming fancies of the Sultans, and to throw 
 them back upon the resources of the old despotic 
 methods of government. A degenerating race 
 of sovereigns, the secret slaves of lust and in¬ 
 temperance, could not long maintain a policy 
 based on the confidence of the people, even of 
 their Moslem subjects. 
 
 The religious and political reforms of the 
 Sultans had never been anything else than merely 
 precarious and temporary expedients to avert a 
 visibly approaching doom. Even when the 
 Grand Turk was in some degree sincere, he was 
 easily duped by his pashas, who were his agents 
 in the provinces, and they again, when well dis¬ 
 posed, were usually too indolent and careless to 
 check the lawless ferocity of their subordinates. 
 This statement is abundantly confirmed by 
 travellers and others, who now and then, during 
 this period of ostentatious reformation at the 
 
118 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Divan, got an occasional glimpse behind the 
 scenes of what was ever in reality a woeful 
 tragedy. We shall give a single illustrative 
 instance. It is related at length by the Hon. 
 Robert Curzon, in his ‘ Armenia,’ under the 
 heading * Case of Artin, Odi Bashi, an Armenian, 
 1843.’ 
 
 A charge of theft had been brought against a 
 chamberlain of a khan or inn in the vilayet of 
 Erzeroum. The accused was an Armenian 
 Christian, and the only evidence that of two 
 soldiers, who had confessed to having them¬ 
 selves stolen one half of the goods, the property 
 of a Moslem merchant. They averred that the 
 Armenian, Odi Bashi, had stolen the other half. 
 
 The accusation and tortures of the Armenian 
 are described as detailed by the wife of the victim. 
 In order to make him confess the theft, the kiaya 
 ordered him to be put to the torture. A cup of 
 hot brass was put upon his head, two sheep’s 
 knuckle-bones were placed upon his temples, and 
 cords were tightened till his eyes nearly came out. 
 As he would not confess, his front-teeth were 
 then drawn one at a time ; pieces of cane were 
 run up under his toe-nails. 
 
 Such was the deposition of the wife of the 
 accused, who begged Mr. Curzon to interpose 
 to save her husband from further barbarities. 
 She declared that he slept at home on the night 
 of the robbery. 
 
 When the victim was released and examined, 
 
Change of Policy 
 
 119 
 
 he said he had been tortured, as had been at 
 last admitted by the kiaya, though at first denied. 
 He stated that this was done by the order of his 
 judge, that the bones were put to his temples, 
 some of his teeth were drawn, his nails pierced, 
 his left thigh torn with pincers, he was hung up 
 by the arms by ropes, but the hot cup was not 
 placed upon his head. 
 
 Mr. Curzon assures us that on his bringing 
 the matter personally under the notice of the 
 pasha, he found that dignitary deceived by the 
 false reports of his subordinate, and that he did 
 not know that any tortures had been inflicted. 
 He adds: ‘ From the above account it appears 
 that much injustice may be carried on by the 
 inferior officers of the Government, which never 
 gets to the ear of the pasha, small officials being 
 notoriously more tyrannical than greater men.’ 
 
 If such incidents were the warp and woof of 
 everyday' life in the provinces when the Turk 
 was at his best as a constitutional ruler, we can 
 form some dim conception of what existence 
 must have been for the hapless Armenian in 
 normal times, when the Turk is at his worst. 
 
 A new era, however, did begin to dawn on 
 the Armenian, not as the result of reforms at 
 the Divan, or of his pashas in the provinces, but 
 of reforms from a very different source. This 
 was the influence of Protestant missionary enter¬ 
 prise among the Armenians. The authoritative 
 account of the origin of the chief of these agencies, 
 
120 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 the American Mission, is to be found in * Mis¬ 
 sionary Researches in Armenia,’ by Smith and 
 Dwight, 1834. The experiences of the first 
 missionary are related in 4 Forty Years in the 
 Turkish Empire: Memorials of the Rev. William 
 Goodell, D.D.,’ 1876. 
 
 While there are other agencies at work, the 
 American missionaries easily take a foremost 
 place. They have proved the pioneers of civiliza¬ 
 tion in Asiatic Turkey. Nothing has tempted 
 them to desert the post of duty in the times of 
 greatest trial and peril. Their sympathy with the 
 suffering, their wise counsel, their Christian hero¬ 
 ism, are well known and beyond all praise. Their 
 labours are carried on under the control of the 
 American Congregational and Presbyterian Boards. 
 The Congregational is the stronger of the two 
 wings of this salvation army, and at the present 
 rudimentary stage it would be no easy matter to 
 organize a Church upon Presbyterian lines. The 
 centres of presbyteries, synods, and assemblies 
 would present geographical difficulties not expe¬ 
 rienced in the working of Congregationalism. 
 The direct results are in the highest degree credit¬ 
 able to the missionaries, especially when the oppo¬ 
 sition they have had to encounter is taken into 
 account. The indirect results are the awakening 
 of a spirit of inquiry, and the inauguration of a 
 forward movement among the Armenians chiefly, 
 and in some degree among others who have come 
 under the influence of the missionaries. 
 
American Missions 
 
 I 2 I 
 
 The best proof of the elevating influence of 
 their educational work is found in the new¬ 
 born zeal of the present Sultan for the establish¬ 
 ment of schools, on behalf of his Moslem 
 subjects, and his hostility to the missionary in¬ 
 stitutions. 
 
 That the American missionary has entered 
 Armenia as the harbinger of an era of progress 
 for its down-trodden people is now pretty generally 
 admitted. We may certainly trace to this source 
 all the more recent progressive movements of 
 that community. 
 
 The religious revival has, as usual, been followed 
 by a revival of the spirit of individual and political 
 freedom. 
 
 The Turk cannot relish these tendencies, and 
 yet the present Sultan has been forced to own 
 that the missionaries are free from any sinister 
 political designs. 
 
 There have been critics of Protestant missions, 
 and therefore, of course, American missions, who 
 have not been so equitable in their judgment as 
 the Sultan. They have spoken of them as having 
 no fixed creed, as so many warring sects, whose 
 chief achievement has been to produce a bar¬ 
 barous translation of the Scriptures, which is the 
 subject of ridicule and contempt to all cultured 
 Armenians. 
 
 These, however, are now obsolete verdicts. 
 There has been a steadily-growing appreciation of 
 the influence for good of the American missions. 
 
122 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Quite recently a strong light has been cast on 
 this subject in a pathetic letter from Armenia, 
 published by Sir William Muir, and entitled 
 * Armenia’s Farewell 5 (January, 1896). 
 
 Sir W. Muir says, by way of introduction to 
 this ‘ genuine wail of the horror-stricken people/ 
 that since the fourteenth century, when Leo VI., 
 the last of the Armenian kings, was taken cap¬ 
 tive and the dynasty overthrown, there has been 
 no such attempt as is now being made to exter¬ 
 minate the Armenian race or convert them to 
 Islam. The following is an extract containing 
 the closing portion of the above-mentioned letter: 
 
 4 To the Christians of America. 
 
 4 Although we have cherished strong prejudices 
 against your mission work among us, recent events 
 have proved that our Protestant brethren are with 
 us, and have shared fully our anxieties and our 
 perils. This has brought us very near to you, 
 and, if there were any future for us, we should 
 prize your Christian love and fellowship as never 
 before; but we are marked for destruction, and 
 can only bid you farewell. You have laboured to 
 promote among us the peace and prosperity of 
 the Gospel. It is not your fault that one result 
 of your teaching and example has been to excite 
 our masters against us. You, at least, know the 
 situation too well to believe for a moment that we 
 are being punished for political sins. You cannot 
 fail to see that, so far as we have been the occa- 
 
Armenia’s Farewell 
 
 123 
 
 sion of the bloody massacres which have come 
 upon us, our crime in the eyes of the Turk has 
 been that we have so fully accepted, and so far 
 adopted, the Christian civilization of the West. 
 You are quite aware that the Turkish Govern¬ 
 ment dreads and dislikes nothing so much as the 
 ideas of progress which you have brought us. 
 Behold the missions which you have planted and 
 maintained among us at the cost of many millions 
 of dollars, and hundreds of precious lives. They 
 are in ruins; and not only this, the Turk is plan¬ 
 ning to rid himself of the missionaries by leaving 
 nobody among and for whom to work. A short 
 year ago, and nobody could have believed that at 
 the end of this nineteenth century—a century 
 characterized by the collapse of Islam and the 
 advance of Christianity to a position of unques¬ 
 tioned supremacy in the government of the world 
 —a Christian people could, on account of their 
 loyalty to Christian civilization, and under the 
 very eyes of Christendom, be exterminated by 
 a Mohammedan power. Yet just this fearful 
 tragedy is being consummated to-day. Already 
 hundreds of Armenian villages have been wiped 
 out, and in the larger towns and cities our 
 people have been decimated, plundered, crushed. 
 We see no signs of relenting on the part of our 
 destroyers, and no hand is reached out to rescue 
 us. We have only to say farewell to any who 
 have loved and cared for us, and prepare our¬ 
 selves for the butcher’s knife, honoured in closing 
 
124 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 and sealing our national history of forty centuries 
 with our blood.’ 
 
 We turn now for a little to trace the general 
 course of those political reforms, emanating in the 
 first place, as we have already stated, from the 
 constitutional Sultans, and which, no doubt con¬ 
 trary to the design of their authors, were as the 
 letting out of the waters of the rising tide, which 
 threatens at no distant date to submerge the 
 throne of the Turkish Empire. 
 
 First, we have the Russian autocrat suggesting 
 a larger measure of freedom to his co-religionists, 
 especially the members of the Greek rather than 
 the Armenian Church. This was promised by 
 Mahmoud II. (the greatest of the reforming 
 Sultans) in terms of the Treaty of Adrianople, 
 1829. 
 
 The characteristic diplomatic system of pro¬ 
 fuse royal promises embodied in magniloquent 
 firmans was now a recognised policy of Ottoman 
 rule. 
 
 Abdul Mejid, Mahmoud’s son and successor, 
 issued, in 1839, an imperial rescript, the Hatti 
 Sherif, engaging'to protect the life and property of 
 all his subjects, whatever their race or religion. 
 In 1844 he gave a solemn pledge that no apostate 
 from Islamism, who had formerly been a Chris¬ 
 tian, should be put to death. Still further, this 
 same Sultan granted in 1850 what is known as 
 the Protestant Charter. The Charter concedes 
 
I2 5 
 
 Hatti Hamayoun 
 
 the fullest measure of religious freedom. Lastly, 
 Abdul Mejid, just before the Treaty of Paris had 
 been completed, in 1856, issued the imperial 
 edict, the Hatti Humayoun, which guarantees 
 perfect equality of civil rights to all the subjects 
 of the Porte, as also the largest conceivable degree 
 of toleration, in these words: ‘ As all forms of 
 religion are, and shall be, freely professed in my 
 dominions, no subject of my empire shall be 
 hindered in the exercise of the religion that he 
 professes, nor shall he in any way be annoyed on 
 this account.’ 
 
 These fair promises were none of them kept. 
 The same iron yoke of oppression rested on the 
 necks of the Christian populations of the empire, 
 and especially the Asiatic portion, though this has 
 been the last to arouse the practical sympathy of 
 Europe. 
 
 The burden of oppression fell chiefly on 
 Christian Armenia. While Georgia afforded a 
 safe civil asylum to the Armenians under Russian 
 rule, and Persia even was a place of refuge, 
 Turkish Armenia was only entering on a new and 
 sure heritage of indescribable suffering and degra¬ 
 dation. Such was the state of things when 
 Russia stepped in with her ultimatum claiming a 
 protectorate over the Christian subjects of the 
 Ottoman Empire, and this as the fulfilment of a 
 pledge already given to the Czar. 
 
 We have thus seen that the policy of the Turkish 
 Sultans gradually reverted to the ideal of the old 
 
126 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 despotism. Any sincerity of purpose which may 
 have existed when reform seemed the sheet- 
 anchor of political stability had gradually given 
 way to the native habit of mind. Meantime, in 
 this way, an impulse had been given to a new 
 state of things. The spirit of reform was now 
 astir. 
 
 We have glanced at the fostering influence of 
 the American missionaries. The stage of mis¬ 
 representation, we have said, is past, and the 
 hope may well be indulged that this agency, with 
 its Robert College at Constantinople, and other 
 educational institutions sending forth its pioneers 
 in the Crusade of the nineteenth century, has yet 
 many triumphs before it in the prospective re¬ 
 generation of Armenia and the other Asiatic 
 portions of the Turkish Empire. 
 
 We have also noted retrospectively, and up to 
 the new departure in 1856, the trend of political 
 reform in Turkey under Russian pressure, and in 
 the shape of certain pledges given with truly 
 Oriental profusion by the reigning Sultan. Con¬ 
 nected with the Russian idea of world-wide 
 conquest, we ought to add, is that of the co-ordi¬ 
 nate extension of the influence of the Greek 
 Church. 
 
 The Greek Church aspires, as far as possible, 
 to advance pari passu with these conquests. That 
 Church, long at variance with the Latin on 
 questions of relative superiority, was at last 
 formally excommunicated and anathematized * by 
 
Summary 
 
 127 
 
 the Roman See, on account of having embraced 
 the heresy that the Holy Spirit proceeds only 
 from the Father, and not also from the Son.’ 
 
 The ‘ Filioque ’ Shibboleth, it has been well said, 
 has ever since divided the Eastern from the 
 Western Churches, even more completely than 
 the Bosphorus divides Asia from Europe. 
 
 The alliance between the Church and State in 
 Russia is of the closest kind. The Erastian 
 problem was promptly solved one day by the 
 sudden entrance of Peter the Great into the 
 conclave of bishops, about to elect a new 
 Patriarch, with the announcement that he him¬ 
 self was henceforth to be their Patriarch. With 
 such an authority, argument was out of the 
 question, and from this time forward the Russian 
 Czar has been recognised as the Head of the 
 Greek Church. 
 
 There can be no doubt that the strong feeling 
 of jealousy between the Greek and Latin 
 Churches, giving rise to the petty squabble about 
 the custody of the keys of certain holy places in 
 and around Jerusalem, and ending in unpardon¬ 
 able humiliation for the Czar, was the real cause 
 which precipitated the Crimean war, from which 
 we date a new and important phase in the rela¬ 
 tions of the Powers of Europe to Turkish misrule 
 in both the Eastern and Western divisions of her 
 
 empire. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 European concert and its relation to Turkey—Treaty of 
 Paris, 1856 — Turkish diplomacy—Young Armenia 
 National Constitution (1862) and National Commission 
 (1871)—Situation before the Treaty of San Stefano 
 Cyprus Convention and Treaty of Berlin (1878) Sixty- 
 first and Sixty-second Articles—Peace with Honour- 
 Summary. 
 
 W ITH the events which ushered in the 
 Congress and Treaty of Paris was in¬ 
 augurated on a European scale the 
 subsequent continuous policy of the Christian 
 Powers towards the Turkish Empire. 
 
 Three centuries or so before this date the 
 dream, it has been said, of every statesman in 
 Europe was the expulsion of the Turk from 
 Constantinople, and the emancipation of Chris¬ 
 tian Europe from the oppression of the infidel. 
 At the period to which we now refer, the close 
 of the Crimean War, we find the six great 
 Powers of Europe resorting to every expedient 
 of diplomacy, not stopping short of remedial 
 measures of coercion to retain the Turk on 
 the throne which he had so long disgraced, 
 and which was now tottering visibly to its 
 fall. 
 
European Concert and Turkey 129 
 
 The reason of this change of policy is worthy 
 of- some attention, and brings us back again to 
 note the aggressive movements of that Power 
 which had for so long been fraught with the 
 kismet of the foredoomed Moslem. That Power, 
 of course, is Russia. 
 
 Ever since the brilliant victories of Catherine II. 
 a feeling had been gaining strength in the 
 cabinets of Europe that the sword of the Czar 
 was at the throat of the Sultan, and that the 
 fatal stroke would fall at the earliest moment 
 when it could be delivered with impunity. The 
 instinct of self-preservation, in a lesser degree 
 that of sympathy with the distress of the con¬ 
 scious victim, and above all a regard for the 
 public weal of Europe, combined to bring into 
 prominence the doctrine of political expediency, 
 known as ‘ the balance of power.’ 
 
 Should Russia plant the banner of the Cross 
 on the Mosque of St. Sophia, this already over¬ 
 shadowing Colossus would, it was believed, 
 endanger the liberties of Europe. Great Britain 
 in particular saw in this possible event a menace 
 to her prestige in the East. Other European 
 Powers nearer Constantinople saw cause for 
 uneasiness in the prospect of the new regime. 
 The vision of a motley throng of Ural Cossacks 
 mustering on the shores of the Bosphorus for 
 an incursion into the plains of Europe had terrors 
 enough in it to disturb the most sober imagina¬ 
 tion. Even in England it was long remembered 
 
 9 
 
1 3 ° 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 that one of the chiefs of these Frankensteins of 
 Russian power had, shortly after the battle of 
 Waterloo, nudged Field-Marshal Blucher as they 
 passed along the London streets, and exclaimed : 
 
 ‘ What a city for to shack!’ 
 
 The theory, therefore, was that the main¬ 
 tenance of the Turkish despot was necessary 
 to preserve the balance of power, and so far 
 guarantee the peace of the nations of Europe. 
 To this strange theory Turkey has since then 
 owed, not only its existence as an empire, but 
 a recognised place in the concert of Europe, 
 as well as all the power she has since so grossly 
 abused in the misrule and massacre of her non- 
 Moslem subjects. 
 
 But to return to our survey of the course of 
 events. We shall now see how this theory has 
 been elevated into an international principle, and 
 carried into practice in the provisions of the treaty 
 which followed the Crimean War, and the issue 
 of the Hatti Humayoun, i.e., the Treaty of Paris. 
 
 The Crimean War arose ostensibly from the re¬ 
 jection by the Sultan Abdul Mejid of the ultimatum 
 presented by Prince Menschikoff on behalf of 
 Russia. In it the Czar claimed a virtual protec¬ 
 torate over the Christian subjects of the Sublime 
 Porte, or three-fourths of the population of 
 Turkey. This was not advanced by him as a new 
 claim, but as a right which had been conceded in 
 terms of the treaty of 1744* This construction of 
 the treaty was denied by Turkey and her allies. 
 
Treaty of Paris 
 
 I 3 I 
 
 More strictly, the claim had reference to the 
 members of the Greek Church, yet could be so 
 construed as to embrace the whole Christian 
 population. 
 
 The European Powers supported the Sultan 
 in his rejection of the Russian ultimatum, and 
 England and France sent their allied forces to 
 the Crimea. On the conclusion of the war, and a 
 new firman from the Sultan (Hatti Humayoun) 
 granting religious freedom to his subjects, the 
 Treaty of Paris, incorporating this firman, was 
 drawn up as an international guarantee for the 
 execution of these reforms. The Crimean War 
 having been undertaken to arrest the steady 
 encroachments of Russia, and to secure new 
 guarantees for the independence of the Ottoman 
 Empire, one provision of the treaty was that 
 Russia should withdraw her claim to a pro- 
 tectorate over the Christian subjects of the 
 Sultan. 
 
 The responsibility of protecting the Christians 
 of Turkey from Moslem outrage thus devolved, 
 by their own act, upon the European Powers. 
 Russia was thrust out of Turkey, and the Sultan 
 no longer needed to dread her control. Not 
 only was Russia deprived of some of her land 
 conquests over Turkish territory, but her naval 
 strength on the Black Sea was destroyed, and 
 she was bound by the treaty not to restore it. 
 
 The text of Article IX. of the Treaty of Paris, 
 ' which is designed to remove the pretext for 
 
132 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Russian interference, runs thus: ‘ His Imperial 
 Majesty the Sultan having, in his constant solici¬ 
 tude for the welfare of his subjects, issued a 
 firman which, while ameliorating their condition 
 without distinction of religion or of race, records 
 his generous intentions towards the Christian 
 population of his empire, and wishing to give a 
 further proof of his sentiments in this respect, has 
 resolved to communicate to the contracting 
 parties the said firman emanating spontaneously 
 from his sovereign will. The contracting Powers 
 recognise the high value of this communication. 
 It is clearly understood that it cannot in any case 
 give to the said Powers the right to interfere, 
 either collectively or separately, in the relations of 
 his Majesty the Sultan with his subjects, nor in 
 the internal administration of his empire.’ 
 
 The remedy for all complaints in the govern¬ 
 ment of Turkey, when they can be no longer 
 ignored, is an imperial Hatti promising imme¬ 
 diate and superabundant redress, and granting all 
 imaginable reforms. These engagements being 
 made under physical constraint, and only to the 
 infidel, are not seriously meant, and remain, so 
 far as the spontaneous action of the sovereign 
 will is concerned, a dead letter. This has been 
 notoriously the case as to the engagements under¬ 
 taken through the treaty we are now considering. 
 
 There are, it is said, three phases of Turkish 
 diplomacy. There is first the open defiance of 
 the Powers insisting on faithful performance of 
 
Turkish Diplomacy 
 
 1 33 
 
 stipulated compacts, when this can be resorted 
 to with impunity. When this attitude cannot be 
 assumed, there is the second phase, which is an 
 assurance of compliance with the demand, given 
 with all the solemnity of a devout Moslem. No 
 semblance even of performance is ever attempted. 
 In the third and most desperate stage, from the 
 Moslem point of view, along with the solemn 
 pledge there is some deceptive appearance of 
 performance. 
 
 So far was Turkey from intending to carry out 
 the reforms of the Treaty of Paris that from that 
 time there commences a new era of oppression. 
 In Armenia, however, a forward movement 
 seemed to have begun. The idea of religious 
 freedom came upon the Armenians as an inspira¬ 
 tion. Their religion, for which they had endured 
 so many persecutions, was the one thing the 
 Turk had not taken or could not take from them. 
 Their hopes of a future centred in guarding this 
 sacred trust. It was the Palladium of their 
 beleaguered land, and so long as it remained with 
 them they were safe. The promised liberty now 
 guaranteed by the European concert awakened a 
 new life inside and around the long-desolated 
 shrines of their martyred forefathers. 
 
 The Turk, lynx-eyed as to the detection of any 
 movement of emancipation, and resolved to crush 
 it at the outset, soon took note of the new birth 
 of what we may name the party of Young 
 Armenia. 
 
134 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 This party was in earnest about reform, and 
 reform on such constitutional lines as were now 
 opened up by the Hatti Humayoun, and the 
 Paris Treaty, which, by placing it as the first of 
 its articles, gave it the emphatic sanction of the 
 Powers of Europe. The party, in striving to have 
 these reforms carried out, was acting on strictly 
 constitutional lines, and in a spirit of loyalty to 
 the Ottoman Government. Nothing is more 
 discreditable to the Turk than his hypocritical 
 attitude towards these revived aspirations of his 
 Armenian subjects. 
 
 While anxiously waiting for some indication of 
 the practical results of the treaty pledges, they 
 discovered that the Sultan under the sanction of 
 the treaty provision, was initiating his reforms 
 by an alleged necessary restriction of such limited 
 independence as had originated and been fostered 
 in the bosom of the mother-Church. 
 
 They not only had the courage to protest 
 against this insidious attack on their liberties, but 
 to insist on some personal share in the adminis¬ 
 tration of their affairs. 
 
 The Sultan, ‘ in his constant solicitude for the 
 welfare of his subjects/ on hearing a representation 
 of the grievances complained of, met the advances 
 of Young Armenia by the magnanimous offer of a 
 bran-new National Armenian Constitution (1862). 
 
 This paper constitution is a complicated piece 
 of radical legislation, made up of 150 provisions, 
 which, if really brought into operation, would 
 
Turkish Diplomacy 
 
 1 35 
 
 have converted Armenia into a political paradise. 
 We need not enumerate its lofty sentiments, its 
 educational and religious reforms, its profuse and 
 cordial encomiums of the Turkish ruler. Never 
 was there a more imposing catalogue of high- 
 sounding promises. 
 
 A full account of this wonderful Magna Charta 
 of Armenian freedom is given by M. G. Rolin 
 Jsequemyns, in his articles in the International 
 Law Review (1888-9), to which we refer the 
 reader. 
 
 Five years passed, and as no real advance had 
 been made to serious action, it was resolved by 
 the National Assembly, which had now a nominal 
 existence, to appoint a National Commission to 
 inquire into unredressed grievances and to suggest 
 remedies. This Commission was appointed in 
 1871, under the presidency of the Patriarch of 
 Constantinople. Almost the only good service 
 the Armenian Constitution had done was to pro¬ 
 vide a channel through which the Sultan might be 
 approached by the Armenians, with their legiti¬ 
 mate complaints and appeals for reform. These 
 cries of distress were now being heard from all 
 quarters, and even if they fell, as they did, on 
 deaf ears in the kiosk of the Sultan, there were 
 others prepared to listen. The Patriarch of Con¬ 
 stantinople drew up the first report of the National 
 Commission (with its black list of grievances of 
 oppression in taxation, forced conversions of 
 women and minors to Islamism, Turkish and 
 
136 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Kurdish outrages on women and children), sub¬ 
 mitted it to the Grand Vizier, Mahmoud-Nedim- 
 Pasha, in 1872, and again on several occasions to 
 his successors. 
 
 After four years’ hopeless waiting for a response, 
 a second report was submitted, calling attention 
 to new abuses. These arose from the brutal lust of 
 the Turkish officials, and the iniquitous proceed¬ 
 ings of the law-courts in which such cases were 
 tried, and where the decision invariably was on the 
 side of the Moslem and his accomplices. The 
 report enters into minute details of instances, as 
 the Sultan had declared that no attention could be 
 paid to general charges. The list of lands wrong¬ 
 fully appropriated by their spoilers from the 
 Armenians, with the names of the culprits, covers 
 ten pages of the report. 
 
 It would be impossible within our narrow 
 limits to analyze the contents of this terrible in¬ 
 dictment of Turkish misrule. During all these 
 outrages, it must be remembered that Moslem 
 Sacred Law forbids to the infidel the use of 
 arms even in self-defence, while it fully equips 
 every chance marauder who can be pressed into 
 the service of their oppression. Even to some oi 
 our English statesmen this policy has seemed 
 defensible. When the other Powers of Europe, 
 in the Berlin Memorandum, proposed to demand 
 the fulfilment of the Sultan’s treaty engagement 
 to permit the Christians the use of arms, Lord 
 Derby opposed them on the singular pretext that, 
 
Turkish Legislation 
 
 l 37 
 
 should the Christians be armed, ‘ a collision would 
 be inevitable’! When the other Powers pressed 
 his obligation on the Sultan, he, of course, had no 
 difficulty in evading his promise by securing a 
 decision from the Sheik-ul-Islam (the supreme 
 authority in the Sacred Law), in consultation 
 with the Ulema of Constantinople, that such a 
 concession was ultra vires even of the Sultan, who 
 cannot alter a single iota of the Sacred Law. In 
 short, the first obstacle to all Governmental reforms 
 in Turkey is just this Sacred Law. The Turkish 
 Government is a Moslem theocracy, and cannot 
 be altered in principle, being already a final ex¬ 
 pression of the will of Allah. The Koran, with 
 the traditions founded on it, rules supreme. Its 
 spirit is not only hostility, but the most degrading 
 bondage or death to the infidel. 
 
 Canon MacColl, in his ‘ England’s Respon¬ 
 sibility towards Armenia ’ (1895),* mentions four 
 outstanding grievances of this rule of Islam 
 or theocratic system, all of which mean untold 
 sorrow and humiliation to the Armenian, above 
 any other subject of Turkey. These grievances 
 are, the exclusion from rights of citizenship, the 
 rejection of Christian evidence in law-courts as 
 against a Mohammedan, the prohibition above 
 referred to, of arms to a Christian, and what 
 is known as the law of the Hospitality Tax. 
 
 * Every reader will endorse the judgment of the Duke 
 of Westminster on this pamphlet, that a more authoritative 
 or clearer demonstration of Turkish misrule could hardly be 
 drawn up. 
 
138 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 As regards the stringency of the law respecting 
 Christian evidence, the Rev. Dr. Wright, head of 
 the Irish Presbyterian Mission at Damascus, 
 says : ‘ I was present in the Supreme Court of 
 Justice at Damascus when the evidence of her 
 Britannic Majesty’s Consul was refused by the 
 judge, because he was a Christian, and the 
 evidence of his Moslem stable-boy taken instead.’ 
 
 Commenting on the Hospitality Tax, according 
 to which every Christian subject of the Sultan is 
 bound to provide three days’ gratuitous hospitality 
 for every Mohammedan traveller who chooses to 
 demand it, Canon MacColl gives the following 
 extract from a description of Mr. Nassau Senior 
 (i860). It is not so much a picture of any 
 scene of the periodically recurring massacres, as 
 of the everyday life of the Christian rayah under 
 the tyranny of this one sacred law of hospitality. 
 
 ‘ Besides the wholesale robbery of the great 
 Turks, there is,’ he says, ‘ the petty oppression of 
 the little Turks. One of them, with his belt full 
 of pistols, walks up to a rayah’s house. He calls 
 out the master, who perhaps is the headman of 
 the village, and bids him hold his horse. He 
 walks in, sits down, and makes the women light 
 his pipe. The girls all run away and hide in the 
 outhouses, or among the neighbours. When he 
 has finished his pipe, he asks for a fowl. He is 
 told there is none. A few blows bring one out; 
 a few more bread and wine. What is the source 
 of this insolence ? That he is armed, and that he 
 
Turkish Legislation 
 
 1 39 
 
 is the only person in the village who is. If the 
 rayahs were armed or the Turks were disarmed, 
 there would be none of this petty oppression.’ 
 
 These oppressions are not confined to this or 
 that province. The Central Government from time 
 to time issues an irade condemning glaring cases, 
 but little or any notice is taken or meant to be 
 taken by the provincial pasha. And so the 
 tragedy, treaty or no treaty, goes on, and Young 
 Armenia is destined to see its dream of a brighten¬ 
 ing future changing into a horrible nightmare. 
 
 As regards the cause of reform generally, not 
 only in Armenia, but throughout the Turkish 
 Empire, this was from the first enfeebled by the 
 omission from the Treaty of Paris of the substance 
 of the Hatti Humayoun, as a formal provision, 
 and the substitution in its place of the notifica¬ 
 tion of the good intentions of the Sultan, ‘ ema¬ 
 nating spontaneously from his own sovereign will. 
 This diplomatic phraseology was adopted on the 
 representation of the chief Turkish plenipoten¬ 
 tiary, Ali Pasha, as a necessary avowal to pre¬ 
 serve the dignity and to secure the success of the 
 reforming measures of the Sultan. Ali Pasha was 
 at that time Grand Vizier of Turkey, and amid 
 the many changes of the vizierate of the next fifteen 
 years of his life, his influence was thrown into the 
 scale of keeping up an appearance of reform, and 
 a reality of incessant parade of the independence 
 of the Sultan. 
 
 The European Powers, crediting, it would seem. 
 
140 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 the Turkish Government with a measure of good 
 faith, were content to be merely onlookers as the 
 terrible tragedy proceeded. 
 
 Meantime the successor of Ali Pasha, as the real 
 guide of Turkish policy—Mahmoud Nedim Pasha 
 (to whom we have already said the Patriarch of 
 Constantinople submitted the first report of the 
 Armenian Commission), threw off the too trans¬ 
 parent mask. He adopted the popular rallying 
 cry of 4 Turkey for the Turks/ and at the same 
 time the principle that Western measures of 
 reform were unfitted for the habits of an Oriental 
 empire. There was henceforth no pretence to 
 adapt Turkish administration to European notions 
 of justice and humanity. This stubborn attitude 
 made the reopening of the Eastern Question 
 merely a matter of time and a fitting opportunity. 
 
 The occasion was given (July, 1875) in the 
 insurrection of Herzegovina. The chief grievance 
 was over-taxation and oppression, in defiance of 
 the Hatti Humayoun. The revolt was one of 
 those occurrences in the history of an oppressed 
 people which prove so disastrous in failure, yet 
 when successful raise their instigators to the rank 
 of heroes and patriots. This movement led the 
 European Powers at last to take some overt 
 united action, and the presentation of the An- 
 drassy note—demanding certain reforms in Bosnia 
 and Herzegovina — was the practical outcome. 
 The astute Nedim Pasha tried the proverbial ten 
 tricks of the fox to avert the issue, but only with 
 
Situation before Treaty of San Stefano 141 
 
 reynard’s proverbial success. A new Constitution 
 was proclaimed, 1876, exceeding in its radical 
 character anything contemplated by the guaran¬ 
 teeing Powers. But Europe had enough of 
 Turkish constitutions. 
 
 Such was the position of affairs when Russia 
 again interposed, and offered to secure, by force 
 of arms, the due performance by the Sultan of 
 his treaty obligations. The Bulgarian massacres 
 were by this time arresting the attention of 
 Europe, France had been crippled by the Franco- 
 German War, Germany and Austria were in 
 alliance with the Czar, Italy was also friendly, 
 even England was lukewarm—all, in short, were 
 prepared to stand aside and give Russia, so far, a 
 free hand in the settlement of the now reopened 
 question. 
 
 We cannot give details of the Turco-Russian 
 war which followed, the brave endurance of 
 General Gourko and his forces, the desperate 
 resistance of Osman Pasha, until, by the fall of 
 Plevna, the struggle was virtually ended. 
 
 The Turkish Government had taken no notice 
 of any of its defeats in the official press, and 
 had considerable difficulty in climbing down so 
 far as to give any indication of a desire for 
 peace. 
 
 But the victorious Russian army was pressing 
 on to San Stefano, only six miles from Constan¬ 
 tinople, and the serious nature of the position 
 could no longer be dissembled. One sure pre- 
 
H 2 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 cursor of the commencement of pacific negotia¬ 
 tions was noted in the change of tone of reference 
 to Russia. 
 
 The official press saw fit to warn the people 
 not to speak of Russia as the Bear of the North, 
 as such language was disrespectful, and contrary 
 to the rules of courtesy in vogue among civilized 
 nations. 
 
 The war was finally concluded under the shadow 
 of Constantinople by the Treaty of San Stefano 
 (March, 1878). 
 
 At the date of the Treaty of San Stefano, 
 Russia was occupying, by right of conquest, a 
 portion of Turkish Armenia. She had taken 
 possession of Kars and Erzeroum. Not only 
 had a number of Armenian officers, subjects of 
 Russia, fought bravely in the ranks, but the 
 Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Army of Asia 
 was an Armenian, Loris Melikoffi 
 
 We are therefore prepared to learn that to this 
 treaty belongs the distinction of being the first to 
 mention the name of Armenia. 
 
 The protocol and agreement for an armistice, 
 signed at Adrianople immediately previous to the 
 San Stefano Treaty, makes no mention of the 
 Armenians. But the energetic patriarch, Nerces, 
 got the omission rectified. 
 
 In the San Stefano Treaty two facts were 
 recognised—the necessity of local reforms and of 
 the safe-guarding of the Armenians from the out¬ 
 breaks of the Kurds and Circassians. The treaty 
 
Cyprus Convention and Berlin Treaty 143 
 
 was a Turco-Russian agreement, and its sixteenth 
 Article, forming the basis of the sixty-first Article 
 of the Berlin Treaty, ran thus : 
 
 * As the evacuation by the Russian troops of 
 the territory which they occupy in Armenia, and 
 which is to be restored to Turkey, might give rise 
 to conflicts and complications detrimental to the 
 maintenance of good relations between the two 
 countries, the Sublime Porte engages to carry into 
 effect, without further delay, the improvements 
 and reforms demanded by local requirements in 
 the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to 
 guarantee their security from Kurds and Circas¬ 
 sians.’ 
 
 Nowhere did the terms of the Treaty of 
 San Stefano arouse more jealousy than in this 
 country. The Treaty had been, it was said, in 
 a memorandum issued by the Porte, extorted 
 from Turkey by the ‘permanent pressure’ of 
 Russia. 
 
 It was - argued that it was opposed to the 
 governing principle of the Treaty of Paris, which 
 placed the affairs of Turkey under European and 
 not any individual supervision. 
 
 Then followed much talk of British interests 
 and British influence, the dispatch of the 
 fleet to Besika Bay, and preparations for the 
 coming conflict if we did not get our own 
 way. 
 
 In these circumstances the final arrangements 
 for the Berlin Congress were carried through, 
 
144 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 and Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury were 
 sent as our plenipotentiaries to the Congress. 
 By a memorandum previously drawn up and 
 signed at London (May, 1878) by the Marquis 
 of Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff, it had been 
 agreed that : ‘ The promises respecting Armenia 
 stipulated in the preliminary Treaty of San 
 Stefano must not be made exclusively to Russia, 
 but to England also.’ 
 
 The task of the Berlin Congress was therefore 
 thus described by its President, Prince Bismarck: 
 
 4 It is for the purpose of submitting the work of 
 San Stefano to the signatory Powers of the 
 treaties of 1856 and 1871 for free discussion that 
 we have met.’ 
 
 The Congress was, however, accompanied by 
 a transaction of another kind which it required 
 all the resources of the Jingoes of the day to 
 explain, and even plausibly defend. This was 
 the private treaty between England and Turkey, 
 known as the Anglo-Turkish or Cyprus Conven¬ 
 tion. Its first Article runs thus: ‘ His Imperial 
 Majesty, the Sultan, promises to England to 
 introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon 
 later between the two Powers, into the govern¬ 
 ment and for the protection of the Christian and 
 other subjects of the Porte in these territories 
 [Armenia]; and in order to enable England to 
 make necessary provision for executing her 
 engagement [the keeping of Russia out of 
 Armenia], His Imperial Majesty, the Sultan, 
 
Cyprus Convention and Berlin Treaty 145 
 
 further consents to assign the Island of Cyprus 
 to be occupied and administered by England.’* 
 
 In July, 1878, on the motion of Lord Salisbury, 
 the Congress adopted, in lieu of Article XVI. of 
 the Treaty of San Stefano, the famous sixty-first 
 Article of the Berlin Treaty. As thus remodelled, 
 Russia was compelled to evacuate Armenia, and 
 the Russian was exchanged for a European pro¬ 
 tectorate. A clause was introduced by which it 
 
 * ‘The Anglo-Turkish Convention was in itself a gross 
 and manifest breach of the public law of Europe. Because 
 by the Treaty of Paris, the result of the Crimean War, it 
 was solemnly enacted that everything that pertained to the 
 integrity and independence of Turkey and to the relations 
 between the Sultan and his subjects was matter not for the 
 cognisance of one particular Power, but for the joint cogni¬ 
 sance of the Great Powers of Europe. And what did we do 
 in 1878 ? When the Russian War with Turkey came to a 
 close we held Turkey rigidly to that principle. We insisted 
 that the treaty she had made should be subject to the review 
 of Europe, and that Europe should be entitled to a final 
 judgment on these matters which fell within the scope of 
 the Treaty of Paris. We did that, and we even wasted 
 ^6,000,000 in warlike preparations for giving effect to that 
 declaration. We then brought together at Berlin, or assisted 
 to bring together at Berlin, the Powers of Europe, for the 
 purpose of exercising this supreme jurisdiction ; and while 
 they were there, while they were at work, and without the 
 knowledge of any one of them except Turkey, we extorted 
 from the Sultan of Turkey—I am afraid by threatening 
 him with abandoning the advocacy of his cause before the 
 Congress—we extorted from the Sultan of Turkey the Anglo- 
 Turkish Convention. But the Anglo-Turkish Convention 
 was a convention which aimed at giving us power, in the 
 teeth of the Treaty of Paris, between the Sultan and his 
 subjects ; and it was a convention which virtually severed 
 from his empire the possession of the island of Cyprus. 
 It interfered with'the integrity, it interfered with the in¬ 
 dependence. It broke the Treaty of Paris, and the Treaty 
 of Paris was the public law of Europe. 5 — Gladstone, 
 Glasgow , December i, 1879. 
 
 10 
 
146 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 was stipulated that Turkey will make known 
 periodically the steps taken to carry out the re¬ 
 forms to the Powers, who will superintend their 
 application. 
 
 The sixty-second Article of the treaty guaran¬ 
 tees the largest possible measure of. religious 
 reform to all the Christian subjects of the Porte, 
 including, of course, the Armenians. 
 
 A deputation of Armenians had attended the 
 Congress, and expressed their views regarding the 
 prospective reforms. They were at one in their 
 joy over the advance that seemed to be made. 
 Again the old men began to see visions and the 
 young men to dream dreams. 
 
 The strategy and success of the plenipoten¬ 
 tiaries of England at the Berlin Congress had 
 been blazoned abroad before it was well known 
 what had actually been done. 
 
 We hear now not a little of the apotheosis of 
 Russia. In those halcyon times the apotheosis 
 of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury was 
 the order of the day.* 
 
 The return of the diplomatists from Berlin was 
 a red-letter day in the history of our country. 
 A holiday crowd tumultuously cheered them on 
 
 * This was popularly expressed in one of the ballads of 
 the day, thus : 
 
 ‘ Ho, such a noise, for the Jingo boys 
 Are shouting about like mad. 
 
 Great Beaconsfield has made Europe yield 
 To his every word and fad !’ 
 
Peace with Honour 
 
 H7 
 
 their arrival at Dover. The ovation was con¬ 
 tinued along the route from Dover to Downing 
 Street, and Lord Beaconsfield was saluted, in 
 anticipation of new honours, as Duke of Cyprus. 
 
 The scene at Downing Street was dramatic 
 in no ordinary degree. It was enlivened and 
 rendered memorable by the closing performance 
 of the two grand actors. 
 
 In response to a call from the jubilant crowd 
 for a speech, Lord Beaconsfield stepped forward 
 and said : ‘ Lord Salisbury and myself have 
 brought you back Peace, but a Peace, I hope, 
 with Honour, which may satisfy our Sovereign, 
 and tend to the welfare of the country.’ Lord 
 Salisbury, who 4 had pulled the labouring oar’ 
 at the Congress, spoke in a similar buoyant 
 strain, and was confident the British nation 
 ‘ would always support a Government which sup¬ 
 ports the honour of England.’ 
 
 Among the other trophies of this great diplo¬ 
 matic victory, the Cyprus White Elephant was 
 frequently exhibited to admiring multitudes, and 
 much applauded. Its suicidal tendency towards 
 eating off its own head had not then been so 
 generally suspected as to damp the popular 
 enthusiasm in the acquisition of this new prodigy. 
 
 We may now, ere we leave our subject, take a 
 parting glance at the region we have traversed 
 far too hurriedly to mark more than a few points 
 of outstanding prominence. We have seen the 
 Powers of Europe—in the dark hour of Young 
 
148 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 __ - _ ' -- —■ - 
 
 Armenia’s distress at the failure of internal reform 
 on the basis of the Constitution of the Sultan 
 come forward to her aid. Their first service is 
 to steady the decrepit tyrant on his tottering 
 throne, and to put new strength into his palsied 
 hand, as well as a rod of iron by which he might 
 dash in pieces his enemies. They then extort 
 from him promises of reform, all the time pro¬ 
 testing they do not mean to interfere with his 
 internal affairs. He, on the other hand, is ready 
 to throw himself into their arms, and of his own 
 spontaneous motion to convert his dominions 
 into an ideal Mohammedan paradise. The winter 
 of discontent is now about to end for Armenia. 
 Her previous sufferings seem at last to have 
 purchased a long immunity from sorrow. But 
 the delusion has begun to dispel. The Sultan 
 was only in sport, playing a familiar and favourite 
 game with the infidel. 
 
 But the hour has come for a new departure. 
 The voice of war has been heard threatening 
 from a quarter where the thunder was never wont 
 to be mere stage thunder. The Sultan is once 
 more upon his knees to the higher power. He 
 is profuse in vows and prayers. Yet all would 
 have been of little avail had not Europe come for¬ 
 ward in what she deemed her own best interests 
 —to save him, or at least give him a respite, from 
 the impending doom. Foremost among those 
 powers as accepting responsibility—and depriving 
 Armenia of the proffered services of Russia— 
 
Summary 149 
 
 ranks our own British Empire. Henceforth more 
 stringent conditions are imposed on the reforming 
 Turk, and more ample guarantees are accepted 
 for their fulfilment. We need not wonder that 
 many were confident that a new era had at last 
 dawned, and that the tragedy of Turkish misrule 
 was drawing near its close. 
 
 The net outcome of that historical gathering 
 at Berlin—as we were told by one of the most 
 prominent members of the Congress, a master of 
 epigrammatic phrase—was ‘ Peace with Honour.’ 
 Never assuredly was a political forecast more 
 ignominiously discredited by the sober truth of 
 history. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Position of Armenia after the Treaty of Berlin—Bright 
 prospects — Turkish reforms — Attitude of European 
 Concert—Consular reports—Comments of British Press 
 — Hamidieh Cavalry—Sassoun massacres, 1894—New 
 reforms. 
 
 A T the close of the sittings of the Berlin 
 Congress Turkey was subjected to a 
 European Protectorate, which undertook 
 the grave responsibility of outlining and super¬ 
 vising certain reforms in the Ottoman Empire, 
 and above all in Armenia. 
 
 The Armenians were not mentioned in the 
 protocol of Adrianople, nor even in the Treaty of 
 San Stefano, until the omission, in the latter, was 
 supplied at the eleventh hour by the heroic inter¬ 
 position of their Patriarch Nerses. They were 
 included by name in the Treaty of Berlin, in the 
 61st Article, drawn up by Lord Salisbury, and 
 emphasis was laid upon their case in the terms of 
 the Cyprus Convention. And now, not only 
 youthful patriots, speaking through their mouth¬ 
 piece Nerses, but also aged and venerable 
 European statesmen began to indulge the vision 
 of a regenerated Armenia. The scattered families 
 of Haik were to reassemble around their long- 
 
Bright Prospects 
 
 I 5 I 
 
 desolated firesides, and to restore the ruined 
 sanctuaries of the God of their fathers. Industry 
 and Commerce were again to lift up their heads. 
 Expeditions were to be furnished forth more 
 wondrous than that of Jason in search of the 
 golden fleece, and England was to act the part of 
 Medea. 
 
 It was hardly to be expected that Russia would 
 be so enthusiastic about the new order of things. 
 Her attitude might be expressed in the words 
 recently used by Prince Lobanoff to Sir F. 
 Lascelles that ‘ her direct interests on the frontier 
 forbade her to indulge in the philanthropic dreams 
 which seemed to prevail in England, whose 
 interests, on account of her insular position and 
 distance from the Armenian districts, were not 
 directly affected.’ 
 
 Meantime, two things had become quite clear. 
 New and weighty obligations had been under¬ 
 taken by the European Powers in the engage¬ 
 ments of the Treaty of Berlin, and by England 
 in particular through her sacrifice of blood and 
 treasure along with France in the Crimean War 
 and the Cyprus Convention. These engagements, 
 to begin with, were avowed and gloried in as 
 triumphs of diplomacy by their chief author, 
 Lord Salisbury. But for long it has become the 
 fashion to ignore or disown them. On June 28, 
 1889, Lord Salisbury, in the House of Lords, 
 repudiated special responsibility. 4 England,’ he 
 said, ‘ is not the protector of Turkey, and cannot 
 
!5 2 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 exercise the rights of guardianship over her.’ 
 Quite recently, in his speech at the Hotel 
 Metropole, he declared, referring to the 6ist 
 Article of the Treaty of Berlin, and ignoring the 
 Cyprus Convention, that in it ‘ the six Powers 
 agree not to any outside person , but to each other, 
 that if the Sultan promulgates certain reforms, 
 they will watch over the execution of them.’ For 
 the improbable contingency of the conversion 
 of the Sultan, and of his government along 
 with him, Lord Salisbury, it thus appears, 
 sets aside the proffered services of the only 
 Christian power prepared to take forcible and 
 immediate measures to ensure these reforms. 
 
 The reforms were : protection of life and pro¬ 
 perty, deliverance from an iniquitous system of 
 over taxation and civil disabilities, from personal 
 dishonour and from the evils of a despotism 
 modelled on the worst types of Moslem tyranny. 
 Did either Lord Salisbury, or any of the other 
 signatories of the Treaty, expect these reforms 
 from the Turk, whose independent action they so 
 jealously guarded from outside interference ? If 
 so, then—as we have already said—never was 
 political forecast more completely discredited by 
 the experience of the past, which they knew so 
 well, and in due time by the history of the future. 
 The disavowal of responsibility by Lord Salis¬ 
 bury for the carrying out of these reforms, must 
 be considered in the light of the actual provisions 
 of Treaty engagements, the raison d'etre of our 
 
 
Turkish Reforms 
 
 x 53 
 
 occupation of Cyprus, and in the light of the 
 record of British diplomacy at Constantinople, 
 particularly as revealed in the authoritative state¬ 
 ments of the Blue Books as far as these are 
 available. We will glance at this record cursorily, 
 keeping in view in particular the inquiries and 
 results of Mr. M. G. Rolin-Jaequemyns, in his 
 * Armenia, the Armenians and the Treaties,’ so 
 far as the authoritative sources are available, i.e., 
 from 1879 to 1881, and then over a long period of 
 official silence reluctantly broken by some com¬ 
 paratively brief utterances in 1889-90. We shall 
 from this point refer mainly to the statements 
 recently presented to both Houses of Parliament 
 in the Blue Books relating to Turkey, 1896. 
 These volumes contain correspondence respecting 
 the Introduction of Reforms in the Armenian 
 Provinces of Asiatic Turkey, correspondence 
 relative to the Armenian Question and Reports 
 from her Majesty’s Consular Officers in Asiatic 
 Turkey, and correspondence relating to the Asiatic 
 Provinces of Turkey. 
 
 No satisfactory explanation has been given of 
 the withholding of consular reports between 
 1881-89. Mr. Gladstone, in a speech in the 
 House of Commons, May 28, 1889, speaks of it 
 as the adoption, or liable to be confounded with, 
 
 ‘ the adoption of the principle of eternal silence 
 about the horrors that prevail in Armenia.’ 
 
 Our cursory review will embrace three periods : 
 (1) 1878-81, (2) 1881-89, (3) 1889—onwards. 
 
154 
 
 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 As to the first period (1878-81). This is a brief 
 season of initial efforts at reformation. The con¬ 
 sular reports were furnished from Eastern Turkey 
 by such highly competent authorities as Captains 
 Trotter and Everett (Erzeroum), Clayton (Mush), 
 Messrs. Wilson (Anatolia) and Chermside (Sivas), 
 etc. 
 
 Let us endeavour to get a bird’s-eye view of 
 Armenia during these three years, when it was 
 just entering the political paradise whose prospec¬ 
 tive delights were inflaming the imagination of our 
 Western statesmen. 
 
 The Russo-Turkish war practically ceased with 
 the armistice, January 31, 1878. Towards the 
 close of that year (December 21) Captain Trotter 
 reports that the present condition of Christians 
 throughout the district (except Diarbekir) is 
 * worse than it has been at any period during the 
 past several years.’* 
 
 In the provinces the rulers are of three grades : 
 the highest the vali (governor-general of vilayet 
 province), next the mutessarif (prefect of sandjak 
 districts), and, lowest, the kaimakam and mudir 
 (sub-prefects and mayors of casas, sub-districts, and 
 native parishes). These rulers are often changed, 
 and get their appointments by bribery, and hence 
 they are tempted to recoup themselves from the 
 people as best they may, and so they, along with 
 the ill-paid or unpaid soldier and zaptieh, are the 
 official robbers of the provinces. 
 
 * Blue Book, Turkey, No. 10 (1879), p. 8. 
 
Turkish Reforms 
 
 J 55 
 
 On complaints of their depredations and out¬ 
 rages being made by the consuls to Lord Salis¬ 
 bury, and instructions requested as to how far the 
 consul was warranted to press reforms, Lord 
 Salisbury replies, May 21, 1879, referring to treaty 
 obligations: ‘ The Sultan is bound not only to 
 promulgate new and better laws, but to actually 
 introduce reforms.’* The Porte is again and again 
 warned by the British ambassador that if he do 
 not initiate reforms, he will create another Bul¬ 
 garia in Asiatic Turkey, and this the moderate 
 Armenians do not desire. They only demand 
 protection to life and honour, and equal rights 
 with the Mussulmans. The grand vizier pleads in 
 excuse for inaction in reform the want of money. 
 
 In Western Turkey (Armenia Minor), and even 
 within a short distance of Constantinople, things 
 were as bad, or even worse, than farther east. 
 Here the plague of the Circassian refugees was 
 acting as a visitation of locusts, and one en¬ 
 couraged by the Sultan. The new region, the 
 creation of the genius mainly of English statesmen, 
 was turning out to be, not the Paradiso of their 
 dreams, but a veritable Inferno. The truth is, there 
 was another dreamer of dreams in the Yildiz kiosk. 
 Sultan Abdul Hamid, himself on the mother’s side 
 an Armenian, and combining the worst qualities 
 of the Armenian and Moslem, was a true Oriental 
 visionary. When Turkey could no longer hold 
 out against Russia, there was a salve for the 
 * Blue Book, Turkey, No. 10 (1879), P- 76. 
 
156 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 wounded national pride in a dream of the pious 
 Sultan. He saw the Prophet in a vision of the 
 night, and was told by him that enough Russians 
 had been killed. Abdul Hamid also saw a vision 
 of himself as an ideal Moslem despot and patron 
 saint of Islam. The character and ideals of 
 Abdul Hamid enter as an important factor into 
 the working-out of the entire problem known as 
 the Eastern Question. 
 
 What, then, is the normal aspect of the Turkish 
 regime, as we may trace it in its influence on the 
 national life of Turkey so ruled, and as it still 
 continues to exist ? This bears on finance, justice, 
 police, and central and local government. Mr. 
 Rolin-Jsequemyns conclusively proves that all 
 these departments are radically corrupt. There 
 is no end to oppressive taxation, abuses of the 
 law of the hospitality tax, and no account of mal¬ 
 treatment of non-Moslems will ever be taken as 
 long as the valis are able to honour the havales, or 
 money-orders, of the Sultan. The mal-administra- 
 tion of justice arises partly from the evils inherent 
 in the legal system, especially of the Sheriat 
 Courts, but chiefly from the low character of its 
 administrators. ‘The first consideration of the 
 administrator of justice,’ says Mr. Everett, ‘is 
 the amount of money that can be extorted from 
 an individual, and the second is his creed ; for it 
 is an established principle, which in fact guides 
 the conduct of a court throughout a trial, that a 
 favourable decision shall be given to him who will 
 
Consular Reports 
 
 I 57 
 
 pay the most for it, some abatement being allowed 
 under certain circumstances to a Mohammedan 
 when engaged in a suit with a Christian.’* As 
 to the condition of the police and gendarmerie, no 
 improvements were made. ‘ The old system with 
 all its abuses obtains’t (Chermside). Mr. Everett 
 thus describes this old system : ‘ Firstly, there are 
 not sufficient police ; secondly, there are no good 
 officers; and, thirdly, there is collusion between 
 the local authorities and the robbers.’! We will 
 not comment on the evils of either central or 
 local administration farther than to say that the 
 whole system is an organized hypocrisy, wearing 
 the garb and, so far as possible, using the 
 phraseology of the civilization of the nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 But had the European concert really done 
 nothing during this period to promote reform ? 
 Had England made no effort to redeem her 
 pledges ? In 1879 a British squadron was 
 ordered to. the Archipelago to enforce the stipu¬ 
 lated reforms. The Sultan took alarm and pro¬ 
 mised everything. In June, 1880, an identical 
 note (and again in September of the same year, a 
 collective note of the Powers) demanded the 
 execution of the stipulations, declaring that ‘ the 
 interest of Europe as well as of the Ottoman 
 Empire requires the observance of the sixty-first 
 
 * Blue Book, Turkey, No. 8 (1881), p. 109. 
 
 f Ibid., No. 6 (1881), p. 91. 
 
 J Ibid., p. 186. 
 
158 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Article of the Treaty of Berlin, and that the joint 
 and incessant action of the Powers can alone bring 
 about this result.’ The Sultan replied to this 
 appeal renewing his former pledges, and hinting 
 that his government was the unfortunate subject 
 of persistent prejudice and calumny. In 1881 
 Earl Granville made an effort to induce the 
 Powers to unite in a further remonstrance, but 
 without success. Both France and Germany 
 saw ‘ serious inconvenience ’ in raising the Arme¬ 
 nian question. The effect of this attitude was to 
 postpone indefinitely all collective action of the 
 Powers on behalf of Armenia. 
 
 The period 1881-89 is one of diplomatic silence. 
 The conversion of the Sultan has not proved so 
 easy a matter as was supposed, and the pressure 
 upon him of the signatories of the Treaty of 
 Berlin is relaxed. Things are allowed to drift. 
 Bismark, as we have seen, deemed it well to let 
 the Armenian question rest for a time, and France 
 acquiesced. Russia professed to be full of devo¬ 
 tion to the cause of the liberties of the Armenians, 
 but could not forget the Turkish Convention, and 
 the foolish jubilations to which it gave rise in 
 England. 
 
 The concert of Europe—crossed as it was by 
 this isolated action on the part of England— 
 instead of prosecuting reforms in Armenia, busied 
 itself in carrying out the twenty-fourth Article of 
 the Treaty regarding the rectification of the 
 frontier between Greece and Montenegro. 
 
Consular Reports 
 
 1 59 
 
 The temper of Turkish rule in Asia Minor 
 during this period, no doubt fostered by the in¬ 
 action of the Powers, is illustrated by such 
 examples as the assassination by a band of Kurds 
 of two inoffensive American citizens, Messrs. 
 Knapp and Reynolds (1883), while travelling 
 through the eastern districts. The ambassador 
 of the United States met with insulting treatment 
 on his visit to the grand vizier anent this outrage. 
 The Turkish government neither acknowledged 
 communications from the American Government, 
 nor took any notice of the indemnity demanded 
 for the murderous assault. 
 
 During this season of their dumb sorrows the 
 Armenians suffered more than before the treaty 
 from the ravages of Turks, Kurds and Circassians, 
 from repression of all liberty of thought and action, 
 and the deprivation of the most elementary rights 
 of citizenship. We shall not further seek at this 
 stage to withdraw the veil which the tender 
 mercies of our government cast over the horror- 
 stricken countenances of the Armenians as they 
 gradually awoke to the discovery of the betrayal 
 of their hopes and aspirations. 
 
 But the diplomatic narrative is resumed in the 
 third and last period of our brief review. A 
 very cursory glance over the pages of the Blue 
 Books of 1895-96 will enable us to trace the main 
 current of events, and the general character of 
 the correspondence between this country and the 
 chief parties concerned in the interests of Armenia. 
 
160 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 The Armenians, it is evident, were systemati¬ 
 cally oppressed and degraded. Their patient 
 endurance of wrong is one of their most striking 
 characteristics. What the Turk stigmatized as 
 rebellion was nothing else than a protest against 
 intolerable tyranny. The simple expression of 
 dissatisfaction in any form with the imperial 
 modes of oppression was insurrection. * I believe,’ 
 says Mr. Clifford Lloyd, consul at Erzeroum 
 (October 2, 1890), ‘ that the idea of revolution is 
 not entertained by any class of the Armenian 
 people in these provinces, whatever may be the 
 aims of those outside them. An armed revolution 
 is, besides, impossible/ The official reports from 
 consul and ambassador bear ample witness to the 
 fictitious crimes charged upon the Armenians, 
 and the appalling numbers of wanton arrests on 
 groundless suspicion, or pretext of suspicion. 
 Sometimes, under a burning sense of ‘ the inex¬ 
 piable wrong, the unutterable shame,’ or other 
 fiendish outrage for which there was no redress, 
 an avenger appeared who did exact the penalty 
 of the crime without the formalities of Ottoman 
 law, and this was, of course, entirely unconstitu¬ 
 tional. 
 
 In reference to the arrest of a large number of 
 Armenian suspects—over three-score—about the 
 Narman district for the murder of four Turkish 
 brigands, Consul Hampson says : ‘ It appears to 
 me indisputable that the origin of all this trouble 
 is the neglect of the local government to secure 
 
Comments of British Press 
 
 161 
 
 the proper punishment of the murderers of the 
 three Armenians last year.’* 
 
 Only less obnoxious to the Sultan than these 
 Armenian rebellions were the frank utterances of 
 the English Press. To that Briarean monster 
 the same drastic treatment could not, of course, 
 be applied, as would have been the case had his 
 headquarters been in Constantinople. The Daily 
 News , it seems, had been grossly exaggerating the 
 number of political prisoners in Erzeroum, Van, 
 and Mush. The veracious Turkish officials could 
 only be brought to own over one half of the 
 number of the 700 alleged political suspects or 
 others charged with political crimes, in prison.t 
 Side by side with Abdul Hamid’s denunciations 
 of the British Press came the decoration of 
 Zekki Pasha, his chief agent in the Sassoun 
 massacres, and the silk banners with which he 
 rewarded the zeal of the Kurdish chiefs. 
 
 Just as the Valis of Eastern Asiatic Turkey are 
 reporting, after a tour of inspection of their 
 provinces, that all is tranquil, the military reserves 
 
 * Blue Book, No. 3 (1896), p. 3. 
 
 t Blue Book, No. 2 (1896), p. 57. The following extract 
 from a report by the Hon. R. Lister on the prisons of Con¬ 
 stantinople (October 17, 1895), clearly proves how utterly 
 worthless are the statements of Turkish officials on such 
 matters. ‘ His excellency (the Turkish minister of police), 
 stated that only 170 Armenians had been arrested, but this 
 is palpably untrue, as I myself saw 299.’ Mr. Lister’s report 
 relates to an official inspection of the prisons of Constanti¬ 
 nople immediately after the disturbances there, and he is 
 specially thanked for it by Lord Salisbury. 
 
 II 
 
162 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 are being mysteriously mobilized. There are con¬ 
 jectures as to the meaning of this. In Western 
 Turkey (Armenia Minor), the Bishop of Zeitoun 
 and his fellow suspects, after an imprisonment 
 of sixteen months, are undergoing their mock 
 trial. 
 
 The reforming Turk is manifestly not idle. 
 Meantime, Lord Salisbury writes as follows to the 
 new ambassador at Constantinople—Sir Clare 
 Ford—March 17, 1892 : ‘ I think it desirable, on 
 the occasion of your assumption of the duties of 
 Her Majesty’s Ambassador to the Sultan, to invite 
 your excellency’s attention to the question of the 
 condition of the Asiatic provinces of Turkey, and 
 to the correspondence on the subject which is in 
 the Embassy archives. Owing to the difficulty of 
 securing any concerted action in the matter by 
 the Powers parties to the Treaty of Berlin, Her 
 Majesty’s Government have of late years desisted 
 from urging upon the Porte the introduction of 
 general reforms in fulfilment of its obligations under 
 Article LXI. of that Treaty , and have confined 
 themselves to bringing to the notice of the Sultan’s 
 ministers the most prominent instances of mis- 
 government and outrage which have been reported 
 by her Majesty’s consular officers. Her Majesty’s 
 Government would wish your Excellency to con¬ 
 tinue to act on these lines.’* 
 
 The scheme of the creation of the military 
 Militia—now notorious as the Hamidieh Cavalry 
 * Blue Book, No. 3 (1896), p. 8. Ibid.> pp. 24, 34. 
 
Hamidieh Cavalry 
 
 163 
 
 —had been launched in the previous year. ‘ The 
 initiative of this happy idea/ says the official an¬ 
 nouncement, * and the great success which will 
 certainly crown its execution, are due to the 
 wisdom and foresight of his Imperial Majesty the 
 Sultan.’ 
 
 The Kurdish chiefs indulged in some preliminary 
 massacres among their own tribes, arising from 
 disputes about precedency, and by way of pre¬ 
 paration for their grand mission. That mission 
 was to see that no evil consequences resulted 
 from the Turkish reforms, and, in brief, to sub¬ 
 stitute as quickly as possible a Kurdish for an 
 Armenian population on the borders of Russia 
 and Persia. 
 
 These, in the case of a Cossack invasion, would 
 be likely to form a more reliable barrier than the 
 evil - affected infidel. By the middle of 1892, 
 Zekki Pasha (the Marshal of the 4th Army Corps) 
 is busy organizing, enrolling and presenting 
 colours to the Hamidieh regiments. The consul 
 at Diarbekir states that the Marshal had a bril¬ 
 liant reception, and that 1 the Hamidieh regiments 
 in their new uniform looked very smart and soldier¬ 
 like, and their behaviour during their stay here 
 was every way orderly.’ 
 
 Zekki Pasha is able to announce at Van (in 
 June) that full forty regiments of Kurds had been 
 formed, which would give a body of some 20,000 
 cavalry. A detailed description of this brigand 
 militia is given by Colonel Chermside in his re- 
 
164 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 port to the British Ambassador, December 15, 
 1892. 
 
 In vain did the Armenians of Mush and other 
 districts, discerning too well the meaning of these 
 movements, appeal for timely protection. The 
 policy of non-interference, in which Lord Salis¬ 
 bury had been indoctrinating the representatives 
 of our government, was absolutely fatal to all such 
 appeals. As a matter of fact, the outcry of alarm 
 was unheeded. 
 
 The Turk did indeed confess that things were 
 unsettled, but he was doing his best to remedy all 
 grievances. When his attention was drawn to 
 the ill-treatment, by his creatures, of the English 
 traveller, Rev. C. H. Robinson—who could not 
 help being an eye-witness of Moslem outrages, 
 and whose testimony there was good reason to 
 dread—his Majesty could not believe his ears, 
 that his people would show any other feeling than 
 true Moslem respect to ‘ that great and friendly 
 nation.’ 
 
 The year 1893 is a period of revolutionary 
 scares in the Turkish Empire. For such a time 
 the Hamidieh were called into existence, and it 
 must come. Early in the year seditious placards 
 were displayed in Marsovan, Amassia, Tokat, 
 Angora, Diarbekir, and elsewhere. 
 
 The Turkish Government suspected the Arme¬ 
 nians as the authors. Then followed a tragedy 
 of oppression of an innocent people, to discover 
 among them the evidence of disaffection to the 
 
Seditious Placards 165 
 
 government. The houses of the people were 
 ransacked, their inmates outraged, and wholesale 
 arrests were made on suspicion. Marsovan and 
 the neighbouring districts were regarded as the 
 chief centres of the insurrection. The Turkish 
 leader set fire, it was supposed, to the American 
 college at Marsovan, and then charged the mis¬ 
 sionaries as being the incendiaries. 
 
 The placards—the main cause of these atroci¬ 
 ties— emanated, it was believed, by those best 
 qualified to form a judgment, not from the Arme¬ 
 nians, but from the Moslems themselves. 
 
 The Armenians were, no doubt, in course of 
 time implicated, and perhaps used as tools in the 
 movement. They were instigated and misled, 
 so far as they could be induced to adopt question¬ 
 able methods, by foreign influence from Armenian 
 committees in Athens, Geneva, Marseilles, Paris, 
 and London. 
 
 The truth was, there were two revolutions of 
 somewhat different complexions in progress in 
 Turkey—the one Moslem, the other Armenian. 
 The leaders of the former, i.e., the Softas (theo¬ 
 logical students) recently expelled from Constanti¬ 
 nople, and now scattered through the provinces, 
 were probably the authors of the seditious 
 placards which led to the arrest of some 1,800 
 Armenian suspects, and to what Lord Rosebery 
 designates as the cruel farce of the Angora trials. 
 
 ‘ It is more than probable,’ writes Consul 
 Longworth, 4 that with some kind of Armenian 
 
166 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 association a Moslem secret society exists, or 
 perhaps co-operates.’* 
 
 The Armenian rebellion, we doubt not, when 
 the drama has been played out, will yet be re¬ 
 garded as a noble movement of the ancient 
 national spirit—not always, indeed, wisely guided 
 as to its methods—towards that freedom for which 
 our own Empire had at one time to struggle 
 through prisons and inquisitions and star-cham¬ 
 bers, amid the gruesome orgies of the scaffold 
 and the stake. But these are rather high-flown 
 sentiments, for, after all, what right have these 
 dogs of Nazarenes to move their tongues against 
 the immaculate Moslem ? Why should they not 
 suffer in silence—die, and make no sign ? Alas ! 
 the tragedy of the year 1894 makes it only too 
 plain that this is what thousands of this unhappy 
 people have done, and are still doing ! 
 
 In 1894 took place the massacres of Sassoun, 
 when, under the command of Zekki Pasha, the 
 Turkish soldiers, along with their Hamidieh con- 
 
 * Blue Book, No. 3 (1896), p. 121. The following para¬ 
 graph appeared recently in the newspapers: The Press 
 Association says : ‘ An appeal to European nations has 
 been issued by the Turkish Reform League, in which a 
 plan of campaign is outlined for the deposition of the Sultan. 
 Having appealed to Germany and England in turn, the 
 reformers implore Europe for aid, even if it should result in 
 breaking up the Ottoman Empire. The only means, they 
 declare, of releasing the Empire from its horrible misrule is 
 the speedy removal of the tyrant Caliph. European Govern¬ 
 ments, had they the will, could force the Dardanelles, and, 
 surrounding Yildiz Kiosk with marines, depose the Sultan, 
 placing him on board a gunboat, and not twenty lives would 
 be lost in the resistance of the Palace Guard.’ 
 
Sassoun Massacres 
 
 16 7 
 
 tingent, entered with due formality upon the 
 work of avowed extermination of the Armenians. 
 The abbot of Mush informed the British consul 
 at Erzeroum of the forthcoming onslaught, but, 
 as we have already said, the British Government 
 could not interfere with the internal affairs of a 
 friendly nation. 
 
 Mr. Greene gives a graphic picture of these 
 blood-curdling scenes in his chapter of horrors on 
 the evidence of reliable witnesses. ‘ The Turks,’ 
 says Dr. Dillon, ‘ in their confidential moods, 
 have admitted these and worse acts of savagery ; 
 the Kurds glory in them at all times; trustworthy 
 Europeans have witnessed and described them, 
 and Armenians groaned over them in blank 
 despair. Officers and nobles in the Sultan’s own 
 cavalry regiments, like Mostigo the Kurd, bruit 
 abroad with unpardonable pride the story of the 
 long series of rapes and murders which marked 
 their official careers, and laugh to scorn the 
 notion of being punished for robbing and killing 
 the Armenians, whom the Sublime Porte desires 
 them to exterminate.’* 
 
 The bare outline of the narrative is somewhat 
 as follows. In May, 1893, a revolutionist named 
 Damatian was captured in the neighbourhood of 
 Mush, and thrown into the now notorious Bitlis 
 prison. The whole district of Mush and Talvoreeg 
 was declared to be in a state of scarcely veiled 
 rebellion. No doubt there was inability to pay 
 
 * Contemporary Review , January, 1896. ‘Armenia: an 
 Appeal.’ 
 
168 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 double taxes—first to Kurds, and then to the 
 government. Even if there were few or any 
 agitators in this district, there was an undue 
 preponderance of Armenians, and therefore a 
 necessity for diminishing the population. It is, 
 it seems, a suggestive fact that the Turks, as a 
 race, are becoming extinct, while the Armenians 
 under normal circumstances are a growing people. 
 The Turkish debauchee cannot keep pace as to 
 increase of his kind with his Armenian vassal, 
 and hence the periodic massacre, at least if 
 stronger measures cannot be adopted. 
 
 More plausible pretexts, however, had to be 
 sought for so gigantic an undertaking as the 
 extermination of the Armenian population of 
 Sassoun. It was of course forthcoming; the Turk 
 is never long at a loss in such a case. Some 
 Kurdish brigands, coming ostensibly to collect 
 double taxes, carried off as an incident of the 
 visit—and a quite commonplace incident—a few 
 of the cattle of the impoverished villagers. The 
 Armenians, in the struggle to recover their pro¬ 
 perty and means of livelihood, killed four Kurdish 
 brigands. This, beyond doubt, was rebellion, and 
 orders were forthwith issued from Constantinople 
 to the soldiery, Kurds included, to destroy utterly 
 every Armenian—man, woman and child—in the 
 rebel district. It is said that Zekki Pasha read 
 to his motley host these orders, and hung the 
 royal firman as an ornament upon his breast. 
 
 In August, 1894, began that awful ordeal of 
 
Sassoun Massacres 
 
 169 
 
 indiscriminate massacre of man, woman and child 
 in the Sassoun district, estimated (though the exact 
 number can now never be known) at 15,000, some 
 placing the figures lower and others much higher. 
 
 We shall give only a single picture of this 
 Mohammedan saturnalia, drawn for us by one of 
 the correspondents of Mr. Greene whose veracity 
 is beyond suspicion. c The region was surrounded 
 by soldiers of the army, and 20,000 Kurds also are 
 said to have been massed there. Then they 
 advanced upon the centre, driving in the people 
 like a flock of sheep, and continued thus to 
 advance for days. No quarter was given, no 
 mercy shown—men, women and children shot 
 down or butchered like sheep. Probably, when 
 they were set upon in this way, some tried to save 
 their lives and resisted in self-defence. Many who 
 could fled in all directions, but the majority were 
 slain. The most probable estimate is 15,000 
 killed, thirty-five villages plundered, razed, burnt. 
 Women were outraged and then butchered ; a 
 priest taken to the roof of his church and hacked 
 to pieces ; young men piled in with wood saturated 
 with kerosene and set on fire ; a large number of 
 women and girls collected in church, kept for 
 days, violated by the brutal soldiers, and then 
 murdered.’ 
 
 Such were the Sassoun massacres, and yet it has 
 been pathetically declared by those who have good 
 reason to know best that the butchery of Sassoun 
 is but a drop in the ocean of Armenian blood shed 
 
170 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 gradually and silently over the empire since the 
 late Turko-Russian war. 
 
 As a sulky concession to the advice of the 
 Powers, a commission was appointed by the 
 Sultan to proceed to the scene of the disturbances 
 and inquire. Those who knew anything of the 
 reforming Turk were able to appraise this con¬ 
 cession at its proper value. The commission was 
 a diplomatic expedient, in default of a better, to 
 entertain the facile concert of Europe with a 
 little grim comedy in the interludes of a too 
 horrible tragedy, planned and now being executed 
 before their eyes on a scale of unprecedented 
 magnitude. 
 
 While the civilized world was still under the 
 shock of the revelations of Sassoun, neither the 
 Sultan nor his ministers seemed aware that any¬ 
 thing unusual had taken place. On March 28, 
 1895, the Earl of Kimberley, in reference to an 
 interview with Rustem Pasha at the Foreign 
 Office, writes to Sir P. Currie : ‘ His Excellency 
 spoke with much bitterness of what he considered 
 were the exaggerated and unfounded statements 
 of the atrocities alleged to have been committed 
 by the Turkish soldiers in the Sassoun district.’* 
 A discreet silence as to the atrocities became the 
 order of the day all round, broken at times by a 
 euphemistic allusion to the ‘ Sassoun occurrences ’ 
 by the Sultan, or by an incredulous inquiry on the 
 part of the grand vizier whether our ambassador 
 * Blue Book, No. 1 (1896), p. 12. 
 
New Reforms 
 
 I 7 I 
 
 really thought there ever had been any Sassoun 
 massacres.* Hints were indeed thrown out by 
 our representatives that the neglect of the Turkish 
 Government to exact punishment from the 
 criminals of Sassoun notoriety was making a bad 
 impression in England and in Europe. 
 
 This state of things the Turk could not under¬ 
 stand, but, as it could not be entirely ignored, he 
 would make inquiry. The year 1895 is largely a 
 year of discussion of projected reforms in Turkey. 
 One of the Blue Books submitted this year is 
 devoted, we may say, wholly to the subject of 
 these reforms, to which it gives 176 folio pages. 
 They are somewhat wearisome reading, and we 
 can only indicate their general current. The 
 scheme of reforms originates with our British 
 Ambassador, no doubt inspired from Downing 
 Street. It is considered by the other ambassadors, 
 and generally approved. The Powers give, in due 
 course, their approval after modification, and with 
 varying degrees of cordiality. Prince Lobanoff 
 would concur, but he does not think there is now 
 an Armenia. He has made inquiries and received 
 conflicting accounts. He at last gives way, on 
 condition that England does not intend to create 
 a new Armenia or Bulgaria in Asiatic Turkey. 
 
 In the meantime the Sultan has appointed 
 another Commission to draw up a counter-scheme 
 of still better reforms. When the scheme of the 
 ambassadors is laid before him he cautiously sets 
 * Blue Book, No. 1 (1S96), p. 16. 
 
172 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 it aside, first for consideration, then for rejection. 
 Encouraged by the attitude of Prince Lobanoff, 
 who objects decisively to pressure on the Sultan, 
 compelling him to adopt the reforms, he gets 
 bolder, and makes an effort to sow dissension 
 among the European Powers. The German 
 Emperor is approached to use his influence to 
 moderate the pressure of the other Powers, but 
 in vain. 
 
 In the meantime, Lord Salisbury, on his acces¬ 
 sion to power, is careful to inform Rustem Pasha 
 that he supports entirely the policy which his 
 government had inherited from their predecessors 
 in office.* 
 
 His Lordship then shows considerable anxiety 
 to convince Prince Lobanoff that England will not 
 coerce the Sultan, and will not give autonomy in 
 any form to the Armenians. The Russian minister, 
 who, manifestly, is not prodigal of compliments, 
 takes occasion at this unwonted and somewhat 
 pathetic spectacle of the climbing down of the 
 English Premier, to express his admiration of the 
 moderate and statesmanlike attitude he had now 
 assumed. The lion and the bear were at last 
 about to lie down together. Disputes about com¬ 
 missions of control and commissions of surveil¬ 
 lance were at an end. Under these fostering 
 auspices Turkey gets a somewhat freer hand to 
 reduce the reforms into their final shape. In 
 October, 1895, the imperial irade is issued, sanc- 
 * Blue Book, No. 1 (1896), p. 94. 
 
New Reforms 
 
 *73 
 
 tioning the new scheme of reforms, granting new 
 political privileges to the Armenians of the vilayets 
 of Erzeroum, Sivas Van, Diarbekir, Bitlis, and 
 Mamouret-el-Aziz. The reforms are set forth 
 with a flourish of Moslem trumpets as the em¬ 
 bodiment of the glorious provisions of the Hatti- 
 Humayoun, and as proceeding spontaneously from 
 his imperial Majesty the Sultan. 
 
 The Valis are duly instructed to carry out the 
 matters decided upon with extraordinary zeal, 
 attention, and care in their districts, and to report 
 in due course upon the results thus obtained. 
 
 From all these airy phantoms the imagination 
 cannot help reverting to the actual state of things. 
 We emerge from the region of fancy to find the 
 blissful dream of Young Armenia replaced by a 
 waking vision of saddest reality. As we glance 
 back over the period we have been so cursorily 
 reviewing, we see the good resolutions and solemn 
 pledges of the Sultan succeeded by the most 
 diabolical measures in defiance of civilization, 
 and the most shameless breach of faith which 
 has ever disgraced the history of any political 
 power. 
 
 We have noted the descent to the nadir of 
 Moslem oppression—in the elaborate preparations 
 and first gigantic butchery, in the projected ex¬ 
 termination of the Turkish Armenian. 
 
 We have surveyed from afar the region of the 
 shadow of death. The one redeeming aspect of 
 this doleful spectacle is the martyr spirit, the 
 
174 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 martyr courage, of the brave Armenian sufferers. 
 When the simple acceptance of the creed of Islam 
 would have saved them from all their present 
 woes, they elected to abide by the faith of Christ, 
 and to seal their testimony with their blood. 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Renewal of massacres, 1895-96 —The Hindchag’s Com¬ 
 munication to the Embassies—Collective Note—Illustra¬ 
 tive cases — Trebizond and Ourfa—Attitude of Prince 
 Lobanoff—Responsibility for the massacres—Relation of 
 the European Powers—The special responsibility of Great 
 Britain—Question not closed—Solutions of the problem 
 —Conclusion. 
 
 When, after announcing his purpose of intro¬ 
 ducing his grand scheme of reforms, the Sultan 
 expressed amazement that Lord Salisbury did 
 not telegraph grateful thanks—he is reminded 
 that his lordship had been on the outlook for the 
 publication of the measures of reform, and was 
 disappointed at the unaccountable delay. As 
 the exchange of diplomatic courtesies proceeds 
 the Sultan becomes hopeful that England must 
 at last be satisfied with what he has done, but is 
 reminded that much will depend on how the 
 paper reforms are actually carried out. 
 
 Nothing, indeed, is more melancholy than the 
 history of one of the Sultan’s reformations, even 
 as it may be traced in the unimpassioned consular 
 reports. The reformation is the euphuism for a 
 fresh outbreak of fanaticism on the part of the 
 
176 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Turk, and means, so far as the Armenians are 
 concerned, another serious attempt at their 
 extermination. 
 
 When Mr. Hampson, Vice-Consul at Mush, 
 visits, in the month of August, five or six villages 
 in that district, to make inquiries as to the truth 
 of reports about the misconduct of the tax- 
 collectors, a complaint has to be made to the 
 Grand Vizier that the Turkish authorities had 
 put every possible hindrance in his way so that 
 he might not get at the facts. This unfriendly 
 treatment is sufficiently explained by the results 
 of such investigations as Mr. Hampson was able 
 to make. In every village where he went he 
 witnessed the most appalling scenes of misery 
 inflicted by the Turks and Kurds, and was 
 surrounded by crowds of men, women, and 
 children whose cry was ever the same—‘ Save us 
 from the brutalities of the zaptiehs, save us from 
 Reshid Effendi.’ Reshid Effendi was the mis¬ 
 creant who was Captain of the Police. The 
 outrages of the zaptiehs, under his orders, are thus 
 referred to by the Vice-Consul in his report: 
 
 ‘ Men are beaten, imprisoned, . . . women and 
 girls are insulted and dishonoured, dragged naked 
 from their beds at night; children are not spared, 
 and these outrages are merely the amusement of 
 the zaptiehs while engaged in selling the little 
 remaining property of the villages at a quarter of 
 its value.’ Such are the pleasantries which 
 lighten the toil of the official tax-gatherer among 
 
Renewal of Massacres 
 
 177 
 
 the impoverished, starving Armenians. At each 
 fresh outrage the zaptiehs jeeringly tell the 
 sufferers, ‘ Now go and complain to your foreign 
 consuls !’* 
 
 While these sickening scenes were being pro¬ 
 longed the ‘ Hindchag,’ the Armenian Revo¬ 
 lutionary Committee, addressed a communication 
 to the Ambassadors at Constantinople, stating 
 that a strictly peaceful demonstration was to be 
 held, to express their desire for the carrying out 
 of the promised reforms. A petition was drawn 
 up protesting against admitted and clamant 
 wrongs and demanding the long-deferred redress. 
 In that touching appeal they refer to the Sassoun 
 massacres, and declare that they have waited 
 patiently for a whole year for some ‘ prompt and 
 effective solution from the Powers which signed 
 the Treaty of Berlin.’ 
 
 The demonstration came off in Constantinople 
 in the end of September and beginning of October. 
 It was, of course, magnified into a daring rebel¬ 
 lion, and such were the cruelties perpetrated upon 
 the Armenians, whether implicated in the riot or 
 otherwise, that the Powers took the unusual step 
 of a remonstrance with the Sultan in the form of 
 a collective Note. 
 
 This Note is as mild in tone and substance as 
 diplomacy could make it. The outrages are re¬ 
 ferred to as ‘ regrettable incidents.’ It is, how¬ 
 ever, distinctly declared that the excesses of the 
 * Blue Book, Turkey, No. 2 (1896), p. 17. 
 
 12 
 
178 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Turk cannot be excused, and ‘will not fail to 
 arouse the indignation of Europe if it becomes 
 apparent that the supineness of the authorities is 
 encouraging regrettable passions.’ 
 
 But the massacres were once more the order of 
 the day. The immunity with which the govern¬ 
 ment had conducted their bold experiment of the 
 Sassoun massacres had given them fresh courage to 
 prosecute their policy. Threats were heard—and 
 they were no empty words—of coming horrors, 
 beside which the slaughter of Sassoun would sink 
 into insignificance. 
 
 In the month of October broke out the mas¬ 
 sacres at Trebizond. For these it was found on 
 investigation there was no cause arising from the 
 insurrectionary action of the Armenians. Some 
 600 were tortured and vivisected at the outset. 
 The plunder amounted to at least £200,000. The 
 disturbances spread to Erzeroum and other parts 
 of Eastern Turkey. But they did not stop there. 
 The Turks and Circassians were already turning 
 the Armenian centres in the West into a hell upon 
 earth. Passions and appetites to which the very 
 fiends of the pit are strangers, were freely indulged 
 in the light of day and amid the sanctities of 
 the domestic circle. The tragedies of Zeitoun, 
 Marash, Ourfa, Aintab, and others, are no doubt 
 fresh in the recollection of the reader. 
 
 Into the details of these we cannot go. A 
 tabular statement at the close of Blue Book, 
 Turkey, No. 2, gives an official estimate of the 
 
Illustrative Cases 
 
 179 
 
 numbers of the slaughtered victims during this 
 period. 
 
 The character of the crimes invented and per¬ 
 petrated on the hapless Armenians baffles all 
 description. Yet an incident which can be related 
 here and there reveals the nature of the ordeal of 
 unutterable woe. We shall only venture upon 
 two cases, by way of illustration, not worse than 
 hundreds and thousands of similar tragedies. 
 They occurred the one at Trebizond, and the 
 other at Ourfa. 
 
 ‘ In Trebizond,’ says Dr. E. J. Dillon, 4 on the 
 first day of the massacre, an Armenian was 
 coming out of a baker’s shop, where he had been 
 purchasing bread for his sick wife and family, 
 when he was surprised by the raging crowd. 
 Fascinated with terror, he stood still, was seized, 
 and dashed to the ground. He pleaded piteously 
 for mercy and pardon, and they quietly promised 
 it; and so grim and dry was the humour of this 
 crowd that the trembling wretch took their pro¬ 
 mise seriously, and offered them his heartfelt 
 thanks; In truth, they were only joking. When 
 they were ready to be serious, they tied the 
 man’s feet together, and taunted him, but at first 
 with the assumed gentleness that might well be 
 mistaken for the harbinger of mercy. Then they 
 cut off one of his hands, slapped his face with the 
 bloody wrist, and placed it between his quivering 
 lips. Soon afterwards they chopped off the other 
 hand, and inquired whether he would like pen and 
 
180 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 paper to write to his wife. Others requested him 
 to make the sign of the Cross with his stumps, or 
 with his feet, while he still possessed them, while 
 others desired him to shout louder that his God 
 might hear his cries for help. One of the most 
 active members of the crowd then stepped forward 
 and tore the man s ears from his head, after which 
 he put them between his lips, and then flung them 
 in his face. That Gffendi’s mouth deserves to be 
 
 punished for refusing such a choice morsel,” ex¬ 
 claimed a voice in the crowd, whereupon some¬ 
 body stepped forward, knocked out some of his 
 teeth, and proceeded to cut out his tongue. “ He 
 will never blaspheme again,” a pious Moslem 
 jocosely remarked. Thereupon a dagger was 
 placed under one of his eyes, which was scooped 
 clean out of its socket. The hideous contortions 
 of the man’s discoloured face, the quick convul¬ 
 sions of his quivering body, and the sight of the 
 ebbing blood turning the dry dust to gory mud, 
 literally intoxicated these furious fanatics, who, 
 having gouged out his other eye and chopped off 
 his feet, hit upon some other excruciating tortures 
 before cutting his throat and sending his soul “ to 
 damnation, as they expressed it. These other 
 ingenious, pain-sharpening devices, however, were 
 such as do not lend themselves to description.’^ 
 The brutal fanaticism of the Ourfa massacre 
 
 may be gathered from the following extract from 
 
 * Contemporary Review, January, 1896. ‘Armenia: an 
 Appeal J (Dillon). 
 
Ourfa Massacre 
 
 181 
 
 the Report of Vice-Consul Fitzmaurice to Sir P. 
 Currie, dated Ourfa, March 16, 1896: 
 
 A few shots were fired, and a trumpet sounded 
 the attack from among the soldiers, who were seen 
 to open their ranks and allow the mob behind 
 them to come forward. Soldiers and mob then 
 rushed on the Armenian quarter, and began a 
 general massacre of the males over a certain age. 
 
 ‘ The reserve troops, who knew the Armenian 
 quarter well from their having been on guard there 
 during the two preceding months, served both as 
 guides and advance guard, being accompanied by 
 a body of woodcutters, axe in hand, from the 
 neighbouring mountains. The latter broke in the 
 doors, whereupon the soldiers rushed in, emptying 
 their Martinis on the Armenian men, from whom 
 they had anticipated a certain resistance. They 
 had, however, given up all their arms, and, in 
 abject terror at their dreadful situation, pleaded 
 for mercy for the sake of their women and children 
 and the Prophet Jesus. With insulting language 
 they were dragged out one by one from their 
 hiding-places and brutally butchered. In many 
 instances from fifteen to twenty men had collected 
 in the larger houses, as affording some chance of 
 safety, They were hurled out one after another 
 to the executioners, who speedily dispatched them. 
 In the house next to that of the Protestant pastor 
 (he, too, was slain, leaving six orphans), where I 
 put up during my stay here, forty men were thus 
 put to death. A certain Sheikh ordered his 
 
182 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 followers to bring as many stalwart young 
 Armenians as they could find. They were, to the 
 number of about 100, thrown on their backs, and 
 held down by their hands and feet, while the 
 Sheikh, with a combination of fanaticism and 
 cruelty, proceeded, while reciting verses of the 
 Koran, to cut their throats after the Mecca rite of 
 sacrificing sheep. 
 
 ‘The savage butchery of the previous day (i.e., 
 Saturday) was continued till noon, when took 
 place the burning of the Ourfa Armenian Cathe¬ 
 dral, an act which for fiendish barbarity has been 
 unsurpassed by any of the horrors of recent 
 massacres of Armenians, and for which the annals 
 of history can furnish few, if any, parallels. 
 
 ‘On Saturday night crowds of Armenian men, 
 women and children took refuge in their fine 
 Cathedral, capable of holding some 8,000 persons, 
 and the priest administered the sacrament—the 
 last sacrament as it proved to be—to 1,800 souls, 
 recording the figure on one of the pillars of the 
 church. These remained in the Cathedral over¬ 
 night, and were joined on Sunday by several 
 hundreds more, who sought the protection of a 
 building which they considered safe from the mob- 
 violence of the Mussulman even in his fanaticism. 
 It is computed that at least 3,000 individuals 
 were congregated in this edifice when the mob 
 attacked it. 
 
 ‘They at first fired in through the windows, then 
 smashed in the iron door, and proceeded to 
 
Ourfa Massacre 183 
 
 massacre all those, mostly men, who were on the 
 ground-floor. . . . Having collected a quantity of 
 bedding and the church matting, they poured 
 some thirty cans of kerosene on it, as also on the 
 dead bodies lying about, and then set fire to the 
 whole. The gallery beams and wooden frame¬ 
 work soon caught fire, whereupon, blocking up 
 the staircases leading to the gallery with similar 
 inflammable materials, they left the mass of 
 struggling human beings to become the prey of 
 the flames. 
 
 ‘ During several hours the sickening odour of 
 roasted flesh pervaded the town, and even to-day, 
 two months and a half after the massacre, the 
 smell of putrescent and charred remains in the 
 church is unbearable.’ 
 
 Vice-Consul Fitzmaurice, as appears from his 
 despatch given in the latest papers submitted to 
 Parliament (and carrying down the official state¬ 
 ment to the 26th May, 1896), expresses his belief 
 that the Central Government is the real author of 
 these massacres. He adds : ‘ The general position 
 of the Armenians here and in the surrounding 
 country, if not indeed in the Asiatic provinces of 
 the empire, is deplorable. They are practically 
 considered as outlaws.’ 
 
 But we have been somewhat anticipating what 
 remains of our now closing survey. 
 
 In November last year (1895) Lord Salisbury 
 again presses upon the Sultan a little more good 
 advice about the reforms. He takes note of his 
 
184 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Majesty’s friendship for this country, and does his 
 best to assure him that the feeling is reciprocated 
 in high quarters, as well as that Great Britain 
 means to assist him in well-doing. At the same 
 time there is not wanting something of that 
 candour which is the privilege of friendship, and 
 which, amid all these honeyed words, supplies the 
 sting of a little wholesome sincerity. ‘ The fact,’ 
 says his lordship, 4 that the Sultan recently 
 decorated an officer whom he had dismissed on 
 the ground of gross misgovernment does not 
 encourage her Majesty’s Government to feel any 
 confidence in the earnestness of his Imperial 
 Majesty’s intentions to give serious effect to the 
 promised measures of reform.’* 
 
 Prince Lobanoff is quite sure, from his ex¬ 
 perience in the East, that such disturbances as 
 are occurring in Turkey, when unsupported by 
 outside influence, soon die a natural death, and 
 throws upon England the blame of the Con¬ 
 stantinople and other massacres. England has 
 been encouraging insurrection! 
 
 Under such auspices we need not wonder that 
 the Powers do not see their way to interfere with 
 the internal affairs of Turkey. This, says Prince 
 Lobanoff, would be a violation of Article IX. of 
 the Treaty of Paris, and Article LXIII. of the 
 Treaty of Berlin. Treaty of Paris, and all the 
 rest, Russia was more than ready in 1878, had 
 the Powers not interdicted, to have kept her 
 * Blue Book, Turkey, No. 2 (1896), p. 122. 
 
Attitude of Prince Lobanoff 185 
 
 Cossacks in Turkey, and coerced the Sultan as to 
 internal reforms. 
 
 To Prince Lobanoff the Sultan now appears as 
 a glorified incarnation of reform, only he must be 
 let alone, or rather assisted in carrying out his 
 benevolent designs. Russia, he is confident, 
 would not sanction any course of action which 
 wore the aspect of a European interference. 
 
 Anything more callous, more distinctly a be¬ 
 trayal of the oppressed Armenians, than the 
 memorandum in which Prince Lobanoff refuses 
 to co-operate with the Powers to secure deliver¬ 
 ance for these and other victims of Moslem out¬ 
 rage, it would be hard to find even in the records 
 of Turkish diplomacy.* 
 
 As to the general question of responsibility for 
 the ever-recurring massacres, the Turk would, of 
 course, lay the entire blame on the Armenians 
 and their abettors. The Armenians are rebels. 
 This charge, however, has, as we have seen, been 
 refuted over and over again by the most definite 
 statements as to their non-revolutionary, law- 
 abiding character by such authorities as Consuls 
 Clifford, Lloyd, Chermside, Hampson, etc. It is, 
 indeed, admitted that the brutal treatment to which 
 they are subjected is producing disaffection. 
 
 The responsibility for the misrule and massacres 
 
 * The recent expressions of the mind of Russia through 
 Prince Lobanoff, and his general tone adopted towards 
 our Government, make it somewhat difficult to accept the 
 pleasing theory of the brilliant authoress of ‘ Russia and 
 England 5 as to the traditional policy of Russia, in its bear¬ 
 ing on the relations of the two countries. 
 
Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 of the Armenians is no doubt primarily to be 
 charged on the Sultan and his creatures. There 
 is abundant evidence that the arming of the 
 Kurds and Circassians are only new developments 
 in the traditional policy of wholesale slaughter. 
 It was clearly foreseen by the Armenians and 
 others before the outbreak of the recent series of 
 massacres. Vain attempts also were made to 
 induce the Powers, and especially our own Eng¬ 
 lish Government, to lay an arrest on the move¬ 
 ment. The lifting of a finger by the arbiters of 
 his fate would have saved the frantically appeal¬ 
 ing victim ; but it was not done. 
 
 The European Powers, as all the world knows, 
 have contracted a special responsibility, not only 
 on grounds of common humanity, but of definite 
 treaty engagements. The setting aside of the 
 provisions of the Treaty of San Stefano, and the 
 substitution of those of the Treaty of Berlin, 
 was the replacing of a Turco-Russian by a Turco- 
 European undertaking. 
 
 The Turk has, especially of late, had the 
 effrontery, when pressed to remedy gross abuses, 
 to inquire what right England has to interfere 
 with her internal affairs. When the Turkish 
 Ambassador proposed this innocent query to 
 Lord Kimberley, his lordship referred him for 
 answer to the 6ist Article of the Treaty of Berlin. 
 Whatever may be Lord Salisbury’s present read- 
 ing of that Article, there certainly was a time 
 when he would have taken no lower ground. 
 
Responsibility for the Massacres 187 
 
 But it is not only England that has come under 
 special obligations : all the European Powers— 
 signatories of the Treaty of Berlin—have under¬ 
 taken the most solemn engagements in regard 
 to Turkish reforms. They are each and all 
 partners in a common trust, which, to the dis¬ 
 grace of the civilization of Christian Europe, they 
 have, through their mutual jealousies, or from 
 whatever cause, most ignominiously betrayed. 
 Such is the grave, yet absolutely truthful, indict¬ 
 ment. Of no one Power may this be separately 
 true, as the responsibility is collective rather than 
 individual, but it is certainly true of the European 
 Concert as a whole. 
 
 The apportioning of blame where each has a 
 share is a delicate task. It would seem as if 
 Russia had so far departed from her traditional 
 role of protector of her oppressed co-religionist 
 in Turkey as to have decided to leave him to the 
 tender mercies of a tyrant whose astutely-planned 
 policy, she knows, is to outrage, torture, and crush 
 him out of existence. 
 
 We may do less than justice to the other 
 European Powers, but we hardly think we can 
 have any treacherous bias against our own Eng¬ 
 lish Government. We assuredly do not object to 
 any place of prominence the English nation may 
 assume in regard to the solution of the gravest 
 problem of the civilization of the nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 The nation whose history is a series of heroic 
 
188 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 conflicts and victories for popular freedom, whose 
 rule is an embodiment of equity in the remotest 
 corner of our most distant dependencies, most 
 alien also in race and creed, is surely in its 
 proper place when it undertakes to act as the 
 prime mover in the redress of the terrible 
 wrongs of the Christian subjects of the Otto¬ 
 man Empire. 
 
 England has taken this prominent position—a 
 position so prominent that on her, above all others, 
 must rest the blame, if blame there be, for the 
 haunting horrors of Turkish misrule. 
 
 The Crimean War, with the Treaty of Paris, 
 the Treaty of Berlin, the Cyprus Convention, are 
 all witnesses of our manifold pledges. On this 
 point we have already said enough in these pages. 
 We, as a nation, have undertaken the task of 
 Turkish reforms, and we have ignominiously 
 failed. We have not only failed to redeem our 
 pledges, we have, by incessant ineffective admo¬ 
 nitions and corrosives directed to the sensitive 
 parts of the Sultan’s nature, produced fresh irri¬ 
 tation, and induced new ordeals of persecution 
 for the wretched Armenians. 
 
 Lord Salisbury has, it is true, begun to exchange 
 not merely the language of bravado, but the bluff 
 speech of an English statesman—which was not 
 the least of his graces and claims to respect—for 
 a style of watery compliment which must help to 
 cheer the Sultan in his dreary solitude, and must 
 somewhat surprise the novice in politics who has 
 
Special Responsibility of Great Britain 189 
 
 been so boldly checkmating his lordship in St. 
 Petersburg. 
 
 Yielding to the blind impulses of the Jingoism 
 of the day, Lord Salisbury undertook, in 1878, 
 responsibilities which could not easily be dis¬ 
 charged, and did so in a manner so provocative of 
 the jealousy of the Powers that they have never 
 forgiven him, and have ever since, quietly but 
 effectively, frustrated every feeble effort he has 
 made to introduce the Turkish reforms. 
 
 Lord Salisbury’s, it must be remembered, was 
 the hand that tore up the provisions of the Treaty 
 of San Stefano guaranteeing deliverance to the 
 Armenians. His was the hand which drew up 
 the now dishonoured pledge of the Treaty of 
 Berlin, as well as the terms of the Cyprus Con¬ 
 vention, by which the English nation was de¬ 
 graded into an ally and accomplice of the Turk in 
 his shameful misgovernment and oppression of 
 his Christian subjects. 
 
 These are now the chief honours which his 
 lordship has inherited from the historical transac¬ 
 tions of 1878, and which promise to give him 
 a unique name among the statesmen of England. 
 
 The case, then, both as regards the Powers of 
 Europe and England, stands thus : 
 
 The Sultan has pledged himself, by the most 
 solemn engagements, to remove all disabilities 
 from his subjects, and to seek their comfort and 
 happiness without distinction of race or religion. 
 The Powers are, at the same time, aware that, so 
 
190 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 far from an effort being made to carry out these 
 repeated engagements, the daily lot of his victims 
 has been becoming more intolerable. The most 
 overwhelming evidence has been laid before them 
 from all sides that outrages surpassing anything 
 almost, if not altogether, within the range of 
 history have been planned and carried out by the 
 Turkish Government. All the subterfuges of per¬ 
 jured officials of Ottoman misrule, and of others 
 interested in concealing or minimizing the enor¬ 
 mities, have utterly failed of their object. Not 
 only do the common obligations of humanity 
 press upon the signatories, but also their legal 
 responsibilities, and most of all those of this 
 country, however loudly disavowed. On this 
 subject, in his eloquent protest against such a 
 disavowal, and as emphasizing this responsibility, 
 the Duke of Argyll says : ‘ It is not too much to 
 say that England has twice saved Turkey from 
 complete subjection since 1853. It is largely, 
 mainly due to our action that she now exists at 
 all as an independent Power. On both occasions 
 we dragged the Powers of Europe along with us 
 in maintaining the Ottoman Government. . . . 
 The rest of Europe does share with us in the terrible 
 responsibility of bolstering up a decaying empire 
 from sheer jealousy of each other as to the division 
 of the spoils. But we share it in an especial 
 degree because our jealousy of Russia was, and 
 still is, pre-eminent among all the other jealousies 
 concerned.’ 
 
Question not Closed 
 
 191 
 
 It may not be that, as Lord Derby cynically 
 expressed it, ‘ the last word of the Eastern Ques¬ 
 tion is, Who is to have Constantinople ?’ There 
 can, however, be no doubt, on such an authority 
 as we have just quoted, that the difficulty of the 
 division of the spoils is the main obstacle to a 
 prompt and satisfactory solution of the problem. 
 
 It cannot fail to have a demoralizing effect 
 upon the nations of Europe to stand aloof and 
 remain passive in the face of wrongs which they 
 are pledged not only to redress, but to have pre¬ 
 vented. 
 
 We have been hearing much of the danger of 
 pressing too far for the fulfilment of these pledges 
 of reform so profusely given by the Sultan. But 
 is it, then, safe for England to let it be understood 
 that she can be bullied out of her definite treaty 
 engagements? When this discovery is once made, 
 are we not likely to have our hands full enough of 
 similar business ? 
 
 The question is not closed. The credit of 
 England, her influence among the Powers of 
 Europe, demand a different ending. 
 
 No doubt the practical question is, What is 
 now to be done ? So far this is a question which 
 concerns every nation in Europe, this country 
 above all others, and every one in it capable of 
 thinking on the subject. Our country has 
 thrown its aegis over the Armenians, and entered 
 into a solemn league and covenant for their 
 protection, and we are bound to see that, in some 
 
192 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 fitting manner, that grand national trust shall be 
 fulfilled. We have, as a self-governing people, 
 an individual responsibility as to what a Parlia¬ 
 ment, elected by our suffrages, may or may not 
 do with pledges tendered in our name. Surely 
 our responsibilities, as a nation, are not dis¬ 
 charged by permitting our ambassador at Con¬ 
 stantinople, or our responsible ministers at 
 Westminster, to give as they may see fit friendly, 
 well-meaning advice to the Sultan. 
 
 Nor, again, can we hold that we, as a nation, 
 atone for our betrayal of interests, dearer than 
 life itself to the Armenians, by scanty doles of 
 charitable relief to those whose distress we ought 
 by every obligation of honour to have prevented. 
 It is our bounden duty to give, and to give 
 liberally, what financial relief we can afford. There 
 is no true friend of the persecuted, homeless, 
 starving Christians in Armenia who will not do 
 their best to respond to the earnest appeals of 
 the committee of the Armenian Relief Fund for 
 some measure of help to these houseless, half- 
 naked wanderers in woods and mountains, living 
 in caves and hollow trees, and striving to sup¬ 
 port existence on greens and the leaves of the 
 trees. It is something that our English nation 
 is responding to these appeals. But the assist¬ 
 ance is avowedly inadequate, so that only a 
 small remnant of the sufferers can be relieved. 
 Even were it otherwise, the horrible ordeal of 
 butchery and foul lust goes on before the eyes 
 
Solutions of the Problem 
 
 l 93 
 
 of Europe and the world. A letter from 
 Constantinople, May 30, 1896, says : ‘ The 
 
 Government measures are a perfect farce! We 
 have a terrible and new appeal this week, and 
 that is, for relief to the numbers of Armenian 
 maidens, who, having been taken by the Kurds 
 and Turks, and kept by them for several months, 
 are now returned to their villages in the pangs of 
 a prospective horrible motherhood. Who will 
 keep these unfortunates and their offspring ? I 
 often ask myself, Is it not better to let these 
 miserable creatures die at once than continue a 
 wretched existence through the summer only to 
 die from starvation and cold next winter ?’ 
 
 One other point remains to be emphasized—the 
 perpetrators of the massacre must be punished. 
 
 After the Lebanon massacres of i860, France 
 and England saw the necessity of reading the 
 Sultan and his subjects a lesson that the two 
 Powers would not tolerate such outrage on the 
 Christian subjects of Turkey. The punishment of 
 the most deeply involved Pasha was demanded. 
 He was reluctantly put on trial, but acquitted, 
 Fuad Pasha, the Turkish Commissioner, declaring 
 that the punishment of a Pasha would greatly 
 excite the Mahommedan population. He was 
 promptly informed that the populace had better 
 keep their feelings well in hand, as he would be 
 held responsible for any disturbances, and in the 
 event of such taking place, English and French 
 marines would occupy Damascus. The Turkish 
 
 13 
 
194 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 Commissioner saw the game was up. The guilty 
 Pasha was hanged forthwith, and there was no 
 disturbance. 
 
 So long as it is understood that the Christian 
 can be outraged with impunity, the plundering 
 and murdering will continue. Till the punish¬ 
 ment of the criminals has been sternly carried out 
 no Christian life is worth a day’s purchase. A 
 premium is put on the outrages if it be supposed 
 no punishment will fall on the offenders. 
 
 As regards the best practical solution of the 
 problem, this may be safely left to the Govern¬ 
 ment when once it has resolved to act. There is 
 the scheme set forth and ably advocated by Canon 
 MacColl in his pamphlet on ‘ England’s Responsi¬ 
 bility to Armenia,’ and which follows the success¬ 
 ful precedent of Lebanon. ‘A constitution,’ he 
 says, ‘ must be drawn up for Armenia by some one 
 acting on behalf of the great Powers, or those of 
 them who have already intervened in this matter. 
 And that constitution must insist as a minimum 
 on the appointment of a Christian governor of 
 Armenia, provided with some sort of force to 
 maintain order: the governor either to be ap¬ 
 pointed directly by the Powers or subject to 
 their approval, and irremovable without their 
 sanction.’ All the objections to this scheme were 
 brought against the similar scheme of Lebanon, 
 and were found to be utterly baseless. The 
 Powers assumed an attitude of firmness, and the 
 Lebanon experiment triumphed. 
 
Solutions of the Problem 
 
 *95 
 
 Ere we leave this subject, we may mention the 
 scheme which Mr. Greene refers to as one of the 
 most likely, having also the approval of Professor 
 Bryce and the Phil-Armenian Society. This 
 method is that of ‘ radical and vigorous ad¬ 
 ministrative reforms, which the European Powers 
 should initiate and report to Turkey, instead of 
 vice versa , as arranged in Article LXI. of the 
 Berlin Treaty.’ 
 
 But our task is now done. We have glanced at 
 the drama of Armenian life both in earlier and 
 later times. We have seen a native dynasty, or, 
 rather, series of dynasties, come and go. We 
 have watched the dawn of a new light on the 
 hills and valleys of the country of Ararat, as they 
 are trodden by the feet of the apostolic St. Gregory, 
 and Armenia takes its place of honour among the 
 nations as the first to give its glad welcome to 
 the message of the Gospel. Around this sacred 
 national shrine, it has been seen, all that is truly 
 noble and enduring in the life of this people has 
 henceforth revolved. Around it lie scattered, in 
 profuse abundance, the martyred ashes of many 
 generations of worshippers. 
 
 Our survey has led us to consider some out¬ 
 standing points in the ascending arc of the rise 
 and progress of the Turkish Empire. The in¬ 
 fluence of Islam has been noted, as it has in¬ 
 fluenced the character and rule of the Turk, and 
 shaped and coloured the destiny of the Armenians. 
 
 We have further traced, so far, the course of 
 
196 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 decline. We have indicated the vast programme 
 and some steps in the formidable advances of 
 Russia towards the acme of her ambition. The 
 motto of that movement has ever been, and still 
 is, the same—* Nulla vestigia retrorsum.’ 
 
 We have stood by the sick-bed of the dying 
 barbarian despot, and beheld his strange tenacity 
 of existence, his prostrations, and wonderful re¬ 
 coveries. 
 
 We have witnessed the spectacle of the Concert 
 of Europe combining and agreeing on almost 
 nothing else save in an attempt to maintain the 
 ghastly moribund tyrant on his tottering throne. 
 
 As we linger over this region of stirring associa¬ 
 tions, ancient and modern, we see in and around 
 the fatherland of the children of Haik, and in the 
 remotest regions of their dispersion through Asia 
 Minor, one far-reaching Aceldama. 
 
 We tread the solitudes of a vast necropolis. 
 Around us lie the mangled corpses of men, women, 
 and children, who, ere they were thrust, many of 
 them still alive, into the graves they had been 
 compelled to dig for themselves, had endured every 
 agony of mind and body which it is possible for 
 human beings to undergo. Their long-protracted 
 dying agonies had been the sport of the miscreants 
 who meantime boasted that they were carrying 
 out the express orders of the Sultan. 
 
 The burying-ground of these massacred, mar¬ 
 tyred Armenians is lined all around by a fast thin¬ 
 ning circle of mourners, whose own doom is visibly 
 
Conclusion 
 
 19 7 
 
 impending, and whose sobs and wails are a cease¬ 
 less funeral dirge falling on 4 the dull, cold ear of 
 death, but falling also on the not less apathetic 
 ear of their living and pledged protectors. Among 
 these cold insensate spectators we behold the 
 Powers of Christian Europe, and foremost among 
 them Christian England, as represented by the 
 present Premier. Here is the picture of a single 
 corner of these saddest of all the realms cf 
 death. 
 
 ‘ What I myself saw/ says an eye-witness, ‘ this 
 Friday afternoon is for ever engraven on my mind 
 as the most horrible sight a man can see. I went 
 with one of the cavasses of the English Legation, 
 a soldier my interpreter, and a photographer 
 (Armenian) to the Armenian Gregorian Cemetery. 
 The municipality had sent down a number of 
 bodies, friends had brought more, and a horrible 
 sight met my eyes. Along the wall on the north, 
 in a row twenty feet wide and a hundred and fifty 
 feet long, lay three hundred and twenty-one dead 
 bodies of the massacred Armenians. Many were 
 fearfully mangled and mutilated. I saw one with 
 his face completely smashed in with'a blow of 
 some heavy weapon after he was killed. I saw 
 some with their necks almost severed by a sword- 
 cut. One I saw whose whole chest had been 
 skinned, his fore-arms had been cut off, while 
 the upper arm was skinned of flesh. I asked if 
 the dogs had done this. “ No, the Turks did it 
 with their knives.” A dozen bodies were half 
 
198 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 burned. All the corpses had been rifled of all 
 their clothes except a cotton under-garment or 
 two. These white under-clothes were stained 
 with the blood of the dead, presenting a fearful 
 sight. The faces of many were disfigured beyond 
 recognition, and all had been thrown down, face 
 foremost, in the dust of the streets and the mud of 
 the gutters, so that all were black with clotted 
 blood and dust. Some were stark naked, and 
 everybody seemed to have at least two wounds, 
 and some a dozen. In this list of dead there were 
 only three women, two babies, a number of young 
 children, and about thirty young boys of fifteen to 
 twenty. 
 
 4 A crowd of a thousand people, mostly Arme¬ 
 nians, watched me taking photographs of their 
 dead. Many were weeping beside their dead 
 fathers or husbands. The Armenian photographer 
 saw two children, relatives of his, among the dead. 
 Some Armenian workmen were engaged excavating 
 a deep trench twenty feet square close by, to bury 
 the corpses. Here, too, was a peculiar scene. 
 The space of this trench contained many graves, 
 and on one side were a number of skulls, per¬ 
 haps twenty in all, and a pile of bones found 
 in the excavating. I left the sad sight sick at 
 heart.’ 
 
 Will none of these mournful sights and sounds 
 move, in any degree, the heart and conscience of 
 the British nation, and constrain us to prompt 
 and vigorous action ? Alas ! for many thousands 
 
Conclusion 
 
 1 99 
 
 of Armenians now sleeping their last sleep in 
 those rude trenches, for many thousands more 
 wearing out a few days of hopeless degradation, 
 there is no effective service we can now render! 
 The opportunity has been for ever lost. 
 
 Yet still, ere the brutal Turk make a full end, 
 is there no sympathy in Christian hearts, in the 
 heart of Great Britain, no dread of the inevitable 
 retribution, to constrain us to call, as with the 
 blast of a trumpet, for a prompt and final arrest 
 on these orgies of death and dishonour worse 
 than death ? There is assuredly no time to lose. 
 It is now or never that authoritative summons 
 must sound forth. 
 
 Abdul Hamid still sits secure in the recesses 
 of the Yildiz Kiosk — free to organize fresh 
 massacres. Not one of the perpetrators of the 
 outrages on the Armenians has been punished 
 for his crimes. The more prominent of them 
 have been decorated in token of imperial favour. 
 
 Yet the solemn farce of Commissions of Inquiry 
 goes on, and our Government is content to 
 simulate approval of the action which His 
 Majesty has been good enough to take. 
 
 Apart from all consideration of the claims and 
 interests of the Armenians, our own vaunted 
 British interests, our prestige in the East demand 
 that it should not be understood that the Sultan 
 has escaped the penalty of his long arrears of 
 flagrant crimes, and of his studied insults to this 
 country. An attitude of complicity with the 
 
200 Armenia and the Armenians 
 
 foulest crimes which have disgraced the history 
 of the world has been and is being forced upon the 
 British nation. Are we for ever to stand idly by 
 and see, without one generous impulse, the still 
 protracted agony of the Christians we have 
 pledged our honour to protect ? Has not the 
 time arrived for England to show that she feels 
 acutely that she has been acting out of character, 
 and must now resume her proper role , which is 
 not that of the smiling friend and ally of the 
 blood-stained tyrant, but the liberator of his 
 miserable victim ? 
 
 Is true freedom but to break 
 Fetters for our own dear sake, 
 
 And, with leathern hearts, forget 
 That we owe mankind a debt ? 
 
 No ! true freedom is to share 
 All the chains our brothers wear, 
 
 And, with heart and hand, to be 
 Earnest to make others free ! 
 
 THE END. 
 
 Elliot Stock, Paternoster R 07 v, London. 
 
DATE DUE 
 

 * 
 
 
 
 • f 
 
 
 
 
 <