ILLINOIS

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAM PA1GN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign Library
Brittle Books Project, 2014.COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.
Published prior to 1923.

This digital copy was made from the printed version held
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin

2014"LI E> R_ A RY

OF THE
U N I VERS ITY
Of ILLINOIS

" n.

Received by bequest from
Albert H. Lybyer
Professor of History
University of Illinois
1916-1949

94-9.6

E-e4-tTURKEY IN EUROPE



4.

TURKEY IN EUROPE

BY

ODYSSEUS

* / r /

^ b(*«Li - ^ 7~

LONDON
EDWARD ARNOLD
Pttblt'sljet to tlje Inlita ©ffice
1900

All rights reservedb

I ^ 0&

CONTENTS

PAGE

INTRODUCTION.......i

CHAP.

I.	HISTORICAL —BEFORE THE TURKISH CON-

QUEST .........16

II.	SOUTH - EASTERN EUROPE AFTER THE

TURKISH CONQUEST.....54

III. THE TURKS........78

^ IY. THE TURKS {continued)......115

° V. ON MOHAMMEDANISM.....166

7

^ YI. THE ORTHODOX CHURCH . . . . .215

^ VII. THE GREEKS........291

^VIII. THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS .... 344
IX. THE ALBANIANS AND YLACHS. . . . 385
X. THE ARMENIANS . ......423

L,,	INDEX.........461

v

4	MAP 0F THE BALKAN PENINSULA

I;,.	MAP OF ASIA

cS

t	v

r®'

*

srTURKEY IN EUROPE

INTRODUCTION

The papers which are here presented to the reader in the
form of a book were written at various periods, but have a
certain unity as being the result of an attempt, prosecuted
during some years, to understand what is the real condition
of Turkey, and of some neighbouring countries, and how
that condition has arisen. I am well aware that an adequate
knowledge of any one of the many themes here touched
upon can only be obtained by lifelong research; but in the
course of my studies I have often felt that though for the
purposes of practical politics it is well to see only one side
of a question and act accordingly, yet non-political writers
often impair the value of their work because they devote
themselves to a special subject and unconsciously become
partisans. Many authorities on Byzantine and Slavonic
history seem to pride themselves on their ignorance of
everything Turkish, while some of those who have con-
tributed most to our knowledge of the Turks and of the
Mohammedan religion, show an Ottoman indifference to the
peculiarities which may be exhibited by various kinds of
Giours and infidels.

My design is to treat of Turkey in Europe and, though
I have incidentally spoken of the modern states of Greece,
Servia, and Bulgaria, I have aimed at giving an account
not of them but of the Greeks and Slavs who inhabit the
districts which are still Turkish. The Turks are an Asiatic

A2

TURKEY IN EUROPE

people who have settled but not taken root in our continent,
and their preseuce there is a question which may be treated
by itself and quite independently of their existence in
Anatolia and elsewhere. I have, however, added a chapter
on the Armenians. They also are an Asiatic people, but to
some extent they have, like the Turks, invaded Europe.
Such large bodies of them live in Constantinople, Russia,
and more western countries, including England, so much of
the business of European Turkey is in their hands, and the
Armenian riots of 1896 raise so many points interesting,
not merely for Anatolia but for the whole Turkish Empire,
that I have thought it would not be amiss to give some
account of them.

In the first two chapters I have given a brief historical
sketch of the countries which we now call Turkey and the
Balkan States from the foundation of Constantinople until
this century. They will, perhaps, be more useful for pur-
poses of reference than for consecutive reading, but it has
been so difficult to collect the information embodied in
them that it appeared worth while to present it in a con-
nected form. The third and fourth chapters treat of the
origin, history, and characteristics of the invading people,
whose presence is the main cause of the peculiarities which
to-day distinguish South-Eastern Europe. Then follow two
chapters on Mohammedanism and Eastern Christianity.
Religion and politics interact on one another everywhere,
but in the East more directly than in the West. The chief
reason why the Turks have never been assimilated by the
Europeans who surround them (as has been the case with
the Magyars, Bulgarians, Finns, and other peoples who were
originally Pagan Asiatics) is that when they appeared in
Europe they had already adopted an Arabian religion, and
with it a certain amount of Arabian and non-European
civilisation. On the other hand, the inability of the
Byzantine Empire to resist the Turks was mainly due toINTRODUCTION

3

the dissensions between the Eastern and Western Churches,
which rendered it impossible for Christendom to unite and
oppose Islam. Having thus, as I hope, explained the charac-
teristics of the Turks, and the general relations of Moham-
medans and Christians, I proceed to give some account of
the various Christian peoples who inhabit the Ottoman
Empire, and of the racial quarrels which prevent them from
combining against the Turks.

There remains, however, one point which it is important
to elucidate if possible: namely, what is the opinion of the
Turks about the Eastern question?—what does the East
think of the West ? The last half-century has witnessed a
remarkable movement—the determination of Europe to
impose its civilisation on uncivilised and half-civilised
nations all over the world. The movement is partly con-
scious and partly unconscious, assuming many forms, and
using in turn the names of trade, progress, humanity, reli-
gion, or anything else that comes handy; but it is clearly one
of the great elementary impulses which shape the destinies
of mankind. It is generally assumed, not only that this
movement is beneficial, but that its beneficence must be
obvious to all. The proposition that an honest and equi-
table government is better than a corrupt and tyrannical
government seems so plain that we jump to the conclusion
that all nations must joyfully accept our ideals of adminis-
tration. We readily accord sympathy and attach importance
to the appeals and projects of reformers, because the prin-
ciples which they enunciate and the language which they
employ seem reasonable and familiar. But scant attention
is paid to the large class of people who object to Western
civilisation, until they give themselves an awful prominence
by events such as those which are now happening in China.
The thoughts of these people cannot be very naturally
thrown into the form of an essay or of logical arguments,
but perhaps the following account of an interview between4

TURKEY IN EUROPE

a high Turkish official and an apostle of civilisation, as told
by the latter, will give some idea of how we appear to the
Turks and what they think.

It was raining at Karakeui in May 1897 as it can rain
only in Turkey. The deluge flooded the streets, broke up
the roads, and penetrated into the houses, which, being
mostly built of wood and mended with old petroleum tins
and brown paper, did not oppose a very effective barrier to
its entrance. It was the time of the Turco-Greek war, and
a large body of troops, who had arrived from Asia Minor
and were awaiting orders to proceed to Thessaly, filled the
square round the Government house, or Konak. They had
stood there a night and a day drenched to the skin and
without shelter or food, for the commissariat had broken
down; their uniforms were tattered and the soles of their
boots worn through, but not a murmur escaped their lips,
no discontent was visible on their impassive countenances,
and, had their minds been open to inspection, probably no
sense of grievance would have been found there. They were
ready not only to die in battle, but to continue standing in
the rain day and night until they should die at the post.

It was after eleven o'clock Turkish (that is, it wanted
less than an hour to sunset), but the Vali1 of Karakeui still
sat in the Konak. It is not the custom of Turkish func-
tionaries to remain so late in their offices, and nearly all the
others had gone home to their private residences. There
were, however, two explanations of the Yali's apparent
assiduity. Firstly, he had lent his carriage, the only one
in Karakeui, to a corpulent general who was anxious to be
spared the fatigue of riding over the mountains to Thessaly.
Being unable to drive, and not wishing to get wet, the Yali
determined to wait till the rain stopped, regardless of the
fact that it looked as if it would continue for days and days.

1 Governor-General.INTRODUCTION

5

Secondly, the Vali's domestic life was not sufficiently attrac-
tive to tempt him home. His harem, like most of such
establishments in Turkey, was not, as Europeans fondly
imagine, peopled by gauze-clad houris. His only wife, a
fat, domineering woman, exercised undivided and undisputed
sway over her husband and everybody else, and did not per-
mit the least foretaste of the joys of paradise. Recently the
young and energetic British Consul had made it difficult to
import negro slaves, and the Yali had been obliged to obtain
as servants two or three Albanian girls whom their parents
were ready to give up for a small consideration. But his
efforts to render the existence of these young women agree-
able had been taken very much amiss by his wife, and for
the last few weeks his life had been far from pleasant. So
he sat in his offide and felt in no hurry to go home.

Thus I had an excellent opportunity of having a private
interview with him, free from the presence of spies and
other bores. I had known him for some twenty years, and
we were very good friends. He was all that a Turk should
be. He had an ample beard, his figure was like a haystack,
and his nose like a potato. He was a Field-Marshal, Aide-
de-Camp General of His Imperial Majesty, and a Yizier of
the first rank. On solemn occasions the First Class of the
Iftikhar, Liakat, Osmanie, and Mejedie blazed upon his
ample chest. He had handled much money and seen much
blood. He had been successively Minister of War, Finance,
and Foreign Affairs, and for a few months Grand Yizier, in
memory of which brief splendour he was still styled Highness.
Then something had happened—no one quite knew what,
though at least ten detailed and inconsistent explanations
were current; but the upshot was that he ceased to please
the Sultan, and from being Grand Yizier he was suddenly
appointed to the dignified but distant post of Karakeui.
Here he got through his time as best he might by attending
to his official duties and trying to get money to send to6

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Constantinople. In the high offices which he had filled he
had acquired a smattering of French and some European
culture. He photographed his aides-de-camp with a kodak
when there were no mollahs about, and he kept locked up
in a cupboard a French encyclopaedia and a bottle labelled
" Koniak," with the second of which he was wont to refresh
his researches into the first.

Perhaps I ought to introduce myself to the reader. I
am so well known in Turkey that no one would ever think
of asking me what my business is, and yet, now that I want
to describe it, I feel some difficulty in doing so, for my
occupations are very diverse, though I think that at bottom
they are all much the same. I suppose I might be de-
scribed as a concession hunter or a commission agent. The
essence of my trade is to make Orientals buy what they don't
want—anything from matches to railroads. I bribe them
to purchase my wares and they bribe me to put down in the
bill (which the Ottoman Government pays) a much larger
sum than I have actually received. So we both make money.
I now proposed to complete one of these advantageous trans-
actions. Among other things I am agent for the Company
which has patented the Antiseptic Dynamo, an almost
miraculous application of electricity to hygiene, and equally
indispensable in the hospital and the nursery, as the adver-
tisement says. As a new military hospital had been estab-
lished at Karakeui, for the reception of wounded soldiers
from Thessaly, it seemed an excellent opportunity for
supplying a large quantity of this invaluable apparatus.

In the prosecution of this object I found myself alone
with the Vali that rainy evening, sitting on the edge of my
chair with my hands crossed over my stomach as a sign
of respect. It is no doubt humiliating to show this de-
ference to a Turkish functionary, but practical contempt
for the Turk exists mostly outside the Ottoman dominions,
and, had the late Mr. Gladstone ever crossed the charmedINTRODUCTION

7

frontier, I have no doubt lie would have been as polite to
the Sultan as any Ambassador.

After profuse salutations and compliments I addressed
myself to business. "Your Highness/' I said to the Yali,
" my chief object in coming here was to inquire after your
sacred and amiable health, and to water my parched soul
with the agreeable springs of your sublime conversation.
But there was also another object. We, as you know, are
one of those who strive to benefit the Exalted Government
by the introduction of useful inventions, and my methods
of business are familiar to your penetrating intelligence.
As I had the honour to explain to your Highness in a
humble letter, I am anxious to instal in the military
hospital a system of Antiseptic Dynamos. My firm are so
persuaded of the incalculable advantages to humanity which
would accrue from the introduction of this invention that
they would be willing to advance £ i ooo to meet any initial
expenditure which might be incurred by the Sublime Local
Authorities."

But I saw there was something wrong. It is a mistake
to suppose that money will do everything in Turkey. It
will do much, but there are occasions when it is as power-
less as logic, and I already began to fear that this was one
of them; for though the Yali had said nothing at all, his
face preserved an expression of austere and virtuous dignity,
and he showed no signs of extending an itching palm. At
last he said gravely: " Certainly the Imperial Government is
desirous to introduce and profit by beneficial inventions, but
in the present case I cannot see any need for what you
propose. The Imperial Ministry of War, in its unremitting
attention to the wants of its troops (with a magnificent dis-
regard for facts, he waved his hand in the direction of the
starving soldiers standing in the rain), has provided all
necessary medical appliances, and, besides, there is hardly
anybody in the hospital. The wounded who are brought8

TURKEY IN EUROPE

over the mountains from Thessaly either die on the way or
else get well. The 10,000 machines you want to sell would
stand in empty rooms." " But still," I said, " they might
be useful another day, and the sale would always be advan-
tageous—mutually advantageous." " Perhaps," said the
Yali, "but your invention itself is dangerous. Dynamo is a
most violent explosive, and is on the list of articles whose
introduction into Turkey is absolutely prohibited." " Your
Highness is thinking of dynamite. Dynamo is quite a
different matter, and not an explosive at all." " Dynamo
and dynamite are all one," said the Yali, with an authorita-
tive air. " Nothing would ever induce the Imperial Custom-
House to pass a single case of such articles, and they would
report to Constantinople that I was endeavouring to import
explosives." " Perhaps," I said, with gentle emphasis, " we
might get over that difficulty. For our own practical
purposes the point is not how much is delivered, but how
much is ordered and paid for. If it was confidentially under-
stood that the Imperial Custom-House would place insuper-
able difficulties in the way of the entry of the articles, I am
sure that my firm would be ready to make a great reduc-
tion—of even one-half—in the price, and nothing at all
need be imported into the Sublime dominions." This idea
seemed to please the Yali, but, in a minute, he said decidedly,
" No, but still we could never get rid of the name. It
would appear in the Government accounts as dynamite, and
if no dynamite was forthcoming, so much the worse. I
should be supposed to have applied it to some secret and
evil purpose. No, Effendim, Olmaz; it cannot be." " But
if it is only the name," I said in despair, " we can omit it.
Let us leave out the dynamo altogether and describe the
apparatus merely as the Antiseptic." "I don't like that
either," said the Yali, "'anti' is a bad word. The Greeks
call insurgents antartis." " But Antiseptic has nothing to do
with insurgents. It means ' against rottenness/ the enemyINTRODUCTION

9

of corruption, so to speak," I added, striving to make things
plain. "Exactly," said the Yali, "and that will at once be
understood as a seditious allusion to the Sublime Ottoman
Government. No, it cannot be." And to show that his
decision was irrevocable he again assumed his virtuous air,
and said, " All civilised countries are governed by law, and
I am surprised that one who has lived in the Ottoman
dominions as long as yourself should suppose that Turkish
officials can be induced by hopes of personal advantage to
neglect the regulations issued for their guidance. Law and
obedience are the foundation of the State."

This from a man with whom I had done business for
twenty years! Did he really think dynamos and dynamite
were the same ? His cursed encyclopaedia might have
taught him better than that! But whatever the depths
of his ignorance might be, he was clearly convinced that
any connection with dynamos would cost him his post,
and perhaps his life. I saw my commission and pickings
vanishing. In other words, industry and commerce were
thwarted and repressed by the crass stupidity of a tyran-
nical Government, and progress turned to stagnation
and decay. I felt honestly indignant. " Obedience to
good laws," I said, " is no doubt the foundation of the
State, but when the laws are bad and senseless, such as
those that prohibit the introduction of electrical appliances,
no advantage can come from obeying them. Every friend
of Turkey knows how excellent are the qualities of the
Turks, but they are neutralised by your government. You
will not adopt the most elementary principles of civilisa-
tion and commerce. You are turning a fertile garden
into a desert: you are sitting on a heap of gold and
starving because you will not coin it. You are a splendid
horse spoiled by an unskilful master." " No, no," said
the Vali anxiously, scenting treason in this last metaphor;
" you must not say that. The orders of our master areIO	TURKEY IN EUROPE

entirely for the good of his people. The only trouble is
when they are not executed." "At any rate," I said,
" your Highness will hardly maintain that the present
Grand Vizier is a suitable person to direct the affairs of
a great country." I knew he would be caught by that
bait. Since his own dismissal from the office he hated all
subsequent Grand Viziers. " The Grand Vizier!" he re-
peated ironically. " Whenever I think of the Grand
Vizier, it reminds me of— Well,' did you ever hear
the story of Hassan Effendi, the camel-driver of
Konia ? " I felt inclined to say "Yes," for I knew too
well the Vali's fondness for telling interminable Oriental
apologues, but I said resignedly, " No. Did they make
him Grand Vizier?" " Not quite that," said the Vali;
" but he was the biggest camel - owner in all Anatolia.
One day the time came for him—as it must come for
us all—to die, and he lay in bed gasping in his death
agony" (the Vali gurgled horribly in his throat to imitate
a dying man), "but could not die. The bystanders per-
ceived there was something wrong, and that the Angel of
Death could not take his soul. They concluded that he
had wronged some one, and that until he had been for-
given his soul could not enter into Paradise.1 So they
sent for all the friends and even the enemies of Hassan
Effendi to come and bless him and assure him of their
forgiveness if they had any old scores against him. All
day long they came to give and receive forgiveness, and
never was there a more affecting scene of reconciliation
and mutual benediction. But it availed nothing. The day
and the night passed, but Hassan Effendi still lay gasping
on his bed with the death-rattle in his throat, and the
Angel of Death could not take his soul. His friends saw

1 It is a Turkish custom for the friends of a dying man to assure him that
they have nothing against him, and to receive a similar assurance in their
turn. A Turk does not die happy if he thinks that any other Moslim has " a
right over him"—that is, a just claim or complaint against him.INTRODUCTION

that this was no ordinary case; and said among them-
selves, since all mankind have forgiven him, it must be
that he has sinned either against the Jinns or against
the beasts. He is a great camel-owner; maybe he has
wronged the camels—we had better get their blessing
and forgiveness. So they sent for the oldest camel-driver,
and asked him to consult the camels and arrange the
matter. The answer was not very favourable, camels
being notoriously the most disagreeable and unfriendly
creatures in the animal kingdom. They demanded a
holiday for the whole of the next day and permission to
hold a meeting on the plain outside Konia in order to
thoroughly discuss the matter and arrive at a decision.
There was nothing to be done but to accept the terms;
and all the next day the camels debated on the plain,
and there was such a grunting, groaning, wheezing, and
puffing as had never been heard in the world. And
all this time Hassan Effendi lay gasping on his bed,
and the Angel of Death could not take his soul. At last,
towards evening, the chief of the camels returned slowly
to the city and strode through the streets to Hassan
Effendi's house. He was as huge as an elephant and
the ragged hair hung down from his sides like streamers
of grey moss. He was too big to enter by the door,
and they suggested that he should deliver his benedic-
tion through the window. But he replied arrogantly that,
if they had no room for him in the house he would not
trouble them, and was going away. So they took down
the side of the house and the old camel entered Hassan
Effendi's room and knelt down by his bed. After salu-
tations, he said: ' Hassan Effendi, I have come in the
name of the camels to give you our blessing and assure
you of our forgiveness, but before pronouncing the bene-
diction I am charged to tell you what is the wrong which
we find it hardest to forgive. We do not complain that12

TURKEY IN EUROPE

we have to walk while you ride; that we carry burdens
and you whips; that the labour is hard and the food
short—God has made you men and us camels, and we
are of those who accept the decree of God. But there
is one thing which we find it hard to understand or
acquiesce in. It is that when our caravans go marching
across the plains they are always led by a little ass'1—and
whenever I see the Grand Vizier," said the Yali, coming
with sudden spitefulness to the point of this long anec-
dote, " I think of that little ass marching at the head
of the string of great camels."

" Your Highness's comparison is very just," I said;
" but though you have not the commanding position which
your talents deserve, you could yet do much in your pro-
vince if you would show a greater readiness to introduce
civilisation and liberal institutions." " Institutions and
constitutions are no good," said the Yali. " How is Bul-
garia better for her constitution ? Formerly we flogged
the Bulgarians; now they flog one another, and any poor
Turks they can catch. Do you think that the Armenians
have not learnt the value of constitutions ? Go and take
a basket and put into it constitutions and reforms, and cry
in the wilds of Armenia, as the hawkers cry in the streets
of Constantinople, ' I am the reform-man; I am the con-
stitution-man. I have reforms for sale; I have constitutions
for sale.' How many do you think will come to buy or to
bargain or take as a gift ? Not many, my friend; for they
have learnt how little reforms are worth, and how dear
they cost in blood. When you can get a Turk to obey a
Rayah (native Christian), then you may begin to talk of
reforming the Turkish Empire, and of introducing any
system but that which we have now."

"But that," I replied, "is not at all what I mean.

1 A string of camels is always led by an ass on which the leader of the
caravan sits.INTRODUCTION

i3

Doubtless an abrupt political change is undesirable, and
the wholesale adoption of European institutions in countries
which are not prepared for them is productive of more evil
than good. But some modification of the present system
would be an undoubted benefit. Your Highness would
probably be glad if there were fewer spies about" (the Vali
groaned assent); "and a fair and open administration of
justice would afford a protection to Turks as well as to
Christians," " It would not protect me from being named
Governor-General of Tripoli or the Yemen/' said the Yali;
" and it is necessary to deal firmly with our Christians. It
may not always be possible to find legal proof of their
machinations; but we know that they are engaged, or
ready to engage, in conspiracy against the Ottoman Empire.
With the sword we took these countries, and with the
sword we must hold them. We do not want to ill-treat
the Christians, and we show them nothing but kindness as
long as they are gentle and unassuming. But of late years
they have all had their heads turned, and want to become
independent. Such a business can only end in blood. If we do
not kill them, they will kill us and our wives and children."

" I cannot quite agree with your Highness about that,"
I said. " It appears to me ridiculous to suppose that these
poor down-trodden Armenians can think of massacring
Turks. If they arm themselves, it is only because they
are afraid of your soldiers and Zapties and wish to have
the means of self-protection. If you would only develop
the commercial and material resources of your Empire,
Christians and Turks would have a common interest, The
Christians would want to support your Empire as the source
of their prosperity. You do not find the big Greek and
Armenian bankers at Constantinople disloyal to the Sultan
It is the little people who have nothing to lose and who
suffer daily that are disaffected. Instead of making common
cause with the Christians, you run the risk of forcing alli4	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Christians to make common cause against the Moslim."
"We are not afraid of that," said the Yali. "They are a
mob of curs. If one of them runs forward to bark against
his master, some other will bite him in the tail and pull
him back. All Christians, big and small, like making
money. We Turks don't know how to make money; we
only know how to take it. You want to introduce a
system in which Christians will be able to squeeze all the
money out of us and our country and keep it. Who profit
by all these concessions for railways, harbours, and quays ?
Franks, Jews, Greeks, and Armenians, but never a Moslim.
Do you remember that railway I helped you to build from
Durograd to Moropolis ? Franks travel by it, Greeks and
Armenians sell the tickets, and in the end all the money
goes to the Jews. But what Turk wants the railway, and
how much has any Turk made out of it ?"

I might have said, "Exactly as much as passed into
your Highness's pockets when the concession was arranged,"
but I forbore from this obvious retort and let the Yali
go on. "This country is a dish of soup," he said, "and
no one has any real intention except to eat it. We eat
it in the good old-fashioned way with a big spoon. You
bore little holes in the bottom of the soup-bowl and draw
it off with pipes. Then you propose that the practice of
eating soup with spoons should be abolished as uncivilised,
because you know we have no gimlets and don't under-
stand this trick of drinking through pipes."

" But surely your Highness has had experience your-
self of the advantages which Osmanlis may obtain from
commercial enterprises and-"

"Oh, I have had a suck at the pipe," said the Yali,
" but, after all, I prefer eating with the spoon."

" And the spoon," I said furiously, for I had now got very
angry, " means murder, rape, and robbery. It means that no
man's life and no woman's honour are safe. It means thatINTRODUCTION

1S

in the name of taxation your soldiers make annual plunder-
ing expeditions and take, not what is owed, but what they
can get. It means organised brigandage, and stupid brigand-
ages too, for if you would adopt the elementary principles
of civilised government you would get twice as much with
half the trouble."

"Once/' said the Vali, calmly and irrelevantly, "I was
a very young man, and went a ride with my old father.
I was foolish then, and my head was stuffed with silly
notions and liberal ideas. I spoke much as you have
spoken. I told my father we ought to reform our con-
stitution, systematise our administration, purify our family
life, educate our women, introduce liberal ideas, and imitate
Europeans. And my old father answered never a word.
So we rode on along the banks of the Bosphorus. At last
we came to a Christian village, and round the Christian
village were many pigs. Then my father said to me, ' My
son, what seest thou ?' I replied, ' Pigs, my father.' ' My
son/ he said, 'are they all similar in size and colour, or
do they differ ?' ' They differ, my father. There are big
pigs and little pigs, white pigs and black pigs, brown pigs
and mottled pigs/ 'But they are all of them swine, my
son ?' ' All, my father/ ' My son/ he said, ' it is with the
Christians even as with the pigs. There are big Christians
and little Christians, Kussian Christians and English Chris-
tians, French Christians and German Christians; but they
are all of them swine, and he who wishes to imitate the
Christians, wishes to wallow with the swine in the mire/ "

"But surely," I said in astonishment, for the Yali was
generally polite—"surely your Highness does not mean
to say that you think us all swine ?"

" Well/' he said, " I was very young then, and my
brain was full of nonsense—so I thought my father was
a fool. But now that my own beard is getting grey—
by God, I think the old gentleman was right!"CHAPTER I

HISTORICAL

before the turkish conquest

There is nothing in the form of the word Turkey to distin-
guish it from such names as England, France, Germany,
or Russia, but it may be safely said that many of the errors
which have been committed by politicians and others in
dealing with the nearer East are due to the fact that Turkey
has been treated as if it were like other countries, whereas
the first requisite for an elementary knowledge of the
Eastern question is to understand that Turkey is quite
unlike any other country in Europe.

Whatever mixture or variety of races they may contain,
England, France, Germany, and Russia may for practical
purposes be defined as areas inhabited by Englishmen,
Frenchmen, Germans, and Russians respectively; but in
the south-east of Europe geographical designations must
be differently interpreted. It would be no definition of
Austria to say that it is a country inhabited by Austrians,
and still less would it be true to say that Turkey is a
country inhabited by Turks. Not that Turkey can be com-
pared to Austria. Making all allowance for such conflicts
as Germans against Czechs, and Hungarians against Rou-
manians, in which two races claim preponderance in one
district, it may be said, on the whole, that the Austro-
Hungarian Empire consists of a number of territories,
German, Bohemian, Polish, Hungarian, Servian, and what
not, each with their own population, but united under a

16BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 17

central Government. But in Turkey, not only is there a
similar medley of races, but the races inhabit not different
districts but the same district. Of three villages within ten
miles of one another, one will be Turkish, one Greek, and
one Bulgarian, or perhaps one Albanian, one Bulgarian, and
one Servian, each with their own language, dress, and re-
ligion. Under favourable circumstances, eight races and
languages may be found in a large town: Turks, Greeks,
Jews, Armenians, Bulgarians, Servians, Vlachs. and Alba-
nians.

Why do these remain each with their own language,
customs, and ideals, not as survivals interesting to the
learned, but as living realities whose bickerings and jeal-
ousies supply the daily round of Eastern politics ? The
answer to this question is given only by history, and it
therefore will be well to sketch the past of South-Eastern
Europe before the arrival of the Turks. The latter are
usually thought of as a destructive force, and rightly; they
have destroyed a great deal and constructed nothing. But
in another sense they have proved an eminently conserva-
tive force, for they have perpetuated and preserved, as if
in a museum, the strange medley which existed in South-
Eastern Europe during the last years of the Byzantine
Empire. Their idea of government has always been simply
to take tribute and secure the paramount position of the
Osmanli. This once recognised, they do not care to in-
terfere with the manners and customs of their subjects,
but treat them with a contemptuous toleration. Further,
they gained their first footing in Europe in consequence
of the dissensions of Europeans. They have always
been numerically inferior to the aggregate of their sub-
jects, and could hardly have maintained their rule had
the latter ever been able to unite against them. They
have thoroughly learned, and, still daily put into practice
with admirable skill, the lesson of divide et impera; and

B18	TURKEY IN EUROPE

hence they have always done, and still do, all in their power
to prevent the obliteration of racial, linguistic, and religious
differences.

I. Sketch of Byzantine History

Though our object is to sketch the past, not of the
Byzantine Empire, but of the populations of South-Eastern
Europe, it will be well to bear in mind the great epochs
which mark the history of Constantinople. No city in
the world, not even Rome, has more personality. To her
belongs the Empire of the East; and, from Constantine
onwards, he who has possessed her, whether his territory
was shrunk to a few miles beyond the city walls or extended
round the shores of the Mediterranean, has always been
Emperor. In the West of Europe, history is called upon to
deal with many centres, states, and civilisations. In the
East of the Continent, until the rise of Russia, we have
but one centre in an incoherent flux of barbarian invasions
and ephemeral chieftainships; the Imperial City, which, like
a living thing, struggles, triumphs, fails, and triumphs
again, crowning in turn the Roman, the Greek, and the
Turk, and even in the hour of collapse and decay impart-
ing to the House of Osman, as she imparted to the Palseo-
logi, a mysterious strength, which supported the Greek
Empire for a hundred years when it was apparently at
the mercy of the Turks, and which supports the Turkish
Empire now. The difference between Eastern and Western
Europe is due mainly to the fact that civilisation and
political strength were in the former concentrated in one
city, and were not the property of races or districts. Races
invade and retire; districts are conquered and lost, recon-
quered and lost again; there is no fixity in the boundaries
or composition of the Empire; little which has character
or permanence except Constantinople herself, round whom,BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 19

century after century, the subject territories expand and
contract with an almost rhythmic movement.

The first epoch—that from the foundation of the city
to the reign of Justinian (325—527)—is an epoch of con-
traction. The Empire was invaded by Goths and Huns,
and though the former were successfully removed from the
East, they founded kingdoms in Spain and Africa, while
in Italy the German general Odoacer deposed Romulus
Augustulus, Emperor of the West, in 488. Before this
date, the Empire, though theoretically one and indivisible,
had been generally, for convenience of administration, split
into two parts, ruled by two princes who had their capitals
jat Rome and Constantinople respectively. Henceforward,
until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 introduced a
new order of things, there was but one Emperor, who resided
At Constantinople but claimed a theoretical, though more
and more shadowy, sovereignty over the West. The suc-
cesses of Justinian (527-565) and his general Belisarius
in Italy, Spain, and North Africa, and the assertion of the
Imperial power over the Bishop of Rome, who was beginning
to make himself felt as a political factor of importance, pro-
duced a movement of expansion, and made this sovereignty
ja reality for a brief period. But it was the peculiar destiny
of the Eastern Empire to be allowed no rest: throughout
its history no sooner was one enemy disposed of than another
.appeared. The Lombards succeeded the Goths, and made
considerable conquests in Italy, while the Emperors were
.engaged in fighting the Persians in Asia and the Slavs in
Europe; so that when the next epoch-making Emperor,
Heraclius, came to the throne, his western possessions were
merely the extreme south of Italy and a narrow strip from
Ancona and Ravenna to Rome.

The energy and ability of this Emperor enabled him to
crush the power of Persia in the East, though distracted by
simultaneous attacks from the Avars in the West, but his20	TURKEY IN EUROPE

reign (610-641) is peculiarly remarkable as forming "the
best dividing point between ancient history and the Middle
Ages."1 It presents three interesting features. Firstly, the
Empire, which was Roman in origin, now becomes definitely
Greek. Secondly, paganism vanishes and the Emperor
and his subjects appear as the champions of Christianity.
Thirdly, it is in this reign that the great antagonist of
Eastern Christianity enters on the scene. In 628 the
prophet Mohammed summoned both Heraclius and his ad-
versary Chosroes, king of Persia, to embrace Islam, and
from this time till the capture of Constantinople by
Mohammed II. the Empire had to struggle against the
races which professed the new faith. In the first stage of
the struggle Constantinople twice successfully resisted sieges
by the Arabs, first in 673-677, and secondly in 717-718 ;
and, though the Moslems made progress in Asia, Leo the
Isaurian (717-740) may be considered to have reasserted
the supremacy of Christianity in what is now called the
Levant. Meanwhile the separation from the West was be-
coming more decided. The struggle against the Arabs left
the Emperors no time to resist the Lombards, who, in 750,.
captured Ravenna and the other possessions of the Empire
in Italy. The iconoclasm of Leo III. and Constantine V.
alienated the religious sentiment of Rome, and the Pope
first invoked the help of Pepin, king of the Franks, to
protect Kim against the Lombards, and finally, in 800,.
crowned Charlemagne Roman Emperor. Henceforward the
separation between Rome and Constantinople was complete
as far as secular matters are concerned, though the final
breach between the Churches did not occur for some time.

The ninth and tenth centuries marked, on the whole,,
a period of prosperity for the Empire. Constantinople
attained a unique commercial importance and enjoyed long
spells of peace. At the beginning of the ninth centurjr

1 Oman, " The Byzantine Empire."BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 21

a somewhat humiliating arrangement had to be made with
Harun-ar-reshid, and the Saracens took Crete and subse-
quently Sicily. But the Moslems became divided against
themselves; the Buhawids broke up the Caliphate of Bagdad,
and the Emperors Romanus and Nicephorus Phocas re-
covered Crete, Cilicia, and North Syria; while in Europe,
Basil, " the Bulgarian-slayer," made the Danube the frontier
of the Empire, which it had not been since the reign of
Heraclius, and established his rule over the Balkan Peninsula.

The eleventh century is marked by two important phe-
nomena—the appearance of the Seljuk Turks and the final
separation of the Eastern and Western Churches (1054),
which left a Christianity divided and weakened by internal
dissension face to face with a united Islam. In 1071 Alp
Arslan defeated and captured the Emperor Romanus IV. at
Manzikert, and, amidst the chaos and anarchy which ensued,
the Seljuks advanced unopposed in Asia Minor. At last,
in 1081, Alexius Comnenus forced himself to the front
and founded the house of the Comneni, which ruled a
hundred years. They were relatively successful in keeping
back the Seljuks, but they were harassed by new Western
enemies, first the Normans and then the Venetians. Byzan-
tine commerce declined and Italian influence in the Levant
rapidly increased. But the most important feature of this
period was the Crusades, which, like most acts of interven-
tion by Western Europe in the affairs of the East, were
doubtful blessings to those whom they were designed to
assist. The first of these expeditions did indeed aid Alexius
to recover Western Asia Minor, but the Emperor and the
Crusaders subsequently fell out., and, as a consequence of
the quarrel, the latter founded the Latin states of Syria.
It was reserved for the fourth Crusade, in 1204, to inflict on
the Eastern Empire a deadlier blow than any yet received
from Saracen or Turk. The House of Comnenus had then
been succeeded by the feeble Angeli. Military and financial22

TURKEY IN EUROPE

disorganisation led to the loss of Bulgaria and Cyprus and
to a disastrous Seljuk war. The Emperor Alexius Angelus
involved himself in foreign quarrels; Venice and the Italian
Republics were bitterly hostile to Constantinople, and the
Pope regarded the Emperor and his Church as schismatics.
In these circumstances the Crusaders, instead of fighting the
Moslems, attacked and captured Constantinople, where they
established Baldwin as Latin Emperor, while Montferrat
was made king of Salonica and the Venetians took many
islands and part of the mainland of Greece. For fifty
years the Greek Emperors lived in exile at Nicsea in Asia,
and Eastern Europe was in a strange state of confusion
created by a patchwork of Greek, Latin, and Slavonic states.
The Latin Empire was merely an enterprise of military
adventurers. It reposed on no sound national or political
basis, and it made no friends in the East. It was naturally
the enemy of everything Greek, and it was unable or un-
willing to combine with the Slavs, who, as desiring an
expansion of territory at the expense of the Greeks, would
have been its natural allies. It came to an end in 1261,
and Michael Palseologus recaptured Constantinople, where
his house reigned until 1453.

But the Latin conquest had permanently reduced the
Empire. During the half-century that Baldwin and his
successors held Constantinople, Slavonic kingdoms had been
firmly established in the Balkan Peninsula. Albania had
become the Despotate of Epirus, the greater part of Greece
had been divided among Latin states, and most of the
iEgean Islands had passed into the hands of Venice. In
Asia the Seljuks advanced again, and a crew of European
Adventurers called the " Grand Company," whom the
Emperor Andronicus II. hired to defend him, proved as
great a curse as the Turks themselves. Bad as things
were, they were to become worse. In the first half of the
fourteenth century appeared the Ottomans, who rapidlyBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 23

swallowed up what scraps of the Empire remained in Asia,
and were most unwisely invited over to Europe by the
Regent John Cantacuzene to assist him against the Servians.
Their conquests were as rapid on this side of the Strait
as they had been on the other. In the middle of the
fourteenth century the Emperor had nothing left but
Salonica and a portion of the Peloponnesus, and became a
vassal of the Sultan. The appearance from Central Asia
of Timur, who attacked and defeated Sultan Bayazid, gave
a little breathing space, and Manuel Palseologus recovered
parts of the European coast. Had Christendom been able
to form any coalition against the Turks at the moment
when they were attacked by Timur, the case of the Empire
would not have been desperate; but the opportunity was
allowed to slip. Mohammed I. again united the Turkish
power. Salonica was captured in 1430, and Constantinople
in 1453.

II. Invasions and Settlements of the Slavs

Let us now leave these high imperial politics and briefly
consider the various races who invaded the Balkan Peninsula
in the period between the foundation of Constantinople and
the coming of the Turks, as well as the states which were
founded by them. The history of the Balkan Peninsula
is so little known that it may be convenient for purposes
of reference, if not exactly interesting, to recount here its
main features. We have to explain how countries which
were inhabited by Greeks, Romans, and Thracians became in
the main Slavonic, and to relate how the Slavs formed
three states—the first and second Bulgarian Empires and
the Servian Empire—each of which seemed at a given
moment likely to become the dominant power of Eastern
Europe, and each of which collapsed mysteriously in turn.

The earliest known inhabitants of the Balkan Peninsula24

TURKEY IN EUROPE

were the Illyrians on the West and the Thracians on the
East. The former were doubtless the ancestors of the modern
Albanians, and it has been conjectured that the latter are
to be identified with the Ylachs now found in Macedonia.
Both established independent states in ancient times, the
former the kingdom of Epirus under Pyrrhus (about 300 B.C.),
and the latter the more important Macedonian Empire. But
the civilisation of both states seems to have been entirely
Hellenic, and neither art nor literature throws much light
on the indigenous substratum. Probably in general char-
acteristics they resembled the modern Albanians, a race
who, as individuals, are brave and capable, but with little
political instinct or power of combination, and, though not
wanting in individuality, so given to borrowing both words
and customs that it is hard to say what parts of their lan-
guage and institutions are original. In any case, before the
foundation of Constantinople, the whole Peninsula underwent
a strong Hellenic influence, and, after the Roman conquest
of Macedonia, an equally strong Latin influence. There was
also, no doubt, in the population a large admixture of Hellenic
and Italian blood; along the coast were considerable colonies
peopled by emigrants from Greece, and naturally the Italian
troops and Italian officials were alike numerous.

North and north-east of the Danube lies a region which
is not perhaps well known to the majority of educated people
nowadays, and which was utterly unknown in the early cen-
turies of this era—a land of darkness, mystery, and trouble,
from which swarm after swarm of strange and hateful bar-
barians poured upon the civilised world. The people called
Huns seem to have started this Western movement. Many
of them settled near the Ural Mountains or on the Volga,
others pushed on beyond the Don until they came in con-
tact with the Gothic Empire, which occupied parts of South
Russia and Roumania, and probably extended to the Baltic.
The word Empire is commonly and conveniently applied toBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 25

the power of such races as the Goths, Huns, and Avars, but
must not be understood to imply any real comparison with
the Roman Empire. It merely means that the people in
question was the dominant race in a heterogeneous collec-
tion of tribes, who were held together, some as serfs, some as
allies, in a loose and generally ephemeral organisation. The
Huns subdued the Ostrogoths, but the more civilised Visigoths
retired before them, and ultimately obtained permission to
cross the Danube and settle in Moesia. We need not make
any detailed examination of the Goths or their movements,
as they eventually departed from South-Eastern Europe
without leaving any traces of their sojourn. Suffice it to say
that the Yisigothic influence became very strong in Con-
stantinople, until their power and unpopularity provoked a
massacre in 401—the first of many such massacres which
the Imperial city has witnessed. In the early part of the
fifth century, Attila the Hun founded an empire and forced
the court of Constantinople to pay tribute; but the power of
the Huns was disorganised by his death, and the Ostrogoths,
who were now set free from their yoke, invaded the Balkan
Peninsula, which they ravaged for twenty years, until the
diplomacy of the Emperor Zeno induced them to depart in
488 by promising their chieftain the government of Italy if
he could conquer Odoaeer. After this, we hear no more of
the Goths in the East.

As the disappearance of the Huns had set free the Ostro-
goths, so the removal of these latter set the Slavs in motion,
and their movements form the most important feature of
the sixth and seventh centuries. It has been said of this
people that they occupy a larger space on the map than
in history, and the observation is not unjust. At the end
of the seventh century the territory comprised between the
Baltic on the north and the JEgean on the south, the
Dnieper on the east and the rivers Elbe and Saale on the
west, was almost entirely peopled by Slavonic tribes whose26

TURKEY IN EUROPE

languages and customs showed a similarity which is very
remarkable if we consider the enormous area over which
they extended. Subsequent events destroyed this homo-
geneity. The western tribes were either assimilated by the
Germans, or at least, like the Poles and Bohemians, carried
off by the general current of Western history. The occupa-
tion of Hungary by the Magyars in the ninth and tenth
centuries displaced many more, while those in the east were
subjected to strong Scandinavian and Asiatic influences, and
destined to a late but very important development under
the name of Russians. We are here concerned with the
group commonly known as Southern Slavs—that is, those
who dwell south of the Danube. They are known to ancient
writers by various names, which must not be interpreted too
strictly as applying to definite territories or nationalities.
They are most commonly called by Greek chronicles S^Aa/Sof,
*2nc\afirivoi, or ^jdXafirjvol, a word which is apparently the
same as Slovene, the designation now borne by the inhabi-
tants of Carniola and Carinthia, and which is akin to Slav,
Slovak, Slavonia, and other names variously referred to roots
meaning " speech" or " glory." A second name is Antai
("A vrai), apparently identical with the words Wend and Venaja
applied to Slavs by the Germans and Finns respectively, and
now not used in the East, where, however, another national
appellation, Serb, still survives. It exists in the modern forms
Serb,1 Servian, as well as in Sorabian and Sorbian,2 Servia,
and in the ancient ^EepfiXoi and probably 27ropoi (used by
Procopius), and is now applied in a restricted sense to the
inhabitants of the kingdom of Servia, and in a more ex-
tended one to all who speak the Servian language. This
use of the word, however, brings us into collision with the
name Croatian (Hrvat, XpcofUdToi). The Croatians speak a

1	The natives write the word Srb, the r having attached to it a dull vowel
sound not unlike our own pronunciation of Serb.

2	A language spoken on the river Spree in Prussia and Saxony.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 27

language practically identical with Servian, but they belong
to the Roman Church and use the Latin alphabet, differences
which have been sufficient to create a feeling of hostility
between them and their kinsmen, who cling to the Eastern
Church and Cyrillic letters.1

All these Slavs, whether called Antai, Slovenes, Serbs, or
Croatians, seem to have possessed at the time of their irrup-
tion into the Eastern Empire certain common characteristics.
They were free peoples, without either slaves or kings, and
impatient of all authority. Their institutions were demo-
cratic, and their social organisation founded on a system of
family communism. Their pursuits were mainly agricultural,
and they built villages rather than towns. Their religion was
a simple form of Nature-worship, and they had no priesthood.
These characteristics go far to explain another—their re-
markable want of political cohesion and tendency to break
up into mutually hostile tribes and factions. This descrip-
tion will sound strange to those who, regarding the Russian
Empire as the principal product of Slav civilisation, associate
that name with autocracy and hierarchy; but there is no
doubt that the Russians are a mixed race, and that much
of their success is due to the fact that they have got rid of
many Slavonic weaknesses.

Nor did the Southern Slavs remain a pure race. In
the eastern half of the Balkan Peninsula their blood and
destinies were mingled with those of the Bulgarians, an Asiatic
people akin to the Finns, Huns, Avars, and Pechenegs, and
forming part of what is often called the Finno-Ugric stock.
Starting, no doubt, from the same regions as the Huns, they
first settled on the Volga, where a kingdom known as the
Greater or Black Bulgaria continued until the fifteenth
century, but part of them passed farther west and came in

1 It should be mentioned that some authorities think that the Croatians
were, like the Bulgarians, an originally un-Slavonic, Hunnic people, who
became Slavised.28

TURKEY IN EUROPE

contact with the Slavs. Nothing is known of their original
language and religion, but their dress, manners, and institu-
tions distinguished them sharply from their Slavonic neigh-
bours ; for while the latter were governed by many chiefs to
whom they paid but scant obedience, the Bulgarian Khan
was an absolute monarch, isolated from his subjects by a
rigid system of Oriental etiquette, and obliged even to eat
alone. They also possessed slaves and a well-disciplined
army, and probably had most of the characteristics which
rendered the Turks so formidable a power. But their most
remarkable characteristic was receptivity. They adopted the
language and, to a certain extent, the manners of the Slavs,
and a considerable mixture of blood took place, modifying
the original physical type. It is not known at what period
the Bulgarians became completely Slavised, but it was clearly
before their conversion to Christianity in 864, as Saints Cyril
and Methodius were able to preach to them in a Slavonic
language. There is, I believe, nothing to prove that they
had not already come under the influence of the Slavs at
the time when they dwelt north of the Danube and had not
yet invaded the Empire.

Of the other non- Aryan tribes the Avars are of some
importance, for, though they do not appear to have con-
tributed to the population of modern Europe, the rise and
fall of their power was one of the chief influences which
determined the movements of the Slavs and Bulgarians.
Little is known of them, but it would seem that they were
a destructive and barbarous horde, without any civilisation
of their own or any disposition to adopt that of others.
The only object of their wars was to pillage and carry off
booty, and they were celebrated for their " rings," enormous
circular fences with which they surrounded the prisoners
and plunder they had taken. In conjunction with the
Lombards, a Germanic people who had replaced the Ostro-
goths, they destroyed the power of the Gepids, anotherBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 29

Germanic people; and when the Lombards invaded Italy
they occupied the territory vacated by them, which was
apparently the modern Hungary.

It is not difficult to explain the series of invasions which
swept into the Balkan Peninsula, if we remember that the
withdrawal of the Goths to Italy brought the Empire into
direct contact with a seething mass of Slavs and Bulgarians,
who were kept in motion by the pressure of the Avars on
the north-west and of obscurer Asiatic tribes on the east.
577 is fixed as the date of the first considerable Slav
invasion, but it is clear that for a century or more before
this date there had been a considerable infiltration of Slav
blood into the Empire. But after the end of the sixth
century, the new-comers appear by tens and hundreds of
thousands, sometimes alone and sometimes accompanied by
Avars. In either case the permanent result was the same,
for the Avars always retired and only the Slavs settled., In
the reigns of Maurice, Phocas, and Heraclius no serious
effort was made to check these incursions, for the first two
Emperors were incompetent, and the third too much occupied
with his struggle against Persia to protect any part of Europe
except Constantinople. It is even said that he invited the
Slavs to make settlements in his dominions; but this can
hardly mean more than that he thought it prudent not to
oppose them. The result was that by the middle of the
seventh century the bulk of the population in the modern
districts of Bulgaria, Macedonia, Albania, and Greece had
become Slavonic, except in the large towns, for the military
methods of both Slavs and Avars were exceedingly primitive,
and unsuccessful in attacking fortified places. Salonica in
particular withstood several sieges, and remained a centre of
Hellenism. But in general the Hellenic element was driven
to the coast, and the Albanians (or Illyrians) confined to a
narrow strip of territory about the modern Mirditia. It is
true that both Greeks and Albanians, or at least their3°

TURKEY IN EUROPE

languages, subsequently spread again over the country and
reasserted their influence, but the testimony of geographical
names shows conclusively that Epirus, Northern Greece, and
the Peloponnesus must all have been occupied by Slavs at
some period. It was also during the reign of Heraclius that
the Serbs and Croats advanced in the West. The latter
occupied Bua, Ragusa, and Zara, driving the Roman inhabi-
tants of Dalmatia into the islands and promontories, and
founded a kingdom which perhaps included Bosnia. To
the south of this Croatian kingdom, which was the first
Slavonic state in the East, and was most powerful from the
seventh to the ninth centuries, were four tribes, called " the
maritime Serbs." If we identify the Sklavinoi, who were al-
ready established in the Balkan Peninsula, with the Slovenes,
who now inhabit Carniola and Carinthia, the effect of this
movement was to split the Slovene race into two divisions
and drive a wedge of Serbs and Croats between them. The
successors of Heraclius were, like him, unable or unwilling
to seriously grapple with the Slavs. Constans II. (642-668)
was occupied in the earlier part of his reign with wars
against the Saracens, and, when he was free from his enemies
on the East, turned his attention to the far West and organised
an expedition to Italy. The Slavonic invaders were merely
obliged to pay tribute and do homage, but were otherwise
left to their own devices. The reign of Constantine IV.
(668-685) is remarkable for the repulse of the first Arab
attack on Constantinople, and it is not surprising to read
that, while all the military strength of the Empire was con-
centrated to repel this danger, the invasion of the European
provinces from the North continued, and that Salonica was
besieged by Slavs.

It is at this period, too, that we first hear of the Bul-
garians as an independent Power, though they are mentioned
as accompanying the invasions of the Slavs as early as the
reign of Anastasius (491—5 18). In the third quarter of theBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 31

seventh century they settled in the district of Onglos (Bujak),
and subsequently in 679 subdued what are called " the seven
Slavonic tribes " of Moesia, and occupied that province under
their chieftain Isperich or Asperuch.1 The boundaries of
this kingdom were approximately those of the modern Princi-
pality of Bulgaria, and the capital, Peristhlava or Preslav, was
near Yarna. Constantine, exhausted by his efforts against
the Arabs, submitted tamely to the establishment of the new
state within his dominions, and his son, Justinian Rhinot-
metus, at one period courted the aid of the Bulgarian chief-
tain Terbel. By the beginning of the ninth century the
Bulgarians had grown so powerful that they threatened
Constantinople itself. Their king, Krumn, appeared before
the gates of the Imperial city, and might, perhaps, have
taken it, had not the Greek army, conscious of the critical
situation, deposed the incompetent Michael I. and proclaimed
Leo the Armenian as Emperor. Adopting a method which
was beginning to become characteristic of Byzantine politics,
Leo first endeavoured to assassinate Krumn at a conference;
but, when this plan failed, proved that he was a soldier as
well as a diplomatist, by inflicting on the Bulgarians a defeat
so crushing that we hear little more of them for fifty years.
These conflicts with the Empire naturally brought the Bul-
garians into contact with Christianity. In the middle of
the seventh century, King Boris was baptized; and, after
some hesitation between the rival claims of Rome and
Byzantium, ended by acknowledging the spiritual authority
of the latter. This and all other questions affecting the
history of the Orthodox Church are more fully dealt with
in Chapter VI.

1 From this variety in the orthography one is tempted to suppose that the
name must have been pronounced Ispjrikh with dull vowels like Yjldirim
in Turkish.32

TURKEY IN EUROPE

III. Slavonic and Other States before the
Turkish Conquest

The transition from invasions and settlements to poli-
tical organisations was first made by the Bulgarians. As
soon as they accepted Christianity their advance was rapid
and conspicuous. Simeon, the son of Boris (892-927),
founded the first Bulgarian Empire, which extended from
Mesembria on the Black Sea to the Adriatic, including the
greater part of modern Macedonia, Albania, Greece, Servia,
and Dalmatia, and leaving to the Byzantine Empire little
besides Constantinople, Salonica, and Adrianople, with the
territory immediately surrounding them. To mark clearly
the position which he claimed, he assumed the title of Czar
or Tsar,1 which was thus used in Bulgaria when the Russian
nation hardly existed. It is doubtless an abbreviated form of
Caesar, and indicated that he who bore it thought himself the
equal of the Byzantine monarch. Simeon also did his best
to introduce Byzantine civilisation among his people. The
civil and ecclesiastical institutions of the new state were
carefully copied from the model of the Empire, and numerous
translations from Greek ecclesiastical works attest the exist-
ence of a certain degree of religious culture. But the first
Bulgarian Empire was short lived. When we contemplate
its sudden creation and wholesale adoption of Byzantine
institutions, we are forcibly reminded of those modern states
in the East which have chosen, or been supplied with, ready-
made constitutions of the most advanced European type.
We may doubt if Simeon's rule was really effective in his

1 The correct pronunciation of this name in Russian is Tsar, with the r
very soft and followed by a slight y sound. The spelling Czar seems justified
by long use in English, like Caliph for Khalifah. It is due to the etymology
from Caesar, and perhaps to the Polish orthography Car. In modern Russian
the words Tsar, Tsaritsa, and Tsezarevich are rarely used except in the
Church prayers, and are replaced by Gosudar, Gosudarynia, and Naslednik.
Czarine or Tsarina is not a Russian word at all.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 33

remoter provinces, or exercised a lasting influence on many
of the populations who owned his sway. At any rate, his
successor was not strong enough to keep the fabric together.
The warlike Emperor Nicephorus Phocas invited the Russians
(who now appear for the first time in the Eastern question)
to assist him in invading Bulgaria. Internal dissensions
broke out in that country, and a noble called Shishman
founded a dynasty of his own in the Western provinces.
John Zimesces, the assassin and successor of Nicephorus,
found, as many other rulers of Constantinople have done,
that the Russians were awkward neighbours, but by his
prompt and decisive action drove them out of Bulgaria
and back from the banks of the Danube. He also entirely
destroyed the Eastern Bulgarian Empire. The western part,
however, remained independent under Samuel (993-1014),
the son of Shishman, whose capital was at Ochrida, and whose
dominions extended from the Danube at least as far south
as Janina. This state was finally conquered in 1018 by the
Byzantine Emperor Basil II., generally called Bulgaroktonos,
or " the Bulgarian-slayer," who, after a desperate struggle of
thirty-four years, annihilated Bulgaria and brought the whole
of the Balkan Peninsula under the direct rule of Constanti-
nople. According to the story, he took 1 5,000 Bulgarians
prisoner, and blinded all except 150, whose sight was spared
in order that they might lead the eyeless host back to their
master. When Samuel saw them he died of grief.

It was a hundred and fifty years before Bulgaria recov-
ered from this blow and emerged again as an independent
Power. The new state was founded by the dynasty of the
Asens, and is often spoken of as the Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire.
The name Vlach is applied not only to the inhabitants of
Roumania, but to the tribes scattered over Macedonia and
Thessaly—particularly in the Pindus range—who speak a
Latin language. I propose to treat in another place of this
interesting people, and will here merely say that one way of

c34

TURKEY IN EUROPE

explaining their present distribution is to suppose, not that
they have migrated from Roumania, but that they are the de-
scendants of the Latin-speaking population which occupied
the Peninsula before the Slav invasions. This does not mean
that they are necessarily of Latin race, but it seems pro-
bable that, in the period preceding the Slav invasions, Latin
was the language of the Peninsula except on the JEgean
coast. The Slav invaders overran the valleys, and the Latin-
speaking tribes took refuge in the hills. At any rate, the
Ylachs are at present scattered in a manner which accords
with this theory, and almost invariably inhabit mountains,
while the plains around are occupied by other races. This
geographical distribution explains the double character of
the second Bulgarian Empire, for in the same district there
might be a double population—the Ylachs of the hills and
the Slavo-Bulgarians of the plains. At this period the Ylach
element seems to have been particularly important, for Thes-
saly was known as the Great Wallachia (Me-yctA^ BAa^ela),
although the centre of the Ylacho-Bulgarian Empire was not
in Thessaly or South Macedonia, but at Trnovo. Though it
is probable that the founders of this new state were Ylachs
rather than Bulgarians,1 the Bulgarian element was in the
majority among their subjects, and the Empire of Asen II.
has as good a right to the title of Bulgarian as the Empire
of Simeon. The earlier princes of the dynasty contracted
alliances both political and matrimonial with the Kumans,
a tribe allied to the Turks, who, together with the Pechenegs
(or Patzinaks), appeared on the Danube in the eleventh and
twelfth centuries, and made incursions into Bulgaria which
in some cases resulted in permanent settlements.2

1	Nicetas relates that a Vlach priest who had been taken prisoner threw
himself at the feet of Asen, and made a personal appeal to him for pardon
" since he spoke Vlach;" and at the beginning of the thirteenth century
Kaloyan, in his correspondence with Innocent III., speaks of his Roman
descent, which is apparently admitted by the Pope.

2	There is reason to think that a great part of the population round
Sofia is descended from these tribes.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 35

The outbreak which originated the second Bulgarian
Empire was occasioned by the exactions of the Emperor
Isaac Angelus, who collected taxes with extraordinary rigour
in order to meet the expenses of his court. The two
brothers Asen and Peter, having in vain demanded redress,
proclaimed a revolt, and announced that St. Demetrius
had left his shrine in Salonica, and, as a sign of special
favour, taken up his abode in Trnovo, where they estab-
lished the capital of their new state. The superstition
and grievances of the peasantry assured them a favourable
hearing; the Bulgarians rose against Isaac Angelus and
successfully resisted his attempt to subdue them. But the
national tendency to dissension asserted itself. Asen and
Peter were both assassinated, and were succeeded by their
younger brother, Joannitza or Kaloyan (Good John) whose
natural abilities and exceptionally favourable opportunities
enabled him to put the Bulgarian state on a firmer footing.
He was shrewd enough to derive considerable advantage
from the breach between Eastern and Western Christianity,
which was rapidly widening, and carried on an exceedingly
curious correspondence with Pope Innocent III., which
ended in the despatch of a Papal Legate to Trnovo, who
crowned him as Dominus Blacorum et Bulgarorum. As soon
as he heard of the capture of Constantinople (1204), he
offered his arms and assistance to the Latin Empire. But
his overtures were met with a rude and most unwise rebuff,
and he was even told to give up to the Latins the territory
which he had taken from the Greek Empire. On this he
made an alliance with the Greeks, and defeated the Latins
at Adrianople. The Latin Emperor Baldwin himself was
taken prisoner and perished mysteriously in captivity. But
when he had avenged the insults of the Latins, Kaloyan
turned against the Greeks. At the head of his barbarous
Kumans, he massacred the Greek inhabitants of Thrace and
Macedonia, and finally besieged Salonica. But here his36

TURKEY IN EUROPE

eventful career came to an end. He died in his camp of
the family complaint of assassination (1207), an(l chaos suc-
ceeded. Bulgaria seemed about to disappear from the map,
when Kaloyan's son Asen, who had fled to the north, returned
with a band of Russians and seized the throne.

The reign of Asen II. (1218—1240) was the most pros-
perous period of the second Bulgarian Empire, and perhaps
of all Bulgarian history. The weakness of both the Latin
and Greek Empires rendered him the strongest potentate in
Eastern Europe. Like his father, he wished to be on good
terms with the Latin Empire, and was a candidate for the
post of Regent during the minority of Baldwin II. But he
was not elected, and, angry at what he considered a slight,
formed an alliance with the Greeks. His Empire comprised
the modern Bulgaria and Servia (including Belgrade), Mace-
donia and Albania, and, according to his own boast, he left
the Latins nothing but Constantinople and the cities round
it. Considering how troubled were the times and how
blood-stained the annals of his predecessors, his reign was
marked by extraordinary peace and material prosperity.
He was a warm patron of architecture and the Church.
He filled his capital, Trnovo, with magnificent buildings,
which made it second only to Constantinople in beauty
and splendour, and also built and endowed a large number
of monasteries in different parts of his dominions. Yet his
Empire was not more stable than those which preceded it,
and broke up immediately after his death in 1241.

It is hardly profitable to follow in detail the complicated
intrigues and insurrections which compose the remainder
of the mediaeval history of Bulgaria. Rent by internal
dissensions, the unhappy country was attacked by Tartars
from the north and overshadowed by the growing power
of Servia to the west. The two Slavonic states came into
collision at the battle of Yelbuzhd. The Bulgarians were
utterly defeated, and may for some time be considered asBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 37

the vassals of Servia, until the decline of the latter re-
established equality. It is an inglorious feature of this
period that the Bulgarians were allies of the Turks and as-
sisted them against the Greek Empire. Corps were formed,
called Voinik, composed of Christians who, in consideration
of their taxes being remitted, served under the Ottoman
standard against their co-religionists. The last Bulgarian
Czar became the vassal of Sultan Murad and gave him his
daughter in marriage. But, in spite of such concessions,
Bulgaria was doomed. The power of the Southern Slavs
was annihilated in 1389 at the battle of Kossovo, and four
years later the Ottomans burnt Trnovo and destroyed the
last vestige of Bulgarian independence. These events have,
however, a closer connection with Servian history, to which
we must now turn. For the sake of clearness we have
treated Bulgaria separately, but in the fourteenth century
Servia was the strongest Slav state in the Balkans, and it
was mainly the failure of Servia to resist the advance of
the Turks which destroyed the power and almost the name
of the Southern Slavs during so many centuries.

In considering the history of the mediaeval Servians, we
must not make the mistake of thinking of them as the
inhabitants of the modern kingdom of Servia. That king-
dom. is a creation of the Treaty of Berlin, and does not
coincide with the boundaries of any of the older states
which have borne the same name, or with any ethnogra-
phical division. As we have seen, the Greek historians do
not call the Slavonic invaders of Macedonia Serbs, and the
early use of the name connects it distinctly with the west
of the Peninsula. The Servian advance seems to have been
directed, in the first instance, towards Bosnia, Montenegro,
and the Adriatic coast, whence it spread eastwards, and the
most brilliant epochs of the nation are connected with " Old
Servia" and North Macedonia, which are now Ottoman
territory. Practically nothing is known of the history of38

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the Servian tribes before the middle of the twelfth century.
They were from time to time subject to the early Bulgarian
rulers, but had no political union or central organisation of
their own. Their territories were divided into districts or
counties, called Zhupa, at the head of each of which was a
chief, apparently elective, called Zhupan. These chiefs met
together and elected a leader called the Grand Zhupan; but
the titles of King and Czar belong to a later period. The
Servians were converted to Christianity about the same
time as the Bulgarians, in the middle of the ninth century.
Though they ultimately adhered to the Eastern Church,
their earlier ecclesiastical relations seem to have been
chiefly with the West, and in 1050 Gregory VII. sent a
consecrated banner to the Grand Zhupan.

About 1150 the darkness which envelops the early
annals of Servia begins to lift a little with the appear-
ance of Stephen Nemanya. He was originally merely
Grand Zhupan of Novi Bazar, but he increased his pos-
sessions by such considerable conquests in Croatia and
Dalmatia that he attracted the attention of the Emperor
Manuel, who marched against him in person, and forced
him to make a humble submission. During Manuel's reign
Nemanya had to restrain his ambitions, but on the Emperor's
death in 1180 he recommenced his activity. He captured
Nish, and ruled over a territory comprising the western
part of modern Servia, Montenegro, Herzegovina, and the
vilayet of Kossovo. His capital was at Prishtina, and he
assumed the title of King of Servia. He cultivated friendly
relations with Frederick Barbarossa, and entertained him
hospitably at Belgrade when he passed through Eastern
Europe on his way to the third Crusade. In 119 5 he
apparently became weary of power, abdicated in favour of
his second son, Stephen Urosh, and retired to Chilendar, a
monastery which he had founded on Mount Athos, and
which is still the centre of Servian hopes on the HolyBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 39

Mountain. His successor is commonly known by the
epithet of First Crowned,1 because he was the first ruler
of Servia whose position was recognised by a public coro-
nation. In his case the ceremony seems to have been
performed twice—first by a Papal Legate in 1217, and sub-
sequently by his brother, the monk Rastko, canonised under
the name of St. Sava, and rightly venerated in Servia; for
he appears to have been the real creator of the Servian
kingdom and to have disposed of its destinies, though he
never reigned. Profiting by the strife between the Latins
and Greeks at Constantinople, which had been so pro-
pitious to the second Bulgarian Empire, he succeeded in
inducing the Pope and the Greek Emperor, as well as
Baldwin, to recognise his brother as independent sovereign
of Servia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia, and secured peace both at
home and abroad. Andrew II. of Hungary, alarmed at the
growth of the new Power, which, by incorporating Bosnia
and Dalmatia, had become conterminous with his own pos-
sessions, incited Stephen's elder brother to revolt against
him. This incident gives us in a nutshell the two weak-
nesses which mark the whole history of the Servian
kingdom—the enmity of Hungary, and the extraordinary
propensity towards family dissension and intrigue. Servia
was never able to concentrate her powers against the Greeks
or the Turks on account of the necessity of defending her-
self against her jealous neighbour, who, until the advance
of the Turks alarmed all Christendom, was always ready
to attack her when she was in difficulties. The gravest
national crises, when the existence of the country was at
stake, were insufficient to secure for the king the loyal co-
operation of his nearest relatives. In the present case the
tact and ability of Sava brought about a reconciliation
between his two brothers, but the danger recurred re-
peatedly when there was no one to remove it.

1 PrvovenSani.4°

TURKEY IN EUROPE

The next century and a half of Servian annals are
filled with the domestic tragedies and military exploits of
a series of monarchs called Stephen. Nearly all Servian
kings bore this name, its signification in Greek (a " crown ")
having led to its use as a royal title, like Caesar. The middle
of the thirteenth century is occupied by Stephen IV., sur-
named the Great, and with his second son, Stephen VI.,
begins the period of national glory. For more than fifty
years—when the strength of Bulgaria had declined, when
the restored Byzantine Empire, hopelessly weakened by its
struggle with the Latins, had ceased to be a terror, and the
Ottomans had not yet a firm footing in Europe—Servia
was not only the most important power in the Balkans,
but seemed capable of resisting the Turkish advance.

Stephen YI. quarrelled with Michael Palseologus, and
took from him the whole of Macedonia north of the Yardar,
including Mount Athos; but subsequently he adopted the
wise and honourable policy of making an alliance with the
Byzantine Empire against the Turks, whom he defeated
both in Asia and in Thrace. Stephen VII. crushed the
power of Bulgaria, and thus prepared the way for the
triumphs of the greatest of all the Stephens, commonly
known as Dushan, or " the Strangler," because, according to
one story, he killed his father in this way.1

His brilliant reign of twenty years was destined to
make this unenviable epithet the most distinguished name
in Servian history. Dushan not only extended the frontiers
and influence of his country to an unparalleled extent, but
also made a code of laws which is still extant (the Zakonik),
and protected literature and the Church. This legislation
and civilisation, however, appear to have been entirely an
imitation of Byzantine models, and to have contained hardly
any original elements.

1 Some patriotic Servians who do not like this story try to derive Dushan
from dusha,, a soul.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 41

He opened his reign by invading Thessaly, besieged the
Emperor Andronicus III. in Salonica, and by a treaty con-
cluded in 1340 was recognised by him as possessor of almost
the whole Balkan Peninsula except Salonica and Durazzo.
The death of Andronicus in 1341 was followed by the
accession of the infant John V. Palseologus and the regency
of the ambitious Cantacuzene. Dushan began by making
an alliance with the latter; but amid the domestic dissen-
sions which rent the unhappy Empire a rupture soon
occurred. Dushan sided with the Empress Anne against
Cantacuzene, and the latter called in the Turks to assist
him. At first Dushan was entirely successful, and in 1346
he had himself proclaimed " Emperor of the Greeks and
Servians " at Uskiib; his son received the title of king, and
the head of his Church was made a Patriarch. But sub-
sequently Cantacuzene, through his infamous alliance with
the Turks, was able to win back parts of Macedonia and
Thrace.

In the West, Dushan was even more fortunate than in
the East. His victories over Louis the Great of Hungary
gave him Belgrade, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, and his coins
were minted at Cattaro. In the twentieth year of his reign
he planned and started a vast expedition against Constanti-
nople. This enterprise was of the nature of a Crusade, and
was inaugurated with solemn religious ceremonies. He
appears to have thought, not without reason, that a fresh
and vigorous Power might be able, if possessed of (the
enormous strategical and geographical advantages of the
Imperial city, to hold Eastern Europe against the Turk, and
we can hardly blame him for making war on a Christian
prince, for the Byzantine Empire, though it lasted another
century, was apparently at its last gasp and in the hands of
the usurper Cantacuzene, the ally of Orkhan.

Perhaps few but students have heard of Dushan's expe-
dition against Constantinople, but it was certainly one of42

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the most critical moments of European history. Unprofi-
table though it be to speculate on what might have been,
it is interesting to realise that an exceptionally talented
and energetic prince, representing a still rising Power, came
within forty miles of Constantinople at the head of an
army of 80,000 men. It is said that the inhabitants were
ready to open the gates, and at any rate there were no mili-
tary obstacles sufficient to prevent him from capturing the
city and undertaking the task of defending Christendom
against Islam. If the strength of Constantinople was able
to preserve the Palaeologi another hundred years, we may
suppose that it would have been put to better use in
stronger hands. But Dis aliter visum. Dushan died sud-
denly in camp on December 18, 1356. It was thought he
had been poisoned.

The collapse of his Empire was astonishingly rapid, even
if we take into consideration the characteristic instability
of Slavonic kingdoms. Its frontiers had been somewhat
fluid during his life, and he had adopted the bad policy of
dividing it into provinces ruled by quasi-independent chiefs.
The moment that he was dead these mostly revolted, and
the Turks advanced amidst a confused mass of petty princes.
Belgrade passed to Hungary; Thessaly, Albania, Bulgaria, and
Bosnia became independent, and the last named seemed for
a brief period to be the centre of the Servian power under
Tvrtko, who proclaimed himself king of Servia, Bosnia, and
the sea-coast. The Turks established themselves at Adrian-
ople. The Servians, alarmed by this advance, allied them-
selves with the Greeks, but both together were defeated
by the Osmanlis near the new capital of the Sultan. This
defeat disorganised what little remained of Dushan's Empire.
A usurper called Yukashin seized the throne. In imitation
of Dushan, he organised a sort of Crusade against the Turks,
but was utterly routed in a second battle on the Maritsa near
Adrianople, and killed by one of his own followers during theBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 43

flight which ensued. In this emergency of the Servian people
all dynastic ideas were abandoned, and Lazar, a distinguished
soldier, was chosen as Czar. The difficulties occasioned by
the Turks were increased by the attacks of the Hungarians,
and Lazar had no alternative but to allow the greater part
of Macedonia to pass under the dominion of the Sultan
without opposition. The fall of Southern Servia derives a
certain interest from the stories which have gathered round
the figure of Marko Kralyevich. For history he is little
more than an unimportant vassal of the Sultan, but popular
sentiment has made him the centre of a whole cycle of
romantic legends, and credits him with a heroism for which
there does not seem to be much foundation in fact.

In 1386 the Turks took Nish, and Lazar found himself
obliged not only to pay tribute to the Sultan, but to furnish
him with an annual contingent of a thousand mercenaries.
The humiliation of Christendom at last made itself felt.
When it was too late, an attempt was made to reconstitute
the Empire of Dushan in the form of an alliance. Servians,
Bosnians, Albanians, and Bulgarians opposed the Turks to-
gether at the battle of Kossovo in 1389 and were together
defeated.

This battle of Kossovo Polye (" the field of blackbirds ")
produced an extraordinary impression on the Southern Slavs.
In memory of this remote but fatal day the Montenegrins
still wear a black mourning border on their caps, and the
most pathetic of the Servian national songs are consecrated
to the task of casting a halo of romance round the national
disaster. One of these ballads has been adapted in English
by the late Lord Lytton,1 and relates how the Mother of
God appeared to Lazar before the battle and asked if he
would choose an earthly or a heavenly kingdom—a some-
what unreasonable alternative, if one considers how much
the victory of Lazar would have benefited Christianity.

1 " Serbski Pesme," by Owen Meredith, i860.44

TURKEY IN EUROPE

The Czar chose the kingdom of heaven, and set out to
sacrifice himself and his army. Sultan Murad, moved
by similar religious enthusiasm, begged his God that he
might fall as a Moslim martyr fighting against the infidel.
Both commanders obtained the crown of martyrdom, and,
let us hope, went to their respective paradises. But the
victory remained indubitably with the Turks, and seems to
have been due to a very ugly piece of treachery; for, at the
most critical point of the battle, Vuk Brankovich, a rival of
Lazar, deserted him with 12,000 men.

With Kossovo ends the importance, but not altogether
the interest, of mediaeval Servia. The disaster was followed
by a wholesale emigration of Serbs to Montenegro, Bosnia,
and Hungary, especially the country round the Theiss; but
for the moment the lot of those who elected to remain,
though ignominious, was not particularly hard. Bayezid,
the new Sultan, recognised Stephen Lazarevich, the son
of Lazar, as a vassal prince and married his sister. In
return for these honours the Prince or Knez, as the ruler
of Servia was now called, paid an annual tribute to his
brother - in - law, and rendered him important military
services as his ally. At last the progress of the Turks
and the collapse of the Slavonic states alarmed Sigismund
of Hungary and obliterated the old enmity between that
kingdom and Servia. He appealed to the Western Powers
and organised a Crusade against Bayezid. But his army
was routed at Nicopolis on the Danube in 1396, a date
as fatal for Eastern Europe as the battle of Kossovo or
the capture of Constantinople; for Oriental Christendom
was now at the mercy of the Turks, and Hungary, the
extreme outpost of the West, discouraged by a defeat.
This victory of Islam was to no small extent due to the
Servian troops fighting on the Turkish side. The Servians
recovered Belgrade, but in the long run this gain hardly
compensated them for the disaster which they were pre-BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 45

paring by strengthening the Ottoman power. Stephen was
succeeded by George Brankovich, who built the famous
castle of Semendria, the ruins of which are visible on the
Danube to this day. Sultan Murad, thinking that he was
becoming too powerful, demanded the surrender of this
fortress, and, when it was refused, invaded Servia, drove
out Brankovich, and left Turkish garrisons in the principal
towns with a Turkish Pasha as governor. In 1440 Servia
seemed to be annihilated, when a new champion appeared
and procured her a respite of twenty years. This was
John Corvinus Huniades, or Hunyady Janos, " the White
Knight," of mysterious origin, who devoted his whole life
and brilliant military talents to a Crusade against Islam
and the endeavour to unite Eastern Christendom. He now
advanced against Murad, and in a brilliant campaign drove
him from the Danube, raised the siege of Belgrade, and
forced the Turks to sue for peace. A treaty, which in-
cluded a suspension of hostilities for ten years, was signed
in June 1444, and the Turks evacuated Servia. A little
repose would have done no harm, but Vladislav, the young
King of Poland and Hungary, was incited by the Papal
Legate to break the peace almost immediately. This act
of certain perfidy and doubtful policy was not successful.
Vladislav was utterly defeated and killed at the great battle
of Varna in November 1444. But Murad, who was a
strange combination of recluse and warrior, and who twice
abdicated during his thirty years' reign, did not seem dis-
posed to follow up his success.

His son and successor, who became Sultan in 1451,
was a man of different temper, and at once directed all
his energies to the attainment of the end which he had
in view—the capture of Constantinople. It is not amiss
that he was called Mohammed, for, after the Prophet
whose name he bore, no mans life and exploits were of
such supreme importance for Islam and Christianity, for4 6

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Asia and Europe. But, in spite of his intense personal
desire to take Constantinople, he is not so much a per-
sonality as the representative of a nation, an instrument
of Allah executing a divine decree which had already
been published. When we contemplate the careers of
Alexander or Caesar, we feel that had they not been born,
the course of history might have been otherwise. The
assertion of Greek influence in Asia and Roman influence
in Western Europe might have been considerably post-
poned, and perhaps never have taken place. But in con-
templating the career of Mohammed we feel that, though
he was worthy of the task before him, the task would have
been performed without him. The strength of the Turks,
the weakness of the Empire, and the absence of any other
element of strength on the Christian side, formed a com-
bination which could not hold together, and which in break-
ing up could rearrange itself in only one way. But, no
doubt, Mohammed himself saw things differently, and over-
estimated the strength of Byzantium. The Empire was still
a great name, and inspired an almost superstitious respect
out of all proportion to its material power.

The young Sultan, though confident, was not rash. In
order to have his hands free he made treaties of peace with
the various princes of Eastern Europe, including Brankovich
and Hunyady, who stood by and looked on at the duel
between him and Constantine Palaeologus. It is a wonder
that the latter defended himself so long. He was an
Emperor only in name, for the entire territory of the
Empire had fallen into the hands of the Osmanlis, with the
exception of the capital and one or two seaports on the
Black Sea and Marmora, and in 1452 Mohammed occupied
Roumeli Hissar on the Bosphorus. But in those days it
was no easy task to take a fortified city, and the Sultan only
accomplished his object by dragging a fleet over land and
casting pieces of artillery which were considered marvels.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 47

As soon as he was established in Constantinople, Moham-
med proceeded to deal with the various Christian princes
with whom he had made treaties, and took Servia in hand
first. Hunyady again came to the Servians' assistance, and
Mohammed, finding greater difficulties than he had antici-
pated, temporarily recognised Brankovich in return for the
payment of an annual tribute, but in 1456 again returned
to the charge and besieged Belgrade. The Pope implored
Hunyady to prevent the progress of the Moslims, and, obe-
dient to the summons, the unwearied Crusader succeeded
in saving the city1 and routing the Turkish army. This was
his last and most glorious exploit. Both he and Brankovich
passed away the next year, the latter aged ninety-one, and ig-
noble family quarrels terminated the independence of Servia.
The widowed daughter-in-law of Brankovich made the fatal
mistake of invoking the aid of the Pope and offering to
make Servia a dependency of the Papacy. As in Constanti-
nople, so in Servia, the people declared they preferred the
Sultan to the Pope, and opened their cities to the Turk.
The independence of Servia came to an end in 1459, and,
by a strange irony of fate, Mohammed was welcomed as a
deliverer. Much the same thing happened in Bosnia. The
Catholic King Stephen had persecuted the Bogomiles at
the instigation of the Pope, who wished to see this heresy
exterminated, but the sectarians were numerous and fana-
tical. When Mohammed invaded Bosnia in 1563 they
refused to fight for Stephen and handed over their fortresses
to the Sultan. Herzegovina was occupied a year or two
later, and thus the whole Balkan Peninsula became subject
to the Turks, except Montenegro and a few fortresses in
the Morea held by Venice. The rest of the Frankish and
Greek Principalities which had sprung up in the period
succeeding the fourth Crusade were swept away, though

1 Belgrade subsequently passed into the hands of Hungary and was taken
for the Turks by Suleiman.48

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Crete, Cyprus, and other islands were not conquered until
later.

We must, however, say a few words of two peoples
with whom the Turks now came in contact, and some-
what imperfectly subdued — the Albanians and the Rou-
manians or Wallachians. The Albanians are first heard
of by that name in 1334, when the Emperor Andronicus
appears to have directed against them a punitive expedi-
tion accompanied by Turks; but for several centuries the
notices of them are rare and obscure. Even more than
the Slavs they were devoid of cohesion and political sen-
timent, and have at no time in their history been more
than an aggregate of tribes, mostly occupied by internal
quarrels, but sufficiently protected by their own bravery and
their impregnable mountain homes to resist all attempts
at effective conquest, and to preserve a real though not
a nominal independence. Early in the thirteenth century,
soon after the Latin conquest of Constantinople, Michael
Angelus, a member of the Imperial family, proclaimed
himself Despot of Epirus, but it does not appear that
the state so founded had any national or ethnographic
connection with the Albanian people. In the middle of
the fourteenth century we hear that Dushan received
the homage of the Despot, and was lord of nearly all
Albania.

Albania, or rather an Albanian, for the interest of the
story is personal more than national, again attracts atten-
tion in the fifteenth century. George Castriotis, better
known as Skanderbeg,1 ranks with Hunyady as a deter-
mined and successful opponent of the Turks; but though
our materials for judging him are scanty, it seems pro-
bable that a love of military adventure, rather than any
national or patriotic sentiment, was his dominant impulse.

1 His name was Alexander, which, with his title of Bey, became in
Turkish Iskender-Bey, and in Albanian Skender Beg.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 49

This want of great motives in an otherwise great career is
characteristic of the Albanian race.

He was the son of the chief John Castriotis, but
was brought up at the court of Murad II. as a Moslim,
and served in the Turkish army until he was about forty
years of age. He appears to have carried on a secret
correspondence with Hunyady, and when the Turks were
defeated at Nish in 1443, he revolted, and forced the
Sultan's secretary, under threats of death, to give him an
order instructing the Ottoman commandant of Kroya, in
Albania, to deliver that fortress to him. He established
himself there, and during eight years carried on a con-
tinual and successful struggle with the Turks, defeating
Yizier after Vizier, and his old master Murad himself.
The entire resources of the Turkish Empire, and even the
treachery of Skanderbegs nephew, were unable to con-
tend successfully with the geography of Albania and the
bravery of its inhabitants, and the Sultan was obliged to
retreat with an army which he commanded in person.
Mohammed II., in pursuance of his usual policy, made
peace with Skanderbeg until he had leisure to deal with
him singly. But he was not more fortunate than his
father in subduing the stubborn mountaineer, and was in
his turn defeated at Kroya in 1465. Though this cam-
paign was a victory for Skanderbeg, the struggle had
been hard, and left him in great distress. He visited
Pope Paul II. in 1466 to implore aid, but, though he
was received with all honour, he was unable to obtain any
practical assistance, and returned to his own country,
where he died next year (1467). His work perished
with him, and whatever unity he had given Albania dis-
appeared between the quarrels of rival chiefs, and the
encroachments of the Sultan on the one side and Venice
on the other.

The Roumanians or Wallachians fall into two divisions,

D5°

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the northern and the southern. What little is known of
the early political history of the latter has been men-
tioned in speaking of the Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire. The
northern division inhabit the two Principalities of Moldavia
and Wallachia,1 and a large proportion of the population
of Transylvania, Bukovina, and Bessarabia belong to the
same stock. The history of these lands is, in its early
stages, as obscure as that of Albania, but after the four-
teenth century the Roumanians appear as the bravest and
most progressive people of South-Eastern Europe. This
late and sudden development is easily explained. The
districts immediately north of the Danube not only lay
in the highway of the barbarian immigrations, but they
formed the basis from which each invader made inroads
on the south and west. Hordes of Goths, Huns, Gepids,
Lombards, Avars, Bulgarians, Uzes, Pechenegs, and Kumans
succeeded one another, but the last-comer always occu-
pied some part of Roumanian territory. But when the
flood of invasion finally ceased, Roumania was in a more
favourable condition than the other Balkan kingdoms.
The barbarian invaders had either moved on or lost their
identity. The country did not lie in the line of the
westward advance of the Turks, and was not liable to be
overrun by Ottoman soldiery unless directly attacked.
No Prankish states were established within its border,
nor was there any struggle between the Eastern Church
and the Papacy. It is true that the division into the
two Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia was a source
of weakness and disunion, but even with this disadvan-
tage the record of Roumania from 1400 to 1800 is, both
in peace and war, more glorious than that of any of the
other countries which we have considered.

Roumania when first heard of was inhabited by the

1 The two Principalities are collectively termed Roumania. The name
is not perhaps officially correct before the union of the Principalities in
1859, but I use it before that date for brevity and convenience.BEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 51

people called Getae or Dacians, who, after prolonged wars
with Rome, were subdued by Trajan in 101 a.d. The
invasions of Goths and other barbarians compelled the
Romans to evacuate the province in 274, and from that
date until the thirteenth century it was a barbarian camp,
although in the tenth century it may have enjoyed a
measure of peace and order under the first Bulgarian
Empire, of which it was a dependency. At this period
there was a close connection between the north and south
banks of the Danube. The Roumanian civilisation seems
to have been Slavonic rather than Byzantine in its origin,
&nd the liturgy of the Roumanian Church was celebrated
in Slavonic. Early in the thirteenth century the Kumans,
the last of the invaders, were converted to Christianity;
and at its close Radu Negru and Dragosh, both immigrants
from Transylvania, founded the Principalities of Wallachia
,and Moldavia respectively. The fourteenth century was
occupied in campaigns with Hungary and the extension of
Moldavia towards the Black Sea. The first remarkable
name of which we hear is that of Mircea, called the " Old,"
or the " Great," who fought at Kossovo. That defeat was
disastrous for him as well as the other Christian princes.
The Turks crossed the Danube, and Wallachia was made a
vassal state of the Sultan, but allowed to retain practical in-
dependence in return for the payment of an annual tribute.
Mircea lost no opportunity of resisting the Turks; he fought
against them at Nicopolis, and utilised the defeat of Bayezid
by Timur to consolidate and strengthen his country. But
,on the recovery of the Turkish power under Mohammed I.,
he had again to pay tribute. His death, in 1418, was
followed by anarchy and dissension; but, shortly after the
Turkish conquest of Constantinople, two remarkable men,
Vlad (1456-1462) and Stephen (1457-1504), reigned in
Wallachia and Moldavia. The extraordinary cruelty of the
former, which aroused the astonishment of Mohammed the52

TURKEY IN EUROPE

conqueror, procured for him the name of Ylad the " Impaler."
In his defence it can only be said that his energy and
courage equalled his barbarity. He refused to furnish the
stipulated contingent of Janissaries to the Turks, and routed
Mohammed, who invaded Wallachia with the intention of
chastising him. Moldavia had hitherto lain outside the
Turkish sphere, and been subject to the influence of Hungary
and Poland, but the ambition of Stephen brought her into
relations with the Ottoman Power. This adventurous and
warlike prince began by making war on Ylad, and driving
him from Wallachia—an act of doubtful policy, like all other
dissensions between Christian states at this period—and then
defeated the Turks at Racova. He was hailed by the Pope
as the defender of Christendom, but, like most such Eastern
heroes, obtained no substantial aid. Until his death he
continued the struggle against the Turks with varying suc-
cess. In spite of severe defeats, he succeeded in driving
them from his country; but at the end of his long reign
saw that Moldavia could not continue the struggle, and
had better make terms with her powerful but happily
somewhat distant enemy. It is said that his dying advice
to his son was in this sense; and at any rate, in 15 13 the
latter made a treaty by which he promised to pay tribute
and assist the Sultan in time of war, but received in
return important privileges. Moldavia was to elect her
own rulers, and no Turks were to be allowed to settle in
the country.

The development of Roumania is thus chronologically
and geographically independent of the Greek Empire. The
various Slavonic and Frankish states, which had been carved
out of the territory of the Empire, collapsed with its weak-
ness and extinction. But as the Greek Empire had never
had any effective or continuous control in the districts north
of the Danube, its death-agony did not disturb them, and
the period of their first achievements is precisely the periodBEFORE THE TURKISH CONQUEST 53

of its fall. But though, by exception, the capture of Con-
stantinople is not literally the turning-point of Roumanian
history, it is an event of such paramount importance for
all Eastern Europe that it must be regarded as dividing and
marking the two great divisions of history, and naturally
suggests a pause in any general survey.CHAPTER II

south-eastern europe after the turkish conquest

The countries which have at one time or another formed
part of the Ottoman Empire include Hungary, Rournania,
and parts of Southern Russia, but for the last half-century,
at any rate, the expression Turkey in Europe may be re-
stricted to the countries south of the Danube. It is true
that many of these countries do not politically form part of
Turkey any longer, but for all of them the presence of the
Turks in Europe has been the most important fact of the
last five hundred years, and their history is the record of a
struggle, more or less successful, against the Sultan.

This region south of the Danube is often called the
Balkan Peninsula—a convenient though vague expression,
which is sometimes loosely used so as to include Roumania,
though, geographically, this extension of the phrase is hardly
defensible. The word Balkan means mountain or mountain-
pass, and is justly applied to a peninsula almost the entire
surface of which is crumpled up into a series of ridges so
numerous and irregular that it is difficult to reduce them
to mountain systems or give a general description of their
topography. This natural confusion is increased by the fact
that much of the country is imperfectly surveyed, and in-
deed imperfectly known, while popular names are often
applied to more than one locality, and are not very precise.
The Peninsula may be roughly divided into three mountain
regions, the Western, the North-Eastern, and the Central.
The Western or Dinaric mountains are more or less parallel
to the coast of the Adriatic, and are broken only by a few
small rivers, which with difficulty force their way through

54AFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 55

the rocky barrier to the sea. This region comprises Bosnia,
Montenegro, Albania, Epirus, and Western Greece. The
mountains of Albania are sometimes known by the sonorous
epithet of Acroceraunian, and the range which crosses the
Turco-Greek frontier near Janina in a south-easterly direc-
tion is called Pindus or Agrapha. In the north-eastern
region are the spacious plains of Bulgaria, Eastern Roumelia,
and Adrianople, bounded by the ranges of the Balkans, strictly
so called (also known as Koja Balkan or Stara Planina), and
by the Rhodope or Despoto Dagh.1 In the west the moun-
tain masses of Rilo Dagh and Yitosha above Sofia form a
sort of connection between the two ranges.

The central region of the Peninsula, from Western Servia
to Greece, consists mainly of short mountain ridges, some
running north and south, others north-east. Between them
are enclosed fertile valleys, sometimes broadening into plains,
sometimes (as at Ochrida, Prespa, and Castoria) contain-
ing lakes. Among these mountains may be mentioned the
Kopaonik range, dividing the kingdom of Servia from the
Turkish province of Old Servia, the Shar Dagh lying to the
south of the plain of Kossovo, and Mount Olympus, now
called Elymbos, south of Salonica, and connected with the
mountains which separate Greece from Turkey. Four con-
siderable rivers, the Maritsa, the Mesta or Karasu, the
Struma, and the Yardar, all having a south-easterly direc-
tion, run into the JSgean Sea, the coast of which forms,
near Salonica, a remarkable three-fingered peninsula. The
northernmost of the three promontories is the celebrated
monastic territory of Mount Athos, containing more than
twenty monasteries, and inhabited exclusively by monks,
all women, and, as far as possible, female animals, being
rigorously excluded.

With such a configuration, it is easy to understand that
communication, especially in an eastern or western direction,

1 Dagh, like Balkan, means mountain in Turkish.TURKEY IN EUROPE

is very difficult throughout the whole of the Balkan Penin-
sula. For instance, a journey, even approximately as the
crow flies, from Adrianople to Skutari in Albania, through
Uskiib, presents almost insuperable obstacles. The Romans
kept up communication with Macedonia by the Via Egnatia,
a road which proceeded inland from the Adriatic by Elbasan,
but, in modern times, the insecurity as well as the difficulty
of this route have caused it to fall into entire disuse. At
present there are two main highways across the Balkan
lands, followed by two lines of railway. They both start
from Belgrade on the Danube, and follow the valley of the
Morava to Nish. Thence one of them proceeds south-east-
wards through mountain defiles to Sofia, and descending
into the plains of Eastern Roumelia, follows the Maritsa
to Philippopoli and Adrianople, whence it proceeds to the
Bosphorus. The other line goes more directly south from
Nish to Uskiib, and follows the valley of the Yardar down
to Salonica.

If we exclude these great lines of communication and
also the coast towns, it will be found that the greater part
of Turkey in Europe remains a blank, not only to the
" general reader/' but to most Europeans resident in the
East. The plains of Northern Bulgaria are more or less
accessible from the Danube, and Monastir is now con-
nected by rail with Salonica and through that port with
the rest of Europe, but Albania is an almost unknown
country; and much the same may be said of the more
eastern districts. If the reader, however well acquainted
with the East, will look at the map, and draw a line from
Salonica to Rodosto through Seres, Drama, and Dedeagatch,
and another line from any point on the northern slopes of
the Rhodope to Burghas on the Black Sea, and then ask
himself how much he knows of the geography and popu-
lation of the country between these two lines, his know-
ledge must be very exceptional if it extends beyond a fewAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 57

towns such as Dimotiko and Adrianople. Natural barriers,
insecurity, diversities of language and religion, have shut
off large portions of the Balkan Peninsula from one another
as well as from the rest of Europe, and rendered them in-
accessible to the influence of such civilisation as prevails
at Constantinople and Salonica.

The existing political divisions, which are generally
called Balkan states, are about six in number. North of
the Danube, but possessing some territory called the
Dobrudja, on the southern bank near the mouth, is Rou-
mania, a kingdom formed by the union of the two older
Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. Immediately
south of it, on the other bank of the Danube, is the Prin-
cipality of Bulgaria, which is under the suzerainty of the
Sultan, and also formed by the union of two provinces,
Bulgaria, strictly so called, and Eastern Roumelia, which had
been separated by the Treaty of Berlin. West of Bulgaria,
and, like it, bounded on the north by the Danube, is the
kingdom of Servia. A Slavonic-speaking population, whose
language is either Servian or closely akin to it, occupy the
various Austrian provinces about the head of the Adriatic
and between the river Drave and the coast—Slavonia,
Croatia, Dalmatia, Istria, and even more northern districts;
but, as a rule, only the territories known as Bosnia and
Herzegovina are considered as Balkan states. They are
officially described as Turkish provinces administered by
Austria-Hungary. Below them lies the little independent
Principality of Montenegro. The extreme southern part of
the Peninsula is occupied by the kingdom of Greece, and the
space between Greece and the countries enumerated above
is filled by the territories which still form part of the Tur-
kish Empire. They are officially divided into six provinces
—Skutari, Janina,1 Kossovo, Monastir, Salonica, and Adrian-
ople, besides Constantinople and its environs, which have

1 Pronounced Yanina. For some reason J, not Y, is the accepted orthography.58

TURKEY IN EUROPE

a separate administration; but, in ordinary language, other
and older geographical designations are frequently used.
The northern part of the Adriatic coast-lands below Mon-
tenegro is called Albania, and the southern part above
Greece, Epirus. The district immediately south of Servia
is called Old Servia, and that between Adrianople and the
iEgean, Thrace. The name of Macedonia is most correctly
applied to the country west and north of Salonica, but
often receives a more extended sense, so that the phrase
Macedonian question is used to mean all the problems
created by the existence of Turkey in Europe.

The materials collected in the previous chapter explain
why the population of this Balkan Peninsula is so mixed.
On the top of the original Illyrians and Thracians, who-
ever they were, came an influx first of Greeks and then
of Romans, which resulted in the creation of consider-
able Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking elements. Into
this already somewhat mixed population poured a series
of Slavonic and Bulgarian invasions, to say nothing of
obscurer and more transitory tribes. The Slavs and Bul-
garians tended to become confounded, for the Bulgarians
became Slavised in language and customs, though they
were long politically stronger than the Slavs, and the
same districts are called Bulgarian or Servian at different
epochs, according as one state or the other was superior.
The Albanians also, who had been driven into a small
space by the early Slav invasions, began to expand over
Slav territory. Finally, the Turks gradually worked their
way to a paramount position, not as a sudden avalanche
of conquerors, but sometimes as settlers (as in Macedonia
and Thessaly), and generally as the leaders of warlike ex-
peditions. Often they were the allies of some Christian
state, and their armies nearly always contained a large
European element. Though persevering, they were exces-
sively cautious, and, in consequence perhaps of their ignor-AFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 59

ance of Europe, showed for a long time little disposition
to follow up their successes and a readiness to recognise
the position of any prince who would pay tribute.

In one sense the Empire continued after the fall of
Constantinople; that is to say, a Turkish Empire suc-
ceeded a Greek one, and the general methods of govern-
ment remained nearly the same. The later Greek Govern-
ment was, like the Sublime Porte, mainly a tax-collecting
organisation: it took tribute from its provinces and did
nothing for them; it employed foreigners and mercen-
aries ; it had an official nobility and a ruling race.
" Financial rapacity," " venality and sale of offices," " de-
solation of rural districts/' and " depopulation of pro-
vinces," are phrases which recur in Finlay s " History of
Greece," previous to the Turkish conquest, as regularly
as in modern Consular Reports.

The Byzantine Empire has met with various fortune at
the hands of its critics and historians. It was long the
fashion to speak of it with unmitigated contempt; and
this disparaging estimate, though often dictated by ignor-
ance, seemed confirmed by the sarcastic tone which marks
the work of Gibbon. A natural reaction made Freeman
and other writers of this century dwell on the merits of
the Byzantine state and its rulers, and point out that
a system of government which lasted nearly 1300 years
must have had some characteristics beyond weakness and
superstition. This is no doubt true, and there is no reason
why we should not bestow all the praise which we justly
can on the Byzantine Empire and other Christian states
of Eastern Europe, provided that we do not thereby un-
justly disparage the Turks, as many literary crusaders
have done. The evils of Turkish rule are undeniable;
they exist at the present day, and are much the same
as they always were. But anti-Turkish writers speak of
the entrance of the Turks into Europe as if a barbarian6o

TURKEY IN EUROPE

invasion had suddenly overwhelmed the industrious Slav
and the cultivated Greek, and destroyed a peaceful and
orderly civilisation. But this is hardly true. For cen-
turies before the fall of Constantinople the history of
South-Eastern Europe is one long record of blood and
disorder: (povoi, <TTa<T€i$, epei$, fxu. yai — murder, discord,
strife, and battle. The crimes with which the Turks are
frequently reproached, such as treachery, fratricide, and
wholesale cruelty, are characteristic, not of them, but of
the lands which they invaded. It would be hard to pro-
duce from the annals of the Sultans anything worse than
the quarrels, treachery, and misgovernment of Andronicus
and the Angeli, or than the cruelties of Ylad the Impaler.
Neither can we praise the Byzantines at the expense of
the Turks in the realm of art and literature. If Con-
stantinople contains beautiful churches, it also contains
beautiful mosques, and must thank the Turks for what
is now the most picturesque and characteristic feature of
its landscapes—the minarets which crown Stamboul or
emerge more modestly from the groves which fringe the
Bosphorus. Ottoman and Byzantine literature may fairly
be compared; neither have had any influence or import-
ance for Western Europe, and no one would ever read either
except for the purpose of extracting information. But
Ottoman poems may be set against Greek romances, and
Ottoman chroniclers against the Scriptores Historise By-
zantinse. In criticising either the Byzantine or the Otto-
man Empire at any epoch except their zenith, we must
remember that we are dealing with sick men, and be
gentle. As consumptive patients who would die under
normal conditions may live for years with a fragment of
a lung in a mountain sanatorium, so does Constantinople
preserve states which have lost all organic strength, and
whose weaknesses are the more apparent because they
are nominally responsible for large and disorderly terri-AFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 61

tories oyer which they have little real control. In the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the Turks cannot have
been regarded as " unspeakable" barbarians far below the
standard of Christian Europe; for we find that Christians,
who must have had ample information respecting them,
were ready to invite them into the lands of the Empire,
and after the fall of the Empire they were welcomed in
Servia and Bosnia. In morals, humanity, and civilisation
they were much of a muchness with the motley throng
of Greeks, Slavs, Albanians, and Roumanians; in energy
and union they were superior.

But it does not follow that, in the sequel, the Turkish
Empire was as good for its Christian subjects as a con-
tinuation of the Byzantine might have been. Soon after
the conquest it developed two characteristics in which it was
distinctly inferior to its predecessor. Firstly, the Sultan,
who had been a comparatively modest military chief, became
an absolute Asiatic despot, surrounded by all the pomp and
luxury which the classical writers call Persian, and also
hallowed by an idea of special sanctity. It is true that
the Byzantine Basileus possessed the germs of both these
peculiarities; in fact, the Sultan derived them from him.
But European taste kept the pomp of the Basileus within
bounds, and his religion was the religion of his subjects.
But there were no bounds to the lavish extravagance of the
Sarai, where the revenues of a province were unhesitatingly
squandered on an Imperial pageant or passing whim, and
the Sultans sanctity and divine right to power reposed
on Arabic and Turkish ideas which were wholly repugnant
to the beliefs and traditions of Christians. Secondly, the
Turkish Empire tended to take the form of government by
a crew of adventurers. It may seem that this is incom-
patible with a despotism; but it is not, particularly if the
despot is indolent and indisposed to interfere in details.
From their first appearance the Turks displayed a strange62

TURKEY IN EUROPE

power of collecting together apostates, renegades, and people
who had more ability than moral qualities. Their most
formidable troops were composed of the children of Chris-
tians, taken from their parents at an early age, and brought
up without any of the ordinary ties of family or citizen-
ship. Similarly, the Imperial harem, which often exercised
a powerful influence in politics, was filled with a crowd of
women and eunuchs gathered from every country, but taken,
like the Janissaries, in childhood, and ignorant of all the
world outside the palace walls. With such elements as
these, and a Sultan who associated mainly with such
elements, it is not surprising if the Ottoman government
often seemed to lose all system and order, and to mean
nothing more than a permission given to certain cliques to
plunder the rest of the Empire. The Turks had little feeling
respecting such abuses, but they were sensitive to external
defeats, and whenever these were occasioned by internal
anarchy, the real power was generally entrusted to some
capable Vizier who patched things together again.

We must draw a distinction between the history of the
Turks and the history of their Christian subjects. The
former is a purely military record. Modern writers are
unwilling to regard history as a mere catalogue of reigns
and battles, and pay more attention to the various move-
ments, political, religious, intellectual, social, and commercial,
which the life of each nation presents. This is very just in
the case of nearly all nations; but the peculiarity of the
Turks is at once apparent when we observe that their his-
tory is almost exclusively a catalogue of names and battles.
For instance, for the Hungarians the Turkish occupation
of Hungary had many important consequences, social and
political. Hungary would not be what she is now if that
occupation had never taken place, or had continued longer.
But the same occupation had no social or political conse-
quence for the Turks; they remained after it as they wereAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 63

before it; its importance for them is accurately measured
by the military gain and loss.

The history of the Turkish Empire falls into four periods.
The first is a period of advance and expansion, culminating
in the conquests of Selim I. (15 12—15 20) in the East and of
Suleiman (1520-1586) in the West. This last reign is the
zenith of the Ottoman Empire. Suleiman ruled from Buda-
Pesth to the Persian Gulf, and his navies threatened the
coasts of India and of Spain. The most important feature
of this period is that the Turks were a central European
power; they occupied Hungary and menaced Austria.

The second period, extending from the end of the six-
teenth to the beginning of the eighteenth century, is marked
by continual wars of varying success with Austria, Hungary,
Poland, and Venice. Of the many Sultans whose reigns it
witnessed, few have any personal importance. The sove-
reigns were no longer either generals or statesmen, and the
Grand Viziers not only wielded the real power, but con-
ducted in person the principal campaigns. At the end of
the seventeenth century fortune deserted the Turks. They
were driven back from Vienna, and out of Hungary, Tran-
sylvania, and Podolia. After the Treaties of Carlovitz and
Passarovitz, Turkey becomes definitely an Eastern state,
menacing neither Western nor Northern Europe, and
bounded by the Carpathians, the Danube, and the Save.

What a change had come over her military position in
the third period (roughly 1720-1820) may be seen from
the fact that twice in the eighteenth century Austria and
Russia discussed the possibility of dividing the Sultan's
Empire between them. This period is marked by the
Russian conquest of the northern shores of the Black Sea,
and by repeated Russian invasions of Moldavia and Wal-
lachia with the avowed object of protecting the Christian
inhabitants of those provinces. By the Treaty of Kiichiik
Kainarji (1775), Russia was expressly recognised as the64

TURKEY IN EUROPE

protector of the two Principalities, and as haying "the
right to speak in their favour, the Porte promising to listen
with the attention due to friendly and respected Powers."
This right of intervention is one which has since been
much extended and practised by other Powers than Russia,
and in other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Another in-
teresting feature first appears in this period. The Porte,
when pressed by Russia, appealed to the Western Powers,
and the latter, especially France, gave their moral and
diplomatic support to the Turkish side, receiving in return
commercial advantages.

The last period of Turkish history (1820 onwards) is
marked by the curtailment of the Empire, caused by the
creation in its territories of a series of independent states,
sometimes admittedly and sometimes practically, but not
nominally, detached from the central administration. Mah-
mud II., one of the ablest and most energetic of the
Sultans (1808-1839), though he attempted many reforms,
was unable to preserve the integrity of his Empire. Greece
successfully asserted her independence and Mohammed Ali
established his dynasty in Egypt. Servia was recognised
as a Principality, and the Roumanian Hospodars were as
much under the influence of the Czar as of the Sultan.
The Russians, thinking that the final collapse of Turkey was
near, tried to force the Sultan to recognise them as the
protectors of all orthodox Christians in his dominions, which
was tantamount to the abolition of the Ottoman Empire.
The Sultan was supported in his resistance by England,
France, and Sardinia, who, with the Turks, defeated the
Russians in the Crimean War (1853-1855). The Treaty
of Paris, which closed that war, restored both banks of the
Lower Danube to the Porte, but could not impart strength
to retain them, and the Principalities first united under
one prince and subsequently became independent. The
Slavonic provinces had hitherto shown a more submissiveAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 65

spirit than the Greeks and Roumanians, but in the seven-
ties insurrections broke out in Herzegovina and Bulgaria
which eventually brought about a Russo-Turkish war in
1877. The Treaty of Berlin, which embodies the results
of the contest, recognises the independence of Roumania,
Servia, and Montenegro, constitutes Bulgaria an autono-
mous vassal state, entrusts Austro-Hungary with the ad-
ministration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and holds out
prospects of reform to Crete and Macedonia, which have
been realised in the first-named country but not in the
second. In 1886, Eastern Roumelia, which had been
separated from Bulgaria by the Treaty of Berlin, was united
to it, and the two districts now form one country. The
present dominions of Turkey in Europe correspond roughly
with the ancient provinces of Thrace, Macedonia, and Epirus.
Ethnographically they comprise the frontier districts of
the Greek, Servian, and Bulgarian areas. Hence all the
racial and linguistic elements are represented in them.

I have said that Turkish history is purely military. Of
course, no nation can exist 450 years entirely without
change, yet the statement that the Turks are unchanging
requires very little qualification. Any one can see their
impenetrability by thinking of what has occurred in Turkey
in his own lifetime or at least in this Century. The reforms
of Mahmud and Abd-ul-Mejid, the Hatt-i-Sherif of Giilhane,
the Hatt-i-Humayun of 1856, and the establishment of
parliamentary government by the present Sultan were
measures which would have revolutionised any ordinary
country, but they have simply collapsed in Turkey without
result and without fuss. Despite all statutes to the con-
trary, religious equality does not prevail, nor is Turkey
constitutionally governed. The only important changes
which have taken place since 1453 and really affected
Ottoman society have a military character, for they concern
the institution of Janissaries and military fiefs (timar).

E66

TURKEY IN EUROPE

The corps of Janissaries was, in its original constitution,
one of the most remarkable bodies which the world has
seen, and goes far to explain the unique character of the
early Ottoman Empire—that wild brilliancy and vigour in
which no ordinary ideas of humanity, morality, or economy
find a place—and the strange contradictions presented by a
government which seemed to possess all the sterner virtues,
energy, discipline, and perseverance, but to be at the same
time capricious, wayward, corrupt, and ignorant of the ideals
which most states have at least professed to follow. Orkhan
introduced, and Murad I. perfected, the system of slave
soldiers. The Christian ray ah had to pay to the Sultan a
tribute of children, as of all other possessions. Every four
years the Sultan's agents visited the Christian villages
under Turkish rule, and took a fifth part of all the male
children between the ages of six and nine, carefully choosing
the strongest and most intelligent. They were regarded as
the Sultan's slaves, taken to Constantinople, educated as
Moslims, and entirely separated from their families and
early associations. Some were ultimately used for civil
employments, but the majority were destined for military
service and drafted into one of the 165 ortas or companies
of Janissaries. They were forbidden to marry or engage
in trade; they were fed, clothed, and paid by the Sultan,
and they could only be punished by their own officers.
Haji Bektash, the founder of one of the most popular but
least orthodox Dervish sects, blessed the new soldiers
(;yeni-cheri), who adopted his mystic and antinomian tenets,
though they naturally found practical antinomianism more
congenial than theoretical mysticism. The Janissaries were
thus a religious military order composed of men selected
for physical or mental excellence, divorced more completely
than any monk from all worldly ties of birth, marriage, or
profession, and encouraged to give their vigour full and
unscrupulous play, subject to no law save that of unques-AFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 67

tioning obedience to their superior officers. Such, a body-
was the most efficient and formidable arm ever possessed
by any despot as long as he knew how to wield it; but the
primitive constitution of the order lasted about a century
after the conquest of Constantinople. The first change
was that they were allowed to marry; the second, that they
were allowed to introduce their children into the service;
the third, that the children of other Moslims were enrolled.
The leyy of tribute-children ceased in the seventeenth
century, the last recorded instance being in 1676. The
original character of the Janissaries was thus wholly oblite-
rated, and they became simply Turkish troops, distinguished
from other troops by the fact that they were paid and
enjoyed certain privileges. These advantages enormously
increased their numbers as soon as the corps was open to
all-comers; but this increase and the depreciation of the
currency rendered the salary inadequate, and another change
took place. The Janissaries were allowed to engage in
trade and to provide substitutes for foreign service. The
result was doubly evil. Those in Constantinople became
the most turbulent and disorderly part of the populace of
the capital, and those in the provinces a reckless and in-
subordinate crew. At the beginning of this century they
defied and killed the Turkish governor of Servia, and
massacred and ravaged the province until they provoked a
popular movement strong enough to quell them. In 1826
Sultan Mahmud tried to reform the corps, but finding
that impossible, exterminated them and burned the quarter
where they resided.

The history of the Janissaries is chiefly important for
the social conditions of the capital; the analogous degenera-
tion of the military fiefs affected those of the provinces.
The institution of these fiefs dates from long before the
conquest of Constantinople, and some of the earliest are
said to have been granted by the Seljuks. In the valley of68

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the Yistritza one can still find Turkish country gentlemen
who live surrounded by feudal retainers, and claim that
their lands have been in the possession of their ancestors
for more than six hundred years. Such old country
families were by no means favoured by the earlier Ottoman
Sultans, whose plan was to give distinguished soldiers fiefs
for life; but, as among the Janissaries, the principle of
heredity asserted itself, sometimes directly, sometimes
through the subterfuge of vacouf or religious property.
The life-holder of a fief nominally made over his interest
to the Mohammedan Church, but the Church in return
recognised the right of himself and his heirs to control the
property. This fact accounts for the extraordinary num-
ber of vacouf lands in Macedonia. But the fiefs not only
became hereditary or vacouf. About the same time that
the Janissaries were allowed to marry, began the practice
of giving them to court favourites who had no pretensions
to military distinction, and who did not succeed in main-
taining a military following. The feudal landholders (it
would be erroneous to call them a feudal aristocracy)
became less and less important as a military element, and
at the present day Turkish country gentlemen, as dis-
tinguished from Albanian chiefs, are comparatively rare in
Europe.

The history of the conquered peoples under the Turkish
domination can be best treated of in subsequent chapters
when we consider each race separately, but it may be well
to indicate here its general lines. Until this century it is
mainly a history, not of events, but of social conditions, and
is concerned with such questions as, How the European
subjects of the Porte were able to acquire political power
either by becoming Moslims or by being employed by the
Turks without changing their religion; how they found a
certain national expression in religious and educational
institutions; or how they acquired importance by concen-AFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 69

trating commerce in their own hands. The lot of all was
not equal. The happiest and also the most eventful history-
is perhaps that of the Roumanians. As already pointed
out, their geographical position was favourable, and the
arrangement made with the Porte after the death of Stephen
the Brave (in 1504) not only left the country free to
manage its own affairs, but forbade the settlement of Turks
within its boundaries. Unfortunately the quarrels of the
native nobility changed this state of things for the worse.
The Roumanians were exceptional in South-Eastern Europe
in having a society founded on aristocracy, for among the
Greeks and Slavs Turkish dislike of hereditary rank did
away with all distinctions except those arising from wealth
or the Sultans favour. The Roumanian Boyards, however,
formed a powerful and privileged class, who did not admit
the superiority of any one family, and fought among them-
selves for the dignity of prince. The more ambitious and
unscrupulous could not resist the temptation of securing
power by Ottoman aid. It thus soon came about that the
prince was not only appointed by the Sultan, but main-
tained in his position by a Turkish guard, and at last the
office was, like the Greek Patriarchate, openly sold to the
highest bidder. At the end of the sixteenth century two
remarkable princes, John the Terrible and Michael the
Brave, ruled in Moldavia and Wallachia. Both revolted
against the Turks and inflicted on them severe defeats,
but both failed to permanently free their countries from
Ottoman control. John, whose power rested on the peasant
classes, was hated by the nobles and betrayed to the Turks,
and Michael, who represented the party of the nobles, was
weakened by the want of popular support. Though his
talents and bravery enabled him to unite at one moment
Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania under his personal
rule, the state thus formed was ephemeral, and the chief
result of his brilliant career was that after his assassination7°

TURKEY IN EUROPE

in 1601, the Turks thought it safer to send foreign governors
to Roumania instead of allowing natives to be elected.
Nevertheless, the national spirit did not entirely die out
in the seventeenth century, which produced such native
rulers as Basil the Wolf of Moldavia and Matthew Bassarab
of Wallachia. They were contemporaries (about 1634-1654),
but unfortunately also enemies, and this enmity prevented
them from doing much for the independence of their
people. After their deaths, the appointment of foreign
governors by the Sultan became more and more the rule.
The two Principalities were indeed never administered by
Mohammedan Pashas, like other districts of the Turkish
Empire, but from 1716 to 1822 the governorships of
Jassy and Bucharest were regularly conferred on Phanariot
Greeks, who bought the offices from the Sultan, and
naturally recouped themselves from their subjects. They
were constantly changed, in order to re-sell the office as
often as possible, the average duration of their tenure being
little more than three years, so that they had rarely any
knowledge of the country or sympathy with its inhabitants,
while their luxury and indolence were proverbial even in
Turkey. It is in this period, too, that the Russians began to
interest themselves in Roumania, but their intervention does
not appear to have been very welcome to the population
or very successful. Austria was unwilling to see Russia
increased by a considerable accession of territory, and the
Roumanians did not feel sure that it was better to be
incorporated in Russia than to be a dependency of Turkey.
Nor had they much reason for enthusiastic gratitude
towards their Christian neighbours, seeing that the mili-
tary and diplomatic work of the century resulted in the
cession of Bukovina to Austria in 1777, and of Bessarabia
to Russia in 1812.

The Phanariot rule ended with the revolt of Greece
from the Porte. When the War of Independence brokeAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 71

out in 1821, the Greek Ypsilanti started an anti-Turkish
revolution in Jassy. But the Roumanians had no desire to
increase the power of the Phanariots, and a national in-
surrection by no means favourable to the Greeks broke out
in Wallachia under Yladimirescu. The Porte, thinking it
injudicious to continue the appointment of Greek governors,
named two native Hospodars; and during the next thirty
years Roumania was the scene of a long struggle—military
as well as diplomatic—between Russia and Turkey for para-
mount influence, and more than one complicated system of
dual control was introduced and abandoned. A national
party, led by Rosetti and Bratiano, and desirous to be free
of the Muscovite as well as the Ottoman, brought on an un-
successful revolution in 1848, which for the moment cur-
tailed the liberties enjoyed by Roumania; for the reign of
the Hospodars was limited to a term of seven years. But
the Crimean War weakened Russian influence in the Prin-
cipalities and was favourable to the native element; for the
power of the Turks, though confirmed by the Treaty of
Paris, remained merely nominal. In 1859 Moldavia and
Wallachia elected the same man, Alexander Couza, as Hos-
podar, and the union of Roumania was thus accomplished,
though the suzerainty of the Sultan continued. But the
government of Couza proved unsatisfactory. He was de-
posed in 1866, and Prince Charles of Hohenzollern-Sig-
maringen, a young Prussian prince, was elected in his
stead, and ultimately, though not without much opposi-
tion, recognised by the Sultan and the Powers. In 1878
Roumania was declared entirely independent by the Treaty
of Berlin, and in 1881 she proclaimed herself a kingdom.
Such in outline is the story of the country which fared best
under the Turkish Empire.

The Albanians, also, did not suffer much from the Otto-
man rule. They had no national government to lose, and
they were not deprived of their practical independence. At72

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the end of the fifteenth century, after the death of Scander-
beg, many of them emigrated to Italy and Sicily, and a large
number of those who remained sought security in another
way by becoming Moslims. Conversions to Islam took
place on a still larger scale at the end of the sixteenth and
the beginning of the seventeenth century. In the period
between the decay of the Janissaries and the rise of the
Phanariots, these Moslim Albanians playejl quite a con-
siderable role in the military and civil services of the Porte,
and furnished many celebrated Viziers, among others the
Kyopriiliis, who for seventy years were the real rulers of
Turkey. It is excessively difficult to disentangle the history
of the Albanians, particularly of such as remained Christians,
from that of the Greeks and Slavs by whom they were sur-
rounded. They penetrated as far south as the Morea, where
they formed a considerable percentage of the population.
The Moslim and Christian Albanians, though they quar-
relled among themselves, seem to have united to keep the
Turks out of the western half of the Balkan Peninsula
south of Montenegro. They were for ever fighting, either
with one another or with the Turks, or on the side of the
Turks against the Greeks or other enemies; but as fighting,
brigandage, and vendetta appear to have been in all ages
their favourite occupations, the Turks can hardly be held
responsible for the wild and turbulent state of the country,
though, of course, they did nothing to improve it. At the
end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth cen-
turies, Albania attained a certain political importance under
the celebrated Ali-Pasha of Janina, who, like Scanderbeg,
temporarily united by his personal influence the various
tribes of his countrymen. In the course of a long, bold,
and dexterous but singularly unscrupulous career, he suc-
ceeded in concentrating in his own hands the principal
Albanian Pashaliks, and inducing the Porte to recognise
his rule. But at last Mahmud II., fearing that he hadAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 73

grown too powerful, ordered his deposition in 1820, and
sent an Ottoman army against him to execute the sentence.
Ali, haying now nothing to hope for from the Porte, endea-
voured to obtain support from the Greek revolutionary
element, with whom he had long had relations, and encou-
raged and advanced the cause of Greek independence, but
was killed in 1822.

In reviewing the fate of the Greeks under the Turkish
dominion, we must keep distinct two categories. The in-
habitants of the present kingdom of Greece and the Greek
peasantry in Macedonia bore a yoke nearly as heavy as that
which pressed on the Bulgarians and Servians. But the
educated Greeks of the larger cities, and particularly that
class at Constantinople known as the Phanariots, were hap-
pier in their destiny. In the period immediately following
the conquest, the Turks were anxious to conciliate them;
in the sixteenth century their position was less assured, but
they gradually acquired the confidence of the Turks, and by
the eighteenth century had won what may be called a Vice-
Imperial status. I mean that the Greek Empire, though it
had ceased to exist as a political force, continued to exist as
an intellectual, ecclesiastical, and commercial force. The
Greeks could not display the same local vigour as the
Roumanians or Albanians, but, under the Turks, they re-
tained an influence which was not provincial, but almost
co-extensive with the Turkish dominions. This influence
made itself felt in three spheres: Firstly, in matters eccle-
siastical, which included literature and education and a large
part of civil law; for the Turks allowed the ecclesiastical
tribunals to decide cases involving such questions as mar-
riage, divorce, and inheritance when they concerned Chris-
tians only; Secondly, the Greek was pre-eminent in commerce,
for which the Turk had no aptitude, and the other races but
moderate abilities; Thirdly, the Phanariots finally attained
real political importance. During the eighteenth century74

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the Dragomans of the Porte and Fleet, and the Hospodars
of Moldavia and Wallachia, who were four of the most im-
portant officials in the Turkish Empire, were invariably
Greeks. But though during this period the Greeks had
almost more influence on the social, religious, and economic
condition of the Balkan Peninsula than the Turks, they were
only an influence, and not a nationality. Both collectively
and individually, they possessed riches and power; but the
Greek State vanishes from history between 1453 an(l 1821,
and no index or chronological table records any actions of
Greece in that period. It was only natural that the Southern
Greeks, as being the most oppressed portion of the most in-
telligent subject race, should be the first to.revolt from the
Turks. The Phanariots, whose position depended on the
maintenance of the Turkish supremacy, were in doubtful
sympathy with the movement; and the War of Independ-
ence, though successful, secured less advantages for the
Greeks as a whole than might have been expected. On the
one hand, only a small portion of territory was made inde-
pendent; and, on the other, the Greeks who remained
Ottoman subjects lost the privileges which they had en-
joyed. After the establishment of the kingdom of Greece,
the Turks conceived a natural distrust of the Greek element,
put an end to the Phanariot domination in Moldavia and
Wallachia, and favoured the efforts of the Slavs to free
themselves from the Greek clergy.

With the exception of the Montenegrins, who main-
tained in their mountain fastnesses an independence ana-
logous to that of the Albanians, the lot of the Slavs under
Turkish rule was indeed pitiable. The nobles of Bosnia
and the Pomaks of South-Eastern Bulgaria secured a better
position by turning Mohammedans, but the mass of the
people remained true to their Christian faith, and as their
reward endured centuries of martyrdom at the hands of
Ottoman Pashas and Greek priests. For three or fourAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 75

centuries Servia and Bulgaria simply ceased to exist, and
the countrymen of Dushan and Simeon became a helpless,
friendless, nameless peasantry whose only function was to
supply taxes and plunder, and who were not allowed to hold
the smallest office. Servia being farther west and attract-
ing from time to time the attention of Austria, was less
deeply sunk in the slough of despond than Bulgaria, but
the distance of the country from Constantinople created
peculiar evils. The Janissaries, who could not be con-
trolled from the Porte, refused to obey the local Turkish
governors and established a sort of military rule under four
Agas which practically meant organised brigandage and
massacre. In 1804 their excesses provoked a successful
rising under Kara George, and perhaps the Porte was not
sorry that the insurgents got the better of the Janissaries.
But the Servians now aimed at freeing themselves not only
from the Janissaries but from Turkish control. The Porte
was able to suppress Kara George, but a second rising under
Milosh Obrenovich was more successful. In 1830 the
Sultan was obliged to recognise him as prince, and his
dynasty reigns in Servia to this day. At first they were
vassal princes of the Porte, but the Treaty of Berlin recog-
nised their independence, and in 1882 the Prince Milan
was proclaimed king.

The chains of Bulgaria were heavier and her awaken-
ing later than those of Servia. Towards the end of the
eighteenth century a remarkable Moslim chief, half-patriot,
half-brigand, somewhat after the pattern of Ali of Janina,
named Pasvan-Oglu, succeeded in establishing himself at
Widdin and defying the Porte. He levied taxes and coined
money in his own name, and actually threatened to march
against Constantinople. The Porte on this granted him a
firman as a Pasha, and he died as a vassal of the Sultan.
During the middle of the nineteenth century the national
feeling in Bulgaria became sufficiently developed to attempt76

TURKEY IN EUROPE

to oust the Greeks and restore the national Church. The
Turks were not unfavourable to this movement, and in
1870 the Sultan issued a firman creating a Bulgarian
Church independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
But, naturally, Bulgarian patriotism was not only anti-
Greek but anti-Turkish. An insurrection in 1876 was
crushed with a cruelty which attracted the attention of
Europe, and brought about the Russo-Turkish War and the
recognition of Bulgarian independence in the Treaty of
Berlin.

It will be observed that, apart from the conditions which
determined the lot of the conquered races separately, there
were certain circumstances of general application which
affected them all alike. These were chiefly connected with
the decay of the Janissary system and of military fiefs. It
is a strange paradox that, though the Turks conquered and
ruled South-Eastern Europe, they were not of themselves
sufficiently numerous to conquer and hold it, or possessed
of sufficient political skill to administer their conquests.
At every stage of their career they required the military
and political assistance of other races, and the wonder is
that it was always forthcoming. For some hundred years
after the conquest of Constantinople the tribute of Christian
children supplied them with their best soldiers and most
capable officials. When that tribute ceased to be levied,
at the end of the seventeenth century, their military glory
was no longer in the ascendant and the necessary admini-
strative talent was found among converts from Christianity
to Islam. This occasioned a wholesale change of religion in
many provinces, particularly Albania. But in the eighteenth
century, when the old Greek Empire had been forgotten
and the new Greek kingdom had not inspired distrust, the
address and servility of the Greeks made them the govern-
ing class in the larger part of the Empire.

The abolition of the tribute of children was equallyAFTER THE TURKISH CONQUEST 77

important for the provinces. As long as it lasted, the country
districts were naturally submissive, for the strongest element
was continually removed from them. But when the flower
of provincial youth, instead of being carried as slaves to
Constantinople and forcibly converted to Islam, were allowed
to grow up as Christians in their native villages, this un-
complaining meekness naturally disappeared. Bands of
insurgents, called Haiduds among the Slavs and Klephts
among the Greeks, made their appearance all over the
Balkan Peninsula, and led a life of desperate but some-
what aimless opposition to the Turkish Government. They
can be represented according to taste either as bloodthirsty
brigands or as romantic but somewhat eccentric apostles
of liberty. The Sublime Porte, which has always loved the
maxim " Set a thief to catch a thief," counteracted these
bands by authorising the formation of other bands called
Armatoles. These were a sort of Christian militia, who
were on good terms with the authorities, but also not over-
severe to the Klephts.

The national movements of the nineteenth century
have inspired the Porte with a general distrust of Christians.
None of them in Europe are allowed to bear arms except
Albanians; few hold civil posts. There are probably at the
present moment more Turkish officials than there have
been at any previous period of Ottoman history, and it will
be interesting to see if the Turks will be able to provide
from their own race the necessary number of admini-
strators, who have never been forthcoming before. The very
number of the national movements, though it inspires con-
tinual anxiety, is a source of strength to the central
Government. Greeks, Serbs, and Bulgarians, to say nothing
of Ylachs and Albanians, have each their peculiar aspira-
tions, and by playing off one against the other and con-
sistently supporting whatever may happen to be the weaker
party, the central authority maintains its power.CHAPTER III

the turks (i)

In the previous chapter we have seen how swarm after
swarm of barbarians poured out of Asia into the civilised
world. Let us now observe the same phenomena from the
Asiatic side, and, looking westwards from the East, endeavour
to form some idea of the course of these invasions and
of the character of the invaders. The task, though in-
teresting, is peculiarly difficult; for, owing to the paucity of
records, it is often hard to distinguish fact from legend or
theory, and the loose employment by Easterns and Westerns
alike of national designations is a constant source of error.

At the present day large parts of Eastern Europe and
most of Asia north of the Hwang-Ho, of Tibet, and of the
Hindu Kush (that is to say, the districts vaguely, but very
inadequately, described as Mongolia, Turkestan, and Siberia)
are inhabited by people for whom it is not easy to find a
common designation, but who may be most conveniently
treated as forming a linguistic unit. Their languages may
be divided into four families—the Manchu, the Mongol, the
Turkish or Tartar, and fourthly a more miscellaneous group
comprising Finnish, Magyar, and a number of less known
tongues. The resemblances between these four families,
though definite, are of a general kind, and lie in the
structure rather than in the vocabulary; but all the lan-
guages are sharply distinguished from those of the Chinese
or Aryans, by whom the speakers are surrounded. As I
propose to recur to this subject, I will not treat of it
further now.

78THE TURKS	79

It is clear that at the present day there is no racial
unity corresponding to this linguistic group, and it is not
clear that there ever was. Many Finns are physically
undistinguishable from Swedes. The original Huns are
always spoken of as a peculiarly hideous race, but the
Magyars are some of the best-looking people in Europe,
and show no trace of the physical type commonly called
Mongol or Tartar. Very many Osmanlis exhibit a Cau-
casian type, for which there are good reasons. Since their
arrival in Anatolia and Europe they have continually inter-
married with Arabs, Kurds, Greeks, Slavs, and Albanians,
and the practice of contracting unions with foreign slave
girls has still further mixed their blood, especially in the
wealthy families. But even before they appeared in Ana-
tolia, they had long been in contact with the Persians or
closely allied races. The earliest known inhabitants of the
modern Bokhara, Ferghana, and the adjoining districts
were apparently Iranians, and we can hardly doubt that
the westward-bound Turks took out with them a consider-
able admixture of Iranian blood.1

We have seen that a great medley of races was covered
by such names as the Avars. The idea which underlies
the formation of the corps of Janissaries—that of creating
a military organisation, the members of which had severed
all their natural ties of language, country, and family, and
were united only by discipline to their chiefs and by a
secondary acquired language—was evidently a natural pro-
duct of the Turkish mind. Probably similar things were
done in Central Asia. Military Powers of one kind or
another were for ever rising and falling; confederations
took the name of their most important tribe; the van-

1 I would, however, observe that one is apt to generalise too widely from
observing the physique of the Turks of Constantinople. In June 1897, I saw
many thousand Turkish soldiers together in Thessaly, collected from all parts
of Anatolia, and was much impressed by the strongly non-Caucasian type of
many.8o

TURKEY IN EUROPE

quished lost their name and were merged in the victors.
The name Osmanli is a clear instance of what may have
happened in many obscurer cases. It is now applied
loosely to any Moslim in the Turkish dominions, and those
who use it most strictly would never hesitate to give it
to all Turkish-speaking Moslims. Yet many of the latter
must be descendants of the Seljuks, and many of Chris-
tians, whereas the original Osmanlis were merely the tribe
or dependents of Osman, and for a long period not only
distinct from, but at war with, the Seljuks. At the present
day the name Turk or Tartar generally denotes a Moslim
speaking a Turkish language, and Mongol a Buddhist speak-
ing a Mongol language. But in earlier centuries it is not so
easy to draw the distinction. Timur has been called both
a Mongol and a Turk. Jenghiz Khan was apparently a
Mongol, but his son was called Jagatai, and Jagatai in
Turkish is the recognised expression among the Turks
themselves for the Eastern dialects of their language. A
still more remarkable transfer of names is exhibited by the
word Kazak,1 or Cossack, originally the designation of a
section of the Kirghizes, but now hardly known except as
applied to the military organisations of South Russia, which,
though they perhaps originally contained Tartar elements,
have long been purely Russian.2

If we consider these people—Turks, Mongols, Magyars,
Manchus, and the rest—as a whole, the part which they
have played in history has been a large but strange one.
Their contributions to the art, literature, science, and reli-
gion of the world are practically nil. Their destiny has
not been to instruct, to charm, or to improve, hardly even

1	The word appears to mean properly an animal separated from the herd.

2	Another instance of national and linguistic, but not racial unity, which
in some ways illustrates the formation of these Turkish societies, may be
found in the United States. The population is drawn from every country in
Europe, yet for all practical purposes they have but one language, and are not
only homogeneous, but are developing a special physical type.THE TURKS

81

to govern, but simply to conquer. The sterility of their
authors has deprived them of the fame which the scale, if
not the grandeur, of their exploits deserves. When one
tries to piece together these obscure and fragmentary
records, what a catalogue of terrible names passes through
the memory: "The scourge of God," Huns, Avars, and
Turks; the Ghaznevids, the Mamluks, the Golden Horde,
the Great Mogul, Jenghiz Khan, Tamerlane, Mohammed the
Conqueror. Who can reckon the tribute they have taken,
the cities they have sacked, the blood they have spilled ?
They have ruled from the north of Africa to the shores of
the Pacific; they have sent expeditions against Vienna and
Japan; they have ruled in Russia, in Persia, and in India;
and, though their empires have mostly been ephemeral,
a Turk still sits on the throne of Constantinople, and a
Manchu on that of Peking.

The earliest information respecting these races comes
chiefly from Chinese sources, which describe, under the
general name of Hiung-nu, the tribes to the north of the
Hwang-ho, against whose incursions the Great Wall was built.
We have no record of their early westward movements
except the appearance of the various hordes in the West;
but it is clear that in the fourth and fifth centuries a
movement to the north-west, that is, towards the Urals and
Volga, did take place. It is marked by the settlements
still existing of Samoyedes and Ostiaks on the Asiatic side
of the Northern Urals, by the Finns, Lapps, and other
races in North Russia, and by the Mordvinians and Chere-
missians on the Volga. But a subsequent movement, of
whose causes we are equally ignorant, drove the more im-
portant part of these tribes—the Huns, the Bulgarians, and
the Avars—south-west from the Ural and Volga, against
the frontiers of the Roman Empire.

The name Turk appears in Chinese as Tu-kiu, and in
Greek as Tovpicoi, as early as the fifth and sixth centuries,

F82

TURKEY IN EUROPE

and in the last ten years monuments have been discovered
on the Yenisei and Orkhon which throw a light on the pre-
Islamic civilisation of the Turkish people. The most im-
portant of these is an inscription found near the latter river
and erected in 733 a.d. to the memory of Kiil-Tegin by his
brother Bilge Khagan. The Turks appear to have had two
occupations, pasturage and warfare, the latter either on
their own account or as mercenaries of the Chinese. They
were excellent horsemen,1 and the spirit of military adven-
ture was specially favoured by their peculiar institutions,
by which the youngest son usually inherited his father's
property, while the elder brothers went out into the world
to seek their fortune. Among them was already notice-
able that special instinct for discipline and order which
characterised the followers of Jenghiz Khan, Timur, and the
Osmanlis, and which has unhappily nothing to do with good
government, but merely makes every man render implicit
obedience to his military or official superior. They pos-
sessed an alphabet,2 but they had no written law or sacred

1	It is interesting to notice that the inscription, in recounting the exploits
of Kiil-Tegin, always gives the names of the horses he rode in his various
campaigns.

2	This alphabet has a superficial resemblance to runes, due to the fact
that, unlike most other alphabets, it is composed exclusively of vertical and
oblique strokes without any horizontal lines. It has been acutely suggested
that this peculiarity is due to the fact that both runes and the old Turkish
alphabet were commonly carved on wood, on which material it was not con-
venient to cut horizontal lines following the grain. V. Thomsen (Inscriptions
de VOrkhon: Helsingfors, 1896) thinks that this alphabet is derived from the
Aramaic through its Pehlvi and Sogdian variations. If so, it is remarkable
"that written Turkish has from the first fallen under the influence of Semitic
letters, and had to struggle against their inability to express vowels. Old and
modern Turkish meet the difficulty in the same way, namely, by not writing
the vowel, but by indicating its quality by the preceding or succeeding con-
sonant, e.g. in Osmanli the terminations male and meh are distinguished not
by their vowels, but by their consonants, and are written in an orthography
which may be transliterated as mq and mh. Similarly, in the Yenisei and
Orkhon inscriptions, the letters Tc, g, t, d, b, j, r, I, s have each two forms
according as they are pronounced with hard or soft vowels. Subsequently
Nestorian missionaries introduced into Central Asia the Estrangelo alphabet,
from which are derived the Uigur, Mongol, and Manchu systems of writing.THE TURKS

83

books. Their religion seems to have consisted of the
worship of the sky and the five elements, earth, water, fire,
wood, and metal or iron. The old name, Tangri or heaven,
is still used in Osmanli Turkish for God, but the ancient
religion seems to have had little lasting effect on the
national character. Its most important characteristics are
negative; there is no trace of any organised priesthood
or other institutions tending to settle and control these
soldiers of fortune. They came, however, into contact with
both Christianity and Buddhism. The former was intro-
duced into Central Asia by Nestorian missionaries through
Khorassan, and in the fourth and sixth centuries we hear
of Bishops of Merv, Herat, and Samarcand. Buddhism was
apparently introduced rather later in the sixth century.

From the third until the end of the sixth century these
Turks played a considerable part in the affairs of China,
which need not detain us here. It is more to our purpose
to notice that they came into collision with the dynasty of
the Sassanids in Persia (215-639 B.C.), and pressed per-
sistently westwards towards the southern extremity of the
Caspian, waging a continual war, described by Persian
writers as the contest of Iran and Turan. As the Byzan-
tine Empire was also, at war with Persia, they seem to
have thought they might make an alliance with Byzantium
against the common enemy. In 562 the Turkish Khan,
called Dizabul by the Greeks, and identified with the Bumin
Khagan of the inscription of Bilge Khagan, sent an embassy
to the Emperor Justin. He had certainly large views of
foreign policy, for he proposed to act as an intermediary
for the silk trade between China and Byzantium, and in
return asked the Emperor to denounce the fifty years' peace
which he had made with Chosroes, and attack Persia on
the western frontier, while the Turks attacked it from the
north. Justin refused his overtures. He probably had
not the slightest idea of the importance of the Turks, but84

TURKEY IN EUROPE

perhaps his decision was right. The subsequent examples
of those who accepted their help are not encouraging. But
an unexpected Power swept away the Sassanids, and opened
to the Turks the south-western route, which they had
blocked. The Prophet Mohammed died in Medina in 632,
and one of the first lands to feel the power of his successor
was Persia. The country was conquered, and made an
appanage of the Caliphate in 639. The earlier Caliphs
resided chiefly at Damascus, but the Abbasides fixed their
capital at Bagdad, and Persia tended to become the centre
of the eastern Moslim state, Egypt and Spain having a
separate history. The Abbaside Caliphs gradually became
weaker, and at last retained little but their spiritual autho-
rity, the temporal power having passed into the hands of
Persian Viziers. This circumstance, strangely enough, was
the cause of the next great forward step taken by the
Turks. They entered the service of the Abbaside Caliph,
rid him of his Persian masters, reasserted in name his tem-
poral power, and, as a matter of fact, assumed it themselves.

From this period we may divide the Turks into two
sections—those who moved south-west, and who, as they
were drawn towards Anatolia and Europe, sought more or
less definitely the conquest of what they called Rum, and
those who remained in Central Asia, and ultimately tended
to fall within the Chinese sphere. The latter, or a part of
them, were known as Oigurs or Uigurs. Their princes
reigned at Kashgar; they were converted to Islam, and
attained a certain civilisation, deeply affected by Chinese
influences. They employed a form of the Syriac alphabet,
which had been introduced among them by the Nestorians,
and a book is still extant called KudatTcu Bilik, " The Art of
Government," composed at Kashgar in 1065, in the reign of
Boghra Khan.

The first step westwards is marked by the Samanids, a
dynasty in which both Iranian and Turkish elements wereTHE TURKS

85

combined, and which ruled in Transoxiana, Khiva, and
Khorassan under the Abbaside Caliphs. As this dynasty-
broke up and the Abbasides became gradually weaker, a
struggle ensued between the Caliphate, supported by Turkish
troops, and various popular Persian parties. During this
period of confusion a Turkish adventurer founded the power
of the Ghaznevids in Eastern Afghanistan. Mahmud of
Ghazni, who subdued a great part of Northern India, was
scrupulously correct in his relations with Bagdad, and re-
ported his victories to the Caliph as the head of the
military state of Islam, but his successors tended towards
greater independence. The Seljuks, whose original home
was apparently the modern Dzungaria, first appear in the
middle of the eleventh century, under their leader, Toghrul,
as fighting against Masud, the son of Mahmud of Ghazni.
They drove the Ghaznevids eastward into India, and made
themselves masters of Khiva, Khorassan, and Irak. The
Caliph Kaim requested Toghrul's assistance, and at a
solemn ceremony which took place at Bagdad in 1055
made over to him the temporal power. Toghrul died soon
afterwards, but his son, Alp Arslan, who succeeded him,
performed even greater feats in the name of the Caliph.
He won back Syria from the schismatical Fatimite Caliphs
of Egypt; he conquered Georgia and Armenia, and finally
defeated the Byzantine Emperor Romanus at Manzikart in
1071. Though the Crusades and other events complicate
the history of the next two or three centuries, Asia Minor
was from that time practically lost to the Empire and given
over to the Turks. Alp Arslan was succeeded by his son,
Melik Shah, under whom the Seljuk Empire reached its
greatest extent and glory. He ruled from Transoxiana to
the borders of Egypt, and counted among his provinces
Syria, Mosul, Khorassan, and Khiva. It is said that during
his reign he ten times travelled from one extremity of his
vast dominions to the other. This reminds us of the86

TURKEY IN EUROPE

captain of a roving Turkish band; but in other respects he
marks a transition from the organisation of a warlike
nomad tribe to a permanent anti-Christian Mohammedan
state, just as his name contrasts with Toghrul and Alp
Arslan. Nizamu-'l-Mulk, who was Yizier both of Alp
Arslan and Melik Shah, wrote a work called Siaset-name,
or " The Science of Government," which shows that this
Seljuk state had already developed the most striking
features of the modern Ottoman Empire. We see from it
how the religion of Mohammed came to these wild soldiers
of fortune as a stricter discipline, but not as a new moral
law; and when the astute Vizier counsels the free use of
espionage, and recommends that provincial governors and
agents should be often moved and not allowed to become
too powerful, one feels that the Turk is indeed unchanging.
The Empire of Melik Shah became dismembered after his
death. The history of the eastern provinces becomes con-
nected with that of the Mongols and China, and the history
of Syria and of the south with that of the Crusaders and
of Egypt. The power of the Turks as a race advancing
westwards at the expense of the Byzantine Empire was
centred in the Seljuk Sultanate of Konia (or Iconium). The
capital was established there by Masud in the first half of
the twelfth century, but only after a troublous period in
which the Anatolian Seljuks contended with the Danish-
mends of Sivas, and other obscure chieftains. Among the
more celebrated Sultans of Iconium were Kaikhosrau, Kai-
kavus, and Alau-'d-din Kaikobad, who built many beautiful
mosques and gateways, which are still in existence.

At the end of the twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth
centuries occurred another extraordinary ebullition of the
Turanian1 races. A Mongol of the country near the river

1 It appears to me that the word Turanian, though most undesirable if
used as a designation of all languages which are not Semitic or Aryan, is con-
venient and appropriate as a name for the languages mentioned at the begin-
ning of this chapter, and for the people who speak them.THE TURKS

87

Onon called Temujin, but better known by his title of
Jenghiz Khan, or " the Inflexible Lord/' swept over Northern
Asia at the head of his heterogeneous hordes, and conquered
and destroyed from China to Moravia and the Adriatic.
His personal exploits hardly touched either Byzantium or
Konia, but his successors were the bane of the Seljuks. Of
the heirs of his kingdom, one, Khubilai Khan, founded the
Yuen dynasty in China; another, Batu Khan, established
the camp on the Volga, generally known as the Golden
Horde, which ruled over Central and Southern Russia for
a hundred and fifty years; and a third, Hulagu Khan,
invaded Persia and Syria, massacred the inhabitants of
Bagdad, including the Caliph, and thus made an end of the
Abbaside Caliphate (1258). The Seljuk Sultan Kaikhos-
rau II. was defeated by the Mongols at Kuzadag in 1243,
and it seemed, towards the end of the thirteenth century, as
if the Turkish power in Anatolia was likely to succumb
before them, when a new name appears in history.

It is during these struggles of the Seljuks and Mongols
that we first hear of the people to explain whose origin this
long story has been recounted—the Ottoman Turks. Viewed
from Europe, they appear like the matador in the bull-fight,
appointed to slay an animal maddened and weakened by
the attacks of numerous foes. Viewed from Asia, they are
merely another instance of the sudden rise of a small clan to
eminence and empire, which we have seen too often to feel
any surprise. It is said that Suleiman, the first ancestor of
the family, came from Khorassan. He clearly belonged to
one of the many Turkish tribes who poured into Anatolia
after the battle of Manzikart, and were subsequently driven
west by the pressure of the Mongols. His son, Ertoghrul,
established himself first near Erzeroum, and then moved
westward with the idea of entering the service of the Seljuk
Sultan of Konia. According to the legend, fate favoured
this intention. During his journey he saw from a mountain88

TURKEY IN EUROPE

height two armies fighting on the plains below, chivalrously
determined to aid the one which seemed to be outnumbered,
and by his intervention decided the fortune of the day. It
proved that he had aided the Sultan Alau-'d-din to defeat a
horde of Mongols, and as a recompense he received from the
grateful monarch the fief of Eskishehir. His son Osman
(whence Osmanli, and by corruption Ottoman*) and his
grandson Orkhan took Broussa, Nicsea (Isnik), and Nico-
media (Ismid) from the Greeks, and when, at the beginning
of the fourteenth century, the Empire of Iconium broke up
into ten provinces ruled by Khans or Emirs, the Ottoman
chiefs were lords of the province of Khudavendigiar, which
is still the official name of the vilayet of Broussa. It is
worth while recapitulating the names of the other nine
states, as they are still occasionally used as territorial desig-
nations by both Turks and Europeans: (i) Kastamuni, the
ancient Paphlagonia; (2) Karasi, the ancient Mysia, with
Bergamo (Pergamus) as the capital; (3) Sari-khan, the
ancient Lydia, capital Cassaba* (Sardis); (4) Aidin, the
ancient Ionia, with Aya-soluk (Ephesus) as the earliest
capital; (5) Menteshe or Caria; (6) Tekke, Lycia, and
Pamphylia; (7) Kermian, the ancient Phrygia, with
Kutahia as capital; (8) Karaman, Lycaonia, and Cappa-
docia, with the towns of Konia and Csesarea; (9) Hamid,
Pisidia, and Isauria. The most remarkable activity of the
first Osmanli sovereigns was perhaps that manifested in
Europe, but Orkhan and Murad I. subdued three of these
nine Khanates, and, though the remaining six conspired
against Bayezid, he disposed of them all. But at this point
his progress was stopped and the young Ottoman Empire
nearly overthrown by another great Turanian movement
similar to that of Jenghiz Khan and directed by Timur or
Tamerlane, a native of Samarcand. After conquering the

1 The name Osman is borrowed from the Arabic, and correctly written
'Uthm&n or 'Othm&n. But the Turks could pronounce neither ain nor th.THE TURKS

89

Golden Horde and Northern India, Timur turned his arms
first against Syria and then against Asia Minor, where he
utterly routed Bayezid's army and took the Sultan himself
prisoner in 1402. His campaigns had three results. They
led to the establishment of the Mogul Empire in India ;
they broke the power of the Golden Horde and thus en-
abled the Russians to free themselves from the Mongol
yoke; and they broke, at least.temporarily,the power of the
Osmanlis. But the * Byzantines could not use the oppor-
tunity; Timur% went off east with his armies and died in
1405 ; the Osmanlis recovered from the shock, and, fifty
years later, took Constantinople.

The pre-eminence of the Osmanlis among the Turks
seems to be the result mainly of geographical position. Their
story is typical of the national life of which we have been
speaking. The family histories of the Ghaznevids and early
Seljuks closely resemble the beginning of the house of
Osman. But no previous Turkish states had severed their
connection with Eastern Asia sufficiently to become a per-
manent danger to Europe. Even Konia was a long way
from Constantinople, and the Seljuks when established
there were already in their decline. But in the case of
the Osmanlis, the first impetus, the new fountain of vigour,
burst forth in Western Anatolia, comparatively close to Con-
stantinople. Their victorious arms advanced early into
Europe, a stride which the Seljuks could never have made.
They incorporated European recruits in their armies, and
by the conquest of Constantinople received first a stimulus
which sent them on victorious as far as Vienna, and secondly
an unparalleled national citadel, possessed of a strength far
more lasting than any which mere fortifications can give,
and capable of holding together a decaying Empire which
would have soon decomposed if centred in Konia or Samar-
cand. Yet it would be unjust not to recognise the personal
merit of the Osmanlis. They no doubt possessed in their9°

TURKEY IN EUROPE

highest form all the Turkish virtues — courage, energy,
obedience, discipline, and temperance; and it is truly re-
markable that they did not collapse after the defeat in-
flicted on them by Timur. It may be urged that Timur
made no attempt to destroy their power or lay waste Asia
Minor, but merely humbled Bayezid and went away. This
is so; but Bayezid was the fifth from Ertoghrul, and feebler
Turkish dynasties collapsed of themselves in a shorter period.

The Osmanlis are still in Constantinople, and, though
they have ceased to be a terror, are still a preoccupation
to the West. They have become, under the force of circum-
stances, less actively warlike than they were, but otherwise
they seem exempt from those laws which tend to produce
a measure of uniformity among European nations. They
have done little to assimilate the peoples whom they have
conquered, and have still less been assimilated by them.
In the larger part of the Turkish dominions, the Turks
themselves are in a minority. Only in the vilayet of
Konia and the interior portions of Broussa and Aidin is
the mass of the population Turkish, in the sense in which
it is English in England or Russian in Russia. In the
Armenian provinces about one-third is Turkish, one Arme-
nian, and one Kurdish. Going farther south, the proportion
of Arab blood becomes larger and larger, till at last in
Syria, Palestine, and Arabia only the officials are Osmanlis,
and not over-willingly obeyed by the natives. Everywhere
on the coast Greeks abound, and in the interior of European
Turkey the Turkish race is certainly of all numerically the
weakest. To a limited extent the Osmanli fuses with other
Mohammedan races, such as Kurds and Albanians, particu-
larly in the negative form of being unwilling to openly
quarrel with them; but, on the whole, the Turks are now
what they were when the first Seljuk adventurers seized
on Asia Minor—an army of occupation. The expression
Turkey in Europe means no more than would the expres-THE TURKS

9i

sion England in Asia, if used as a designation for India.
Indeed, in many respects, though not in all, there is a
great similarity between the two Empires. In both cases
a large extent of territory, comprising the most diverse
races, is administered by a comparatively small body of
invaders, who, owing to difference of language, can only
communicate imperfectly with their subjects. In both the
ruling race has an overweening sense of its own superiority
and remains a nation apart, mixing little with the con-
quered population, whose customs and ideals it tolerates,
but makes little effort to understand. In both there is
in practice a religious distinction between the native and
the governing race, though, of course, in India the theory
is widely different from that prevalent in Turkey. Natu-
rally the parallel is only true in its most general outline,
but it will enable the reader to realise the isolated position
of the Turk in his own country.

Perhaps one fact which lies at the root of all the
actions of the Turks, small and great, is that they are
by nature nomads. It is their custom to ornament the
walls of their houses with texts instead of pictures, and,
if they quoted from the Bible instead of the Koran, no
words would better characterise their manner of life than
" Here have we no continuing city." Both in the town
and in the country they change their dwellings with ex-
treme facility, and think it rather strange to remain long
in the same abode. The very aspect of a Turkish house
seems to indicate that it is not intended as a permanent
residence. The ground floor is generally occupied by
stables and stores. From this a staircase, often merely a
ladder, leads to an upper storey, usually consisting of a
long passage, from which open several rooms, the entrances
to which are closed by curtains, not by doors. There are
probably holes in the planking of the passages, and spiders'
webs and swallows' nests in the rafters. The rooms them-92

TURKEY IN EUROPE

selves, however, are generally scrupulously clean, but bare
and unfurnished. The walls are plainly whitewashed, and
ornamented only by one or two yafUs (the illuminated
texts alluded to above). Chairs and tables there are
probably none, and the cupboards let into the wall are
usually of rough unplaned deal. The general impression
left on a European is that a party of travellers have occu-
pied an old barn and said, " Let us make the place clean
enough to live in; it's no use taking any more trouble
about it. We shall probably be off again in a week."
All houses are constructed entirely with a view to the
summer, and the advent of winter, despite the fact that
it lasts about six months and is often severe, seems a
constant source of surprise. The inhabitants huddle into
one room heated by an iron stove or open brazier, and
leave empty the rest of the house which cannot be warmed.
The same rough-and-ready arrangement is seen in the
disposition of the rooms. They are not assigned to any
special purpose. You sit in a room and write on your
hand; when you are hungry, you call; a little table is
brought in and you eat; when you want to go to bed,
a pile of rugs is laid in a corner and you go to sleep on
it. The same thing may be witnessed in a more striking
form at the Imperial Palace of Yildiz. I have seen a
number of secretaries and officials working in a room
decked with red plush and the ordinary furniture of
European palaces. Some were sitting curled up in arm-
chairs, with their inkpots poised perilously on the arms,
the idea of having a writing-table never having come into
their heads. Some were squatting on the floor, eating
with their fingers off broad dishes placed on a low table.
One was taking a siesta in the corner. Nothing could
have more vividly suggested the idea of a party of tent-
dwellers who had suddenly occupied a European house,
and did not quite know how to use it.THE TURKS

93

It is not only in such details that this characteristic
occurs, but in the whole economy of the state. The Turks
certainly resent the dismemberment of their Empire, but
not in the sense in which the French resent the conquest of
Alsace-Lorraine by Germany. They do not use the word
Turkey, or even the Oriental equivalent (" the High
Country") in ordinary conversation. They would never
say that Servia or Greece are parts of Turkey which have
been detached, but merely that they are tributaries which
have become independent, provinces once occupied by Turks
where there are no Turks now. As soon as a province
passes under another government, the Turk finds it the most
natural thing in the world to leave it and go somewhere
else. In the same spirit he talks quite complacently of
leaving Constantinople some day: he will go over to Asia
and find another capital. One can hardly imagine English-
men speaking like this of London, but they might conceiv-
ably so speak of Calcutta.

Perhaps it is to this spirit that most of the vices of the
Turks should be attributed. Travelling generates an im-
moral habit of mind; that is to say, you do many things in
a place where you are going to stop only a few hours which
you would not do in your permanent residence. Observe
the undisguised selfishness and greed of ordinary railway
travellers, the brutal violence with which they seize eligible
seats or other comforts, the savage gluttony with which they
ravage the buffet and carry off their food. Explorers ap-
parently go further, and deal very lightly with the lives and
persons of the natives through whose country they pass.
So the Turk pays no attention to the inhabitants of the
territory he occupies: he makes himself comfortable in his
own way in whatever shelter he finds; knocks a hole in the
finest fresco if he wants to run a stovepipe through the wall,
or pulls down a Greek temple if he wants stones. He
builds nothing but what is immediately necessary, and94

TURKEY IN EUROPE

repairs nothing at all. Why should he ? He will pass on
somewhere else and take another house.

To continue the metaphor of the Turk as a travelling
nomad—and indeed it is only half a metaphor—we
may say that he brings surprisingly little luggage with him.
By an apparent contradiction he is the most and the
least assimilative of mortals; he borrows religion, clothes,
language, and customs, but remains profoundly Turkish in
spite of all. In fact, when one comes to reflect, there is
hardly anything which is Turkish and not borrowed. The
religion is Arabic; the language half Arabic and Persian;
the literature almost entirely imitative; the art Persian or
Byzantine; the costumes in the upper classes and army
mostly European. There is nothing characteristic in manu-
factures or commerce, except an aversion to such pursuits.
The Turk makes nothing at all; he takes whatever he can
get as plunder or pillage; he lives in the houses which he
finds or which he orders to be built for him. In unfavour-
able circumstances he is a marauder; in favourable, a grand
seigneur who thinks it his right to enjoy with grace and
dignity all that the world can yield, but who will not lower
himself by engaging in art, literature, trade, or manufacture.
Why should he when there are other people to do these
things for him ? The palace of Dolma Baghche, built by
Abdul Mejid, is a striking example of Turkish method—one
cannot say style—in art. The Imperial author evidently
said, " Build me a palace as palaces are generally built in
Europe, but bigger than any other kings, and put a collec-
tion of pictures in it, since that is a suitable thing for a
king to have." Externally the result is not unpleasing;
the great hall is impressive on account of its size, but
marred by the strange device of having painted columns on
the walls; the collection of pictures is instructive.

Hence it is that when the Turk retires from a country
he leaves no more sign of himself than does a Tartar campTHE TURKS

95

on the upland pastures where it has passed the summer—
fire-holes, marks of tents, and rubbish, which perhaps render
cultivation difficult, but do not affect the landscape. Even
as slight are the traces shown at Belgrade, Sofia, and Athens
of the Turkish times, which have left little effect externally,
though they may have retarded the development of the
people.

In fact, all occupations except agriculture and military
service are distasteful to the true Osmanli. He is not much
of a merchant: he may keep a stall in a bazaar, but his
operations are rarely conducted on a scale which merits the
name of commerce or finance. It is strange to observe how,
when trade becomes active in any seaport or along a rail-
way line, the Osmanli retires and disappears, while Greeks,
Armenians, and Levantines thrive in his place. Neither
does he much affect law, medicine, or the learned pro-
fessions. Such callings are followed extensively by Moslims,
but they are apt to be of non-Turkish race. The true Turk
has three spheres of activity. First, he is a Government
official, a class of which I shall speak elsewhere. Secondly,
he is an agriculturist and a breeder of animals. He does
not rejoice in reclaiming barren land or in turning the
mountain-side into fruitful vineyards. On the contrary, he
has turned wooded countries into deserts by his improvident
habit of cutting down trees for firewood and making no
attempt to plant others in their place. But he has a keen
appreciation of the simplest and most material joys of
country life. He likes fine horses, fat sheep and cattle,
good corn and olives, rich grass. He willingly goes out
shooting, and some of the Sultans were mighty hunters.
But more than all, he likes a good kitchen-garden, where he
can grow fruit and vegetables, succulent pumpkins and
cucumbers, and perhaps regale a party of friends with roast
lamb in a little summer-house under the shade of his mul-
berry and walnut trees. Thirdly, the Turk is a soldier, not96

TURKEY IN EUROPE

in the sense that Germans or Russians " make" good
soldiers, but in the sense that the moment a sword or rifle
is put into his hands, he instinctively knows how to use
it with effect, and feels at home in the ranks or on a
horse. The Turkish army is not so much a profession, or
an institution necessitated by the fears and aims of the
Government, as the active but still quite normal state of the
Turkish nation. Hence its equipment and commissariat
must not be judged by European standards, nor does the
incapacity or corruption of its officers impair its efficiency as
much as might be supposed. Every Turk is born a soldier,
and adopts other pursuits chiefly because the times are bad.
When there is a question of fighting, if only in a riot, the
stolid peasant wakes up and shows a surprising power of
organisation and finding expedients, and, alas! a surprising
ferocity. The ordinary Turk is an honest, good-humoured
soul, kind to children and animals, and very patient; but
when the fighting spirit comes on him, he becomes like the
terrible warriors of the Huns or Jenghiz Khan, and slays,
burns, and ravages without mercy or discrimination.

It is clear that people of such strangely limited activity
can only form a state or society with the help of extraneous
elements. Of late years the efforts, in many cases success-
ful, of the subject Christian races to throw off the Ottoman
yoke have created a feeling of jealousy and distrust, which
makes the Turk anxious to employ them as little as possible
in the public service. But this was formerly not the case,
and in the earlier Ottoman history, as has been truly said,
the Sultan was often the only important person of Turkish
race. Not only the commerce and financing, but the work
of administration was done by foreigners. One of the most
extraordinary features in the history of this strange people
is the manner in which they were able to make use of other
races, just as the old chieftains in Central Asia collected
round their standards Turks, Mongols, Iranians, and anyTHE TURKS

97

one else who was useful. The capture of Constantinople
was due in a large measure to the artillery and other con-
trivances of European artificers: the corps of Janissaries,
as well as that of the Palace pages, who often rose to high
rank, was composed of the sons of Christians forcibly taken
from their parents : many of the greatest naval and military
commanders were Italians or other European renegades:
many of the most eminent Grand Viziers, Arabs or Alba-
nians : most of the Imperial consorts, foreign slaves. Even
the Turkish state, when closely examined, proves to be
no more really Turkish than the prose of Saad-ud-Din or
the Mosque of St. Sofia.

Yet clearly there must be something Turkish, and that
something a force of no mean magnitude, seeing the part
that Turks and Turkey still play in the history of the
world. The something in question is the Turkish nation
itself, as seen best in the provinces of Anatolia, but also
in some parts of Turkey in Europe. And here let me say,
if I seem to have had little praise for the Turks up to now,
that the reason why most people blame them is because
they know so little of them. As already explained, the
ruling classes of Constantinople are one of the most mixed
breeds in the world. The true Turk must be sought in the
provinces. Those who have passed even one night in a
Turkish village cannot but have been struck by many
characteristics of the inhabitants. One is their dignified
courtesy and beautiful manners, due no doubt to the con-
sciousness that every Turk, as a member of the ruling race,
is an aristocrat. Ragged soldiers and rough shepherds
have often an air which makes it impossible for the
stranger to feel that they are socially his inferiors. Another
characteristic is their hospitality: they will rarely accept
money, and when it is proffered merely reply, " I am not
an innkeeper/' The Eastern Christian, on the contrary,
after receiving his guest with effusion, and dwelling on

G98

TURKEY IN EUROPE

their common religion, often presents an exorbitant bill.
In industry, honesty, and truthfulness the country Turk
usually compares favourably with his Christian neighbours,
and may be trusted implicitly when he has given his word.
Alas ! that one must add another salient characteristic—his
extraordinary stupidity, or rather the extraordinary limita-
tion of his knowledge and interests. Even this expression
is not quite accurate, for the Turk has no interests in our
s^nse of the word. Few things throw a more instructive
light on the character of a nation than an examination
of the ideas which cannot be expressed in their language.
Now the Turkish language, copious as it is, contains no
equivalent for " interesting.'' You can say this is a useful
book, or a funny book, or a learned book, or a book which
attracts attention, but you cannot precisely translate our
expression, "This is an interesting book." Similarly you
•cannot render in Turkish the precise shade of meaning
-conveyed by the phrase, " I take an interest in the Eastern
question or the Mohammedan religion." The various
approximate equivalents imply either a more active and
less intellectual participation than that denoted by interest,
or else suggest that these serious subjects are something
queer and funny which it is amusing to hear about.

This lacuna in the language has its counterpart in the
brain. The ordinary Turk does not take an interest in
anything, and his intelligence seems incapable of grappling
with any problem more complex than his immediate daily
needs. A natural want of curiosity, and a conviction that
their own religion contains all that man knows or needs to
know, keep the provincial population in a state of ignorance
which seems incredible and fantastic. There are thousands,
perhaps millions, of people in the Ottoman Empire who
believe that the Sultan is suzerain of Europe, and that all
other monarchs pay him tribute. There were people in the
time of the last Russo-Turkish war who, when they sawTHE TURKS

99

shells falling and bursting, thought they were stars brought
down from heaven by enchantment. There are Mollahs
and Kadis who seriously discuss how near to a mosque
a telegraph wire can properly pass, seeing that it is a means
of conveying the voice of Satan from one place to another.
Most extraordinary of all, there are people who have never
seen gold coins, and refuse to accept them in payment. It
is well to remember the existence of such people when one
hears allusions to the influence and effects of European
public opinion in Turkey. But perhaps the characteristic
which has been of most vital importance in forming the
destiny of the Ottoman race, and has raised to the status of
a great nation a Siberian tribe which might otherwise have
remained as obscure as the Tunguses, is the feature which
was noticed by the old Chinese chroniclers, and which can
be observed to-day—the innate sense of discipline. It
is the only cement which keeps together the apparently
tottering fabric of the Turkish Empire. It makes the
half-fed, half-clothed soldier ready to endure every priva-
tion, and prevents the corruption and incapacity of the
officers from producing the anarchy which would be in-
evitable in any other country. Probably the lot of the
Mussulman peasant is in ordinary times worse than that of
the Christian, Armenian or other, yet anything like sedi-
tion is unknown, and even complaints are rare. Were a
holy war proclaimed, not a man but would be prepared to die
in defence of the system of extortion which grinds him down.

Perhaps I ought to allude to another characteristic
of the Turk—his laziness. In some ways the popular
European idea of Oriental indolence is unjust; for the
Turk, as a peasant, is the most laborious and industrious
of men, and as a soldier the most enterprising. But
clearly many of the qualities which we have already
reviewed tend to produce inertia. The Turk is too proud
to do many things; too stupid to do others. His religion—ioo	TURKEY IN EUROPE

of which more anon—inculcates a fatalism which leads to
a conviction that effort is useless. But perhaps what gives
more than anything else the impression that the Turk
is fundamentally indolent is the fact that all his recrea-
tions consist of repose. When the nomad halts, he does
not wish to sing, or dance, or distract himself with games
after the European fashion, but merely to rest quietly.
He has a power of sitting still, doing nothing, and wanting
to do nothing, which seems to us animal rather than
human. His idea of bliss—what he calls keif—is to recline
in the shade, smoking and listening to the soothing mur-
mur of running water.

In this essay I am endeavouring to give an account
not so much of the organisation and administration of the
Ottoman Empire in Europe as of the elements imported
into the Eastern question with the arrival of the Turks.
One of these is the Turkish language. As the modern
Turks are a composite race, so is their speech, especially
in its written form, a composite language; that is to say,
its vocabulary and, to a limited extent, its grammar are
derived not from one stock, but from a combination of
several. It may in this respect be compared with English,
which is the result of blending Anglo-Saxon with Norman
French; only in the case of Turkish the mixture is far
more incongruous, as the three languages thus united, the
original Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, have nothing in com-
mon and belong to absolutely different families.

I have already briefly enumerated the divisions of
the linguistic group to which Turkish belongs, viz., the
Magyar-Finnish, the Manchu, the Mongol, and the Tartar-
Turkish. The last-named group comprises many languages.
Their classification is a matter of some difficulty, and I will
here merely enumerate the principal divisions and the
tribes who speak them, in order to give an idea of how wide
is their distribution.THE TURKS

101

In the extreme east are the Yakuts on the river Lena,
a harmless tribe of nominal Christians, whose language is of
great interest and importance for philology. To the south-
west of them come the various tribes of Eastern Turks
in Kashgar, Kulja, Yarkand, and Khotan, who apparently
represent the remains of the Uigurs. In the Russian
provinces of Fergana and Turkestan, in Bokhara and Khiva,
we meet with the names Sart, Uzbek, and Kirghiz. Of
these, Sart, though now commonly used as a name for the
Jagatai Turkish spoken in those provinces, is, strictly speak-
ing, not a linguistic designation, but denotes a dweller
in cities and a merchant, as distinguished from a country-
man and agriculturist, called Tajik. But it is also true
that the latter word denotes a person speaking a Persian
dialect, and presumably of Iranian extraction. Uzbek also
is not strictly a linguistic name, but political, and denotes
the Turks who are, or were, the ruling faction in the
Khanates of Khiva, Bokhara, and Kokand. Kirghiz is the
name given to the tent-dwellers who extend from the
Pamirs, across Turkestan north of the Sea of Aral to Oren-
burg. Their language—at any rate in Central Asia—
does not differ materially from the Sart except in being
rougher.

In European Russia are two Tartar settlements—one
having Kazan as its centre, and one in the Crimea. Both
as political powers arose from the Golden Horde, who were
Mongols, but the languages of both are now Turkish and
closely akin to Osmanli. It is probable that among these
Tartars are incorporated many Turanian tribes akin to
the Mordvinians and Cheremissians. Tartar settlements
extend west as far as Poland, and the Nogai kingdom (Crim
Tartary) was an important power in the fifteenth, sixteenth,
and seventeenth centuries. South of the Kirghiz, but north
of Persia, and between the Caspian and Bokhara, dwell the
Turcomans or Turkmens, whose language is intermediate102	TURKEY IN EUROPE

between Sart and the Western Turkish, and who are divided
into numerous tribes. Some of the best known are the
Yomuts, the Tekkes of Merv, the Sariks of Penjdeh, and the
Salors, most of whom have played a political role. Going
farther west, we come to Azerbaijan, a name given to North-
West Persia and to the Turkish spoken there and in the
adjoining districts of the Caucasus. This language is per-
fectly intelligible to one who knows Osmanli, but is rougher
and employs fewer Arabic words. One of the Azerbaijan
families called Kajar has furnished the reigning Persian
dynasty. There are also numerous Turkish tribes in South
Persia. In Turkey itself it is impossible to say who besides
the Imperial family have any claim to be considered as
members of the tribe of Osman, but it is clear that there are
several classes of Turks who can be at once distinguished
from the main body that has taken the name of the leader.
Such are the Tartars of the Dobrudja; the Kizil Bashs;1
Turkish immigrants from Persia, who are hardly Moham-
medans ; the Yuruks or nomad Turks, who wander about
in Asia Minor, particularly in the vilayets of Adana and
Aidin; and many settlements in Turkey in Europe who are
known as Koniots or Konariots. They are found in the
north of Thessaly, in the valley of the Vistritza and north
of Salonica, and there seems no reason to reject their own
tradition that they are isolated bodies of Seljuks who emi-
grated to Europe in the pre-Osmanli times.

All the Turanian languages are characterised by the fact
that they have no grammatical gender, and that their
method of word-formation consists exclusively in appending
suffixes to roots and stems. Prefixes and infixes of any
kind are unknown. The root, which can often be used as
an independent word, is invariable, or nearly so, but its
significations may be modified in various ways by the

1 Apparently the Kizil Bashs are Turks, whereas the Kurds, with whom
they are often confused, are not.THE TURKS

addition of a syllable or.string of syllables. Further, a
common but not universal characteristic is what is called
vowel harmony—that is to say, the vowels of the root are
of the same quality, and the vowels of the suffixes are more
or less assimilated to the vowels of the root—an arrange-
ment which undoubtedly facilitates pronunciation. Thus the
Turk says Achajaghiz, but gidejeyiz ; pederiniz, but kulunuz ;
gyorduyu, gitdiyi, oldughu, all of which are analogous for-
mations from the three roots gyor, git, and ol

In addition to these general features, the Tartar-Turkish
languages, all of which are closely allied to one another,
have many very distinct characteristics. They have a
common phonetic system and vocabulary: they all possess
four or five case forms and an elaborately developed verb,
which, however, never incorporates the pronominal object.
In all of them the negative is not a separate word, but a
part of the verbal inflexion, and they none of them form
compounds.

There is, of course, nothing in the principle of suffixing
alien to an Aryan language. Latin and Greek employ the
process to a large extent, but other processes as well, and
they differ from the Turanian languages in their variety and
irregularity. Turkish formations are monotonous and regu-
lar, whereas mensce, domini, and consulis are all genitives,
and the formations of the Greek verb are so copious that it
is impossible to give any rule as to the derivatives in use
from a particular root. This diversity is the result of
selection from an immense variety of forms. The wealth
and inventive power of the Aryan languages provided the
materials for at least twice as many formations as are
actually in use for any particular noun or verb. Euphony
and other causes suggested the retention of some and the
rejection of others, so that each word becomes, so to speak,
a personality whose idiosyncrasy has to be studied before
one can tell with what grammatical forms it would be suit-io4	TURKEY IN EUROPE

able for it to associate. In Turkish all this is unknown;
a grammar is, strictly speaking, a convenience, and not a
necessity. The Turkish verb, when displayed in all its
details, is a spectacle of appalling complexity, and yet if a
person ignorant of the language were given a list of suffixes
and half-a-dozen simple rules, he could work out the full
paradigm as if it were an algebraical sum. This is possible
because in Turkish words the suffix never becomes con-
founded with the root or stem. It is always possible to
divide the word up into its component parts—by strokes of
the pen if you will: chichek-ler, flowers; gyor-dii-niiz, you have
seen. Gydrdil means he has seen, and gijor is the imperative,
see. You cannot treat forms like domini, monui, in the same
way, for if i is called a suffix, that which remains when it
is removed, domin or monu, is not a word, and the forms in
question imply a long series of changes. This is, in fact,
the heart of the matter: multiplicity and irregularity mean
that a language has had a history—that it has passed
through changes and developments—that it has been the
battlefield of various principles, some of which have lost,
and some won. They may be compared to the wrinkles
and other marks on a face, which tell of the eventful
experiences through which the owner has passed. It is
noticeable that irregularity, though not confined to Aryan
languages, is more universal in them than in any other
family.

The agglutinative languages, if compared with one
another, show a gradual approximation to the Aryan
type. The most perfect specimen of the original state (or
at least what we suppose to be the original state) is Manchu,
where the suffixes are actually written separately from the
word to which they are appended. Finnish, on the other
hand, is nearest to the Aryan type, as it presents consid-
erable variety of formation, and owing to the operation of
highly complicated rules (which can, however, be workedTHE TURKS

out with mathematical regularity) the fusion of the root
and its suffixes is almost as complete as in Latin. Osmanli
stands midway. Such forms as Istaniboldan, Istambolda
(from or in Constantinople), might just as well be written
as two words, but case forms like Kyojpeyin, Kyopeye from
Kyopek, show an approach to real declension. Also the
symmetry of the verb is not absolute, as there are two sets
of personal suffixes, one for the past and conditional tense,
and oi*e for all the others; but, with a few such slight
exceptions, the regularity is complete.

One of the main peculiarities of the Turkish language is
that it seems to express thought in exactly the opposite
order to our own. In translating any sentence, however
long, it is almost always necessary to begin with the last
word and work directly backwards to the first. For
example—

Der-saadet ile Varna beininde ishleyen Loid Kompaniasinin
Capital and Yarna between running Lloyd of Company of
Vulkan vaporina rakiben Istambola gelioruz
Vulcan Steamer on Stamboul to coming are we.

That is, literally, We are coming to Stamboul on the
steamer Vulcan of the Company of Lloyd running between
Varna and the capital.

The difference between such an idiom and our own is,
that whereas we endeavour to make plain the main drift, or
at any rate to sketch the form of our sentences in the first
few words and then to fill in the detail, the Turk keeps the
main point to the end. Just as he accentuates the last
syllable of words, he metaphorically accentuates the last
word of a sentence, and till he has pronounced it his
meaning is doubtful. It is plain that a language with this
principle ought to avoid long sentences. Popular Turkish
does so: it is terse, vigorous, and clear. But Turkish
writers, in their desire to express in their own language allio6	TURKEY IN EUROPE

that can be said in Arabic and Persian (which, roughly speak-
ing, place words in the same order as European tongues),
fall into the error of constructing sentences of inordinate
length. This fault is aggravated by the fact that Turkish
possesses no relative pronouns of its own, and, more than this,
no words like " when," " where," " because," " that," " if," &c. It
is true that equivalents of these useful words have been bor-
rowed from Persian, and that the Turkish interrogatives are
used as relatives, but these words and phrases at best hold
their own in approved Turkish, and have by no means sup-
planted the older method. If a Turk wishes to say, " When
I was in Constantinople, the man whom you have seen to-day
begged that I would write to Ahmed/' he probably expresses
himself somewhat as follows: " In the time of my being at
Constantinople, the to-day seen by you man requested my
writing to Ahmed." With such idioms, it is easy to under-
stand how sentences can be swollen out by the insertion
of any number of participial and gerundival constructives
until they surpass the longest efforts of Greek and German
writers.

The admixture of Arabic and Persian has not simplified
Turkish grammar, but has merely complicated the vocabu-
lary. Three Turanian languages, Finnish, Hungarian, and
Turkish, have been carried from Asia into Europe, and,
unaccustomed to express anything but the daily wants, the
popular songs and traditions of simple nomads, have been
called upon to translate a whole political and religious
vocabulary for which they had no equivalent. Hungarian
and Finnish have solved the problem by literally translating
European ideas in the terms of their own vocabulary. For
instance, " spirit" means breath; it is therefore rendered in
Finnish by henki, which also means air or breath, and
" spiritual," in the sense of religious, is rendered by the corre-
sponding adjective hengellinen. In the same way the Germans
say Geist and Geistlich. English proceeds differently, andTHE TURKS

borrows from Latin without translating. We do not say-
breath and breathy, but spirit and spiritual. The method
of the Turks is the same. They have borrowed wholesale
from Arabic, and the transformation of their language has
been more striking than the changes undergone by Finn-
ish or Magyar. There are several reasons for this. First,
Arabic was regarded as a holy language, therefore the more
of its words could be used the better. Secondly, all Orientals,
and particularly Arabs, have an idea that fine writing and
fine speaking should not be too intelligible. No Turk is in
the least astonished if he does not understand a composi-
tion written in Turkish. He merely respects the author as
having a command of choice expressions. He hardly regards
literature or writing as a normal part of life. He expects
to understand a story when it is told him, or a business
transaction when it is explained to him verbally, but he
regards a book or a letter much as an Englishman regards
a technical legal document, as a thing he could not possibly
write himself, and of which he can only be expected to
understand the general drift. Thirdly, the Turks, like most
Mohammedan nations, have adopted the Arabic alphabet
(" the letters which brought down inspiration") to write
their own vernacular. This alphabet, which fate has made
cosmopolitan in the Old World, is of all systems of writing
least fitted to be so. It is specially adapted to the Arabic
language, which has a multiplicity of strange consonants
and a peculiar grammatical system which renders it unne-
cessary to write the vowels fully. Turkish having few con-
sonants and many vowels, cannot be adequately represented
by a system of transcription, which, for instance, has only
one sign to express o, o, u and u; one cannot distinguish in
writing oldu, he was, and oldii, he died. Further, the single
letter kef is used to express k, ky, g, gy, y, v, wy and n, and
the dictionary authorises one to pronounce the word spelled
by the three letters elify vav, kef as avin, evin, evg, un, dkrio8	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and on. In fact, pure Turkish written in the Arabic alphabet
gives rise to so many doubts and uncertainties that it is
hardly suitable as a means of written communication, and it
is usual to employ Arabic words as much as possible in
writing, because there is no doubt as to how they should
be read.

Besides the Arabic element, modern Turkish contains a
considerable amount of Persian. While Arabic has come to
be regarded in the East as the proper language for religion,
law, and serious discussion generally, Persian is the accepted
tongue for poetry and belles lettres, and the introduction of
Persian words in Turkish is thought a peculiar beauty. A
number of quite common every-day Turkish words are purely
Persian in their origin, but still the language has never been
so thoroughly incorporated in Turkish a& Arabic, and the
free use of Persian words in prose is generally a sign that
the author thinks he is writing literature to be read for the
sake of its style.

The result of this enormous borrowing from two foreign
languages is that there are many Turkish books in which
only the terminations and auxiliaries are Turkish. Johnsonian
English gives one but a faint idea of the real old Stambouli
style, to realise which we must imagine an English work
filled not only with the choicest sesquipedalia verba, but with
such phrases as mutatis mutandis, primus inter pares, kcit
eZoyfiv, introduced in every line, the whole welded together
in sentences of enormous length, each with only one finite
verb for its last word. This style was perhaps intensified
by Byzantine influences. Linguistically, the effect of Greek
on Turkish is not obvious, but the conquerors of Constanti-
nople adopted many usages from the Byzantine court, and
no doubt the pompous and inflated language of the chryso-
bulls confirmed all their notions as to what constitutes dignity
in literature. Poor Turkish language! Smothered under
& mass of foreign words, its powers of terse and vividTHE TURKS

expression and its wonderfully copious methods of word-
formation have been deliberately stunted and neglected, and
nothing developed except its capacities for being long-winded
and obscure. In popular songs and stories we find a language
expressive, harmonious, and forcible, but if we turn to works
supposed to be written in fine Turkish, we see poetry which
may be compared to the Latin verses of talented scholars,
and prose by the side of which Euphues seems unaffected.
Such things cannot be dismissed contemptuously, because
they represent the taste of a nation. The Turk looks upon
writing as a special art, in which it would be highly inde-
corous to employ ordinary language. In every town writers
may be seen sitting at the street corners or in their little
shops. The man who has decided on the grave step of
writing a letter communicates the substance of what he has
to say to the writer, and the latter embodies it in suitable
language, according to his own powers of composition and
the rank of the person addressed, for it would be a want of
etiquette to address a high official in a style which every-
body can understand. If the recipient of a letter is himself
not a literary character, he may require to have the document
explained to him. It is said that during the Turco-Greek
war many Turkish soldiers wrote to their families in Anatolia,
saying that they were wounded and requesting remittances,
but that these requests, when written down by a professional
letter-writer and deciphered by the village sage, were
thought to be a statement that the sender of the letter was
well and saluted his friends.

I will not here enumerate the Stambuli chroniclers and
poets. The curious reader will find their names in any
history or encyclopedia. But if I pass them by in silence,
it is not from distaste, but from diffidence in recommending
a study which can appeal to few. Their writings may be
compared to the gateways of Dolma Bagche, or some triumph
of calligraphic skill in which the letters and dots areI IO

TURKEY IN EUROPE

arranged not in the positions which facilitate comprehension,
tut in those which produce the best artistic effect. Of late
years it has become the custom to compose in a compara-
tively simple style, but the old ornate language can still be
read in that column of the newspaper which has the felicity
to contain the Court circular or the orders which have come
forth from "the centre of Majesty" and which, "honoured
in their exit and their issue," burst upon a delighted world.
The combination of dignity and fatuity which this style
affords is unrivalled. There is something contagious in its
ineffable complacency, unruffled by the most palpable facts.
Everything is sublime, everybody magnanimous and pros-
perous. We move among the cardinal virtues and their
appropriate rewards (may God increase them !), and, secure in
the shadow of the ever-victorious Caliph, are only dimly
conscious of the existence of tributary European powers and
ungrateful Christian subjects. Can any Western poet trans-
port his readers into a more enchanted land ?

There is another kind of Turkish literature, if indeed
that name can be given it, consisting of popular songs and
stories, which is more natural, more interesting, and perhaps
more important than the works of the Court historians and
poets. A collection of them has been published by Dr.
Ignacz Kunos,1 together with some plays and riddles, of
which latter the Turk, like many other Turanian tribes, is
peculiarly fond. Unlike the " Tales of a Parrot" and the
" Forty Viziers," which are mostly mere translations, these
stories have a peculiar flavour of their own. They are rude
and coarse and smack somewhat of the barrack-room, or
rather the camp-fire, but it is a camp-fire on some central
Asian plain, and the soldiers gathered round it listen with
pleasure to tales of miracles and magic, of kings who, at the

1 With a mistaken patriotism he translated them all into Hungarian.
Many of my readers will agree with me that it is just as easy to read the
original Turkish.THE TURKS

hi

recommendation of dervishes, go down wells, and find at the
bottom gardens, dragons, and beautiful princesses. In the
same way I have heard an old country Turk relate to an
appreciative audience, who showed no signs of incredulity, a
story of his youth in which a Kurdish magician, who had
three eyes and was invulnerable, played a conspicuous part.
The jins, peris, and dervishes certainly suggest the " Arabian
Nights," but there is something dreamy and vast in the
setting of the stories which reminds one rather of the
" Kalevala " and Samoyede legends. It is peculiarly interest-
ing to note how often the hero is some nameless adventurer,
who, either by his own energy and intelligence, or by the
timely intervention of some supernatural power, rises from
nothing to the highest position. Such careers are charac-
teristic of old Turkish life, just as the horseman who rides
for ten years across a plain is characteristic of their ideas of
physiography and the duty of man.

Perhaps the most original quality of popular Turkish
literature is its humour. The average Turk is distinctly a
merry man and loves a joke, particularly a practical joke.
Wit he has little, and refinement less, but a genuine sense
of the ludicrous, and a special fondness for that class of
absurdity known as " a bull," and peculiar, as far as I am
aware, to Irishmen and Turks.

The classical exponent of this species of humour is
Khoja Nasreddin Effendi, the author or hero of a collection
of stories known all over Turkey, and constantly repeated, if
not exactly read. The Khoja is believed to have lived in
Akshehir in the fourteenth century of our era, and is the
type of the village Imam. In the printed edition of the
stories he is represented as a stout man with enormous
spectacles, riding on a donkey and carrying the saddle-bags
on his shoulders, as he is said to have done on one occasion
from a well-intentioned desire to relieve the animal of their
weight. His mind is an extraordinary mixture of stupidity112

TURKEY IN EUROPE

and shrewdness ; the latter, however, is sufficiently pre-
dominant to generally secure him success in the end in
spite of his blunders, and besides, one is never sure how far
he is really dense and how far pretending to be a fool.

The following examples will give some idea of these
stories.

One Friday the Khoja's fellow-villagers insisted on his
preaching a sermon in the mosque, which he had never
done, not having any oratorical gifts. He mounted the
pulpit sorely against his will, and looking round at the congre-
gation, asked in despair, " Oh, true believers, do you know
what I am going to say to you ?" They naturally replied,
" No/' " Well, I am sure I don't," he said, and hurriedly
left the mosque. The congregation were, however, determined
to have their sermon, and next Friday forced him again
into the pulpit. When he again put the same question
they replied by agreement, " Yes." " Oh then," he said,
" if you know, I needn't tell you," and again escaped. On
the third Friday the villagers made what they thought must
be a successful plan. They got the Khoja into the pulpit,
and when he asked what had now become his usual question,
replied, " Some of us know and some of us don't." " Then,"
replied the Khoja, "let those of you who know tell those
who don't." After this the congregation resigned them-
selves to do without sermons.

One hot night the Khoja slept on the verandah to be
cool. He awoke, however, in a fright, and saw what he
took to be a robber dressed in white climbing over the
garden wall. He seized his bow and immediately sent an
arrow straight through the imaginary burglar. On calm
examination, however, he found that the white object was
one of his own night-shirts which his wife had washed and
hung on the wall to dry. The Khoja accordingly began to
call out " Praise be to God," and other religious exclama-
tions, which awoke the neighbours, who mistook them forTHE TURKS

the morning call to prayer. Finding it still wanted several
hours to sunrise, they surrounded the Khoja and indignantly
inquired what he meant by his untimely piety. " I was
thanking God," he replied, " that I was not inside my shirt
when I shot an arrow through it."

The country Turk will spend hours in telling such anec-
dotes, and every new invention is fathered on Nasreddin
Effendi. So great is his popularity, that it is said that one
Sultan offered to maintain at the Imperial expense any of
his descendants who would appear at Constantinople and
prove their lineage. Many claimants presented themselves,
but on examination were rejected. At last one evening
came an uncouth figure with a Konia accent, mounted on
an Anatolian pony. He dismounted at the Seraglio gate,
and, not seeing clearly in the dusk, tied up his horse to one
of the large drums used by the Janissaries, which happened
to be lying there. The horse, however, soon found out
that he was not attached to a fixed object, and began to
drag about the drum, kicking it with his feet. The guard
rushed out, the drumming continued; the word spread in
the palace that the Janissaries were in revolt; among the
Janissaries, that the Sultan was going to massacre them, and
only after a general uproar was the cause of the disturbance
discovered. The claimant for state support was brought
before the Sultan and explained the object of his visit and his
error. The Padishah and all his council were unanimously
of opinion that no further evidence was needed, and that his
action could only be explained on the principle of heredity.
The allowance was granted at once.

The tomb of the Khoja may be seen to this day at Ak
Shehir, in the vilayet of Konia. In the middle of a field or
graveyard—I am not sure which, for I saw the site in mid-
winter when everything was deep in snow—is a small domed
building, partly open at the sides; under the dome is a tomb
above which hangs the enormous green turban, about the

Hii4	TURKEY IN EUROPE

size of an ordinary umbrella, which the Khoja wore in his
lifetime. A small hole is left in the masonry of the grave,
as he insisted on having a window through which he could
look out on the world of men, and a slab which bears his
name gives the year of his death as 1366 a.h., equivalent
to about 1950 a.d., by which inscription he is said to have
meant to puzzle future generations.

Somewhat akin to the humour of Nasreddin Effendi
are the exploits of Karagyoz, a sort of Turkish Punch,
During the month of Ramazan the people assemble about
three hours after sunset (which gives them time to break
their fast and perform the long prayers proper to the season),
to witness some musical or dramatic entertainment. This
often takes the form of a shadow-play (" the moving show
of magic shadow shapes which come and go "), performed by
the reflections of dolls about a foot high cast upon a linen
screen. The chief characters are Karagyoz (Black Eyes) and
his friend Haji Aivat, and though the Turkish police have
done much to adjust their costume and reform their adven-
tures, the latter are still either pointless or unsuitable for
publication. A great part of the performance generally
consists in imitating bad Turkish as spoken by Greeks,
Armenians, Albanians, Franks, and others, and is a very
salutary discipline for any foreigner who thinks he has
mastered the Osmanli language.CHAPTER IV

the turks (il)

Every ( Friday in Constantinople is performed a ceremony-
called the " Selamlik " or public visit of the Sultan to a
mosque for the mid-day prayer. Former sovereigns usually
discharged this duty at St. Sophia or one of the principal
religious edifices, in each of which is a Mahfil or Imperial
pew. Abd-ul-Hamid II., however, has since the beginning
of his reign shown a preference for the mosques in the
immediate vicinity of Yildiz, and of late years has had one
constructed for his special use, and to all intents and pur-
poses in the palace grounds. From the gate of Yildiz
descends a steep road bordered on one side by annexes of
the palace, which terminate in two pavilions, one devoted
to the reception of distinguished persons and ambassadors,
while in the other are accommodated the common herd of
sightseers. On the other side are a garden and a mosque,
white, new, and unpretentious, but deriving a certain grace
and dignity from the background, where the coast of Asia
and Mount Olympus are seen rising from the Sea of
Marmora.

Long before mid-day on Friday soldiers, and spectators,
among which latter are hundreds of Turkish women, occupy
all- the available space. Cohort after cohort of muscular
peasants, drawn from every district of this variegated empire,
marches up to the clang of barbarous music and takes its
place. As a military display the spectacle is remarkable; as
a pageant, disappointing. Turkish ceremonies lack order
and grandeur. Detectives thread their way through the

"5116	TURKEY IN EUROPE

crowd, and now and then arrest some poor innocent. Dirty-
looking servants from the palace, wearing frock-coats, no
collars, and white cotton gloves, hurry hither and thither
carrying dinners wrapped up in cloths, which are sent to
various persons as complimentary presents from the Impe-
rial kitchen. Fat men of great rank and girth drag about
laboriously black Gladstone bags in which they have
brought uniforms stiff with gold. Tourists in strange head-
gear peep and gibber. Ultimately—for the Caliph avails
himself of the letter of the law which says that the mid-day
prayer must be said after the sun has begun to decline—
ultimately a trumpet sounds. The troops salute and officials
hastily confiscate the opera-glasses of the tourists, who are
generally so surprised and indignant that they fail to notice
what little they might have seen with their eyes. The
trumpet sounds again, the soldiers shout " Long live our
emperor !" and a victoria with the hood up comes slowly down
the steep road. An old man in uniform, Field-Marshal
Osman Pasha,1 the hero of Plevna, sitting with his back to
the horses, speaks with deep respect to some one seen less
distinctly under the hood. The carriage stops at a flight of
steps leading to the private door of the mosque. The hood
is lowered by a spring, and he who sat beneath it alights,
mounts the steps, and, in a moment of profound silence,
turns and salutes the crowd. He has not come as the chief
of a military race should come, on a prancing steed or with
any dash and glory. There is no splendour in his dress or
bearing; but for the moment that he stands there alone a
solemnity falls over the scene, the mean and comic details
disappear, and we are face to face with the spirit of a great
nation and a great religion incarnate in one man. Of all
his subjects assembled there before him, there is not one
whose life and fortune do not depend on his caprice; of all
those wild men gathered* together from Albania, Arabia,

1 Since dead.THE TURKS	117

and the heart of Anatolia, there is not one but would fall
down and kiss the hem of his garment did he deign address
them, or cheerfully die to preserve his tyranny; of all those
women, there is not one but would account his slightest
and most transient favours her highest glory; of all those
Liberals and Young Turks, there is not one who, when the
time for talking is over and the time for action comes, will
not submit to his will: for all that the Osmanlis can do, all
they may suffer, all the ideas they can form of politics or
statecraft are centred in that one personality, and they who
would depose him can think of no better expedient than to
appoint another like him as his successor.

The power of the Sultan may be regarded under three
aspects, which correspond to a triple historical origin. He
is the chief of a warlike nomad tribe, the successor of the
Greek emperors of Constantinople, and a religious ruler who
claims to be the head of Sunnite Islam.

The first of these aspects is naturally the oldest. The
early history of the Turkish race shows clearly the begin-
nings from which the Turkish Sultanate has been developed.
The earlier sovereigns affected a military simplicity of life,
took the field with their troops as a matter of course, and
were regarded as essentially the commanders-in-chief of a
nation of soldiers, and only secondarily as civil rulers.
Much as subsequent Sultans, many of them timorous priso-
ners in their own palaces, have done to change the old idea
of Imperial power, the unhesitating and unflinching devo-
tion with which the modern Turk obeys the commands and
supports the extortion of the Padishah is no doubt de-
rived from former times when the army and nation were
one. The earliest notices of the Turks speak of their extra-
ordinary natural sense of discipline, and though this has
been undermined by adverse influences, particularly of late
years, it still remains a salient characteristic. This is one
reason why it is difficult to conceive of a revolution in118	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Turkey. Many Sultans have been deposed and assassinated,
but invariably as the result of a rebellion of the Janissaries
(who were not Turks), or of a palace intrigue, not of a
popular movement. That is to say, if the superior officers
appoint a new commander-in-chief, the rank and file do not
criticise but obey the new nominee; but they will not of
themselves mutiny against their general. Recent years in
Turkey seem to be one long record of discontent, yet the
most unpopular orders of the Sultan have always been
obeyed; and though much has been talked and written
about revolution by the so-called Liberal party, nothing has
ever been done.

Among the purely Turkish features of the monarchy
must be reckoned the law of succession, which is that
the eldest male in the whole house of Osman ascends
the throne. This means that, in normal circumstances, a
father is rarely succeeded by his son, but generally by
a brother, nephew, or cousin. Thus, the present Sultan
succeeded his elder brother, Murad, who succeeded his
uncle, Abd-ul-Aziz, and the heir to the throne is his
Majesty's younger brother, Reshad Effendi. Such a
system was advantageous, and even necessary, for a
wandering band of soldiers of fortune, who could not be
governed by a child or by any one who did not possess
real authority. But its inconvenience grew clear as soon
as the House of Osman ceased to be nomad chieftains
and became the heads of a great state. It must be
accepted as an axiom that no Oriental potentate, how-
ever enlightened, can rid himself of the idea that the
heir to the crown is his natural enemy. The only
chance of any community of interest existing between
the possessor and the heir of power, or of the heir being
allowed to receive an education in any way preparing
him for his high destiny, is that he should be the son
of the reigning prince. Among the earlier Sultans theTHE TURKS

119

unamiable practice of fratricide practically made the
crown hereditary from father to son. On ascending the
throne, the first care of a prince was to put to death
all his brothers, and most of his sons were kept in
seclusion, and not allowed to participate in political or
military activity. The progress of civilisation has ren-
dered impossible the systematic murder, but not the in-
carceration of brothers; and the consequence is that
the crown may devolve upon an elderly man who has
been kept a close prisoner all his life, and who has no
more experience of the world than a monk. Practice,
though perhaps not theory, has often allowed a certain
amount of freedom in the election of a sovereign—that
is to say, if, when the throne is vacant, any prince can,
with the aid of the army, seize upon the supreme power
and put his competitors out of the way, his title has
generally been accepted; but there is no trace in Otto-
man history of any attempt to dispute the claims of
the House of Osman or to establish a rival dynasty.
This is clearly a great element of strength compared
with the Christian kingdoms with which the Ottoman
Empire contended during many centuries, and it doubt-
less did much to counterbalance the many weaknesses
which have always been inherent in the Turkish state.

But while remaining unalterably faithful to the royal
house, Turkish national sentiment clearly dislikes and
distrusts the principles of aristocracy and hereditary rank.
The connections of the Imperial family do not form a
noble or privileged class. Male relatives of the Sultan
tend to disappear or to lead very secluded lives; the
publication of any list of the princes and princesses is
strictly forbidden, and almanacks which have printed such
information have more than once been suppressed. Mo-
hammed the Conqueror expressly declared the offspring
of princesses to be ineligible for the higher commands,120	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and the position of spouse to these Imperial ladies carries
no influence and entails most unpleasant domestic arrange-
ments. The Sultan does not marry free women, but
cohabits with slaves, who, on bearing male offspring, are
advanced ipso facto to the position of princesses (one can
hardly call them queens). They have in most cases
been separated from their parents at an early age, and
are often ignorant of the country of their birth, so that
no family can become powerful through Imperial alliances.
How real is the danger thus guarded against can be seen
by the fact that, even under the present system, one of
the surest methods of preferment for individual Turks
is to have some connection through their wives with the
Imperial harem. Outside the Imperial family there is
practically no hereditary rank and few hereditary for-
tunes. The true Turks have no family name whatever;
and though many important clans of Albanian or other
non-Turkish origin possess and are proud of such de-
signations, they are not used at Constantinople. The
Moslim law, by which an estate is divided between the
children, and the Oriental propensity of the Government
to seize and confiscate accumulations of money, discourage
parents from making any attempt to transmit their posi-
tion to their offspring. In no country is there a more
open career to talent and to luck. The son of a peasant
may still become Grand Vizier, as in the " Arabian Nights " ;
and if pliancy and subserviency are rewarded more than
real merit, it must at least be admitted that absolute
and democratic equality among Moslims prevails under
the government of the Sultan as completely as in the
United States.1

1 Of the three chief Turkish titles, Pasha, Bey, and Effendi, the first only
has a definite meaning, inasmuch as it is conferred by the Sultan, and cannot
be otherwise assumed. The two latter are as indefinite as our Esquire. Bey
(the old Bek) is generally used by Government officials, officers, and the sons
of distinguished persons. Effendi (a corruption of the Greek AtidivTrjs) isTHE TURKS

121

The capture of Constantinople transformed in many ways
the Ottoman Sultanate. There had naturally been a steady
increase in the pomp and state surrounding the sovereign
from the time of Osman to that of Mohammed II., but until
the capture he had been a chieftain and a general rather
than an emperor. For the Turks Byzantium and its lord had
long been the centre of the universe and the zenith of human
grandeur. They felt that, in conquering it, they and their
sovereign had for practical purposes become masters of the
world, and had a right to demand the allegiance of all whom
they could reach. True, there was the mysterious New Rome
in the West—the conquest of which was planned by Moham-
med II. and not abandoned by his earlier successors—but it
was a long way off, and hardly entered into the sphere of Con-
stantinople. As the Greek emperors had regarded themselves
as the natural masters, by divine right, of all Christianity,
in suo orbe, so the Sultans stepped into the same position, put
forward the same claims with much greater vigour, and even
took the Greek Church under their protection, as related
in another essay. The pomp and ceremony which charac-
terised the Sultan's court, and won for him in mediaeval
times the title of the " Grand Seignior," were Byzantine in
their origin rather than Turkish, as many small points of
resemblance show. When we read that there stood in the
emperors palace a golden tree with singing birds and
golden lions which roared, we are forcibly reminded of the
Turkish taste for costly toys. The humiliating obeisances
exacted from European ambassadors at the Seraglio had
their counterpart at Constantinople as early as the time
of Nicephorus Phocas. The cry, " Padishahimiz chok

applied to the most diverse classes, to Mollahs, Sheikhs, and other learned
persons, to native Christians, who rarely use the title of Bey, and to Imperial
princes. It is also used with the title Bey, much like Monsieur in French.
Thus, in correct Turkish, one should address a Bey as Bey Effendi. Aga or
A'a (the old Aka) is applied to petty officers and elderly respectable men who
have no claim to official rank.122	TURKEY IN EUROPE

yasha," with which the Sultan is saluted, recalls the " In
multos annos" which was addressed to the Basileus in
precisely similar circumstances, and the subjects of both
monarchs describe themselves as slaves (SovXoi or kullar)
in speaking to their masters. It is said that the Sultans
state barge has still Byzantine eagles carved on it;1 red
ink is still used in official documents, and their involved
and inflated style is no doubt partly due to an attempt to
imitate the Imperial chrysobulls. Polygamy was, of course,
an Asiatic custom; but all that is known of the organisation
of the harem shows that it is not merely a collection of
wives and concubines for the Sultan, but also a female
court, with an elaborate hierarchy and ceremonial. This,
no doubt, was to a large extent modelled on the court of
the Byzantine empress, who was attended by eunuchs, and,
though not without influence, was, at least in later times,
kept in a seclusion which we should be inclined to call
Turkish if history did not show that the epithet is in-
appropriate.

To the Greek Empire, also, must be traced a most
important peculiarity of the Sultan's power, namely, his
limited authority over foreign subjects in his own dominions.
In most European states a foreigner is subject to the law
of the country in which he chooses to live, and enjoys no
greater privileges or immunities than natives. Only foreign
Embassies and Legations are exempt fifom this general rule.
Their houses are extra-territorial, and regarded as forming
part of the territory of the accrediting state; their members
cannot be forced to pay taxes or to submit to the laws of
the country where they reside. In Turkey all foreigners
enjoy almost the same immunities as diplomatists in other
countries. Their domiciles cannot be entered by the Otto-
man police without the consent of their respective Consular
authorities, and notice must be immediately given to those

1 The present Sultan has not used this barge, at least of recent years, and
I have had no opportunity of seeing it.THE TURKS

123

authorities if any foreigner is arrested. Whenever a foreigner
is tried, the Consul of his country (or a representative) must
be present, and can protest against the sentence and prevent
its execution if he considers it illegal. All suits between
foreigners are tried in their own Consular courts, and civil
suits between foreigners and Ottoman subjects in mixed
courts, at the sittings of which a representative of the
Consul must be present. The taxes and dues which can
be taken from foreigners are regulated by treaty, and cannot
be increased or modified except with the consent of their
Ambassadors or Ministers. This system is often described
as the Capitulations, a name given to the older treaties
concluded with Turkey (that of Great Britain bearing the
date 1675), and is generally considered to be due to the
fact that Christians cannot live under Mohammedan law.
This argument is forcible and convenient, as it enables
Europeans to claim similar privileges in other non-Christian
countries; but, historically, it must be admitted that the
present position of foreigners in Turkey is an outgrowth,
not of any special arrangements made when Constantinople
passed out of Christian hands, but of institutions sanctioned
by the Byzantine emperors.

The Empire, embracing so many nations, each with its
own religion, laws, and customs, was naturally inclined to
be tolerant of national usages, and to allow a certain
measure of autonomy even in the Imperial city itself.
During the ninth and tenth centuries many Latins settled
in Constantinople, and the authorities seem to have been
quite ready to let them form communities and manage
their own affairs. In the eleventh century this tendency
was greatly strengthened by the policy of the Comneni and
Angeli, who, in order to secure the alliance of the great
Italian states, encouraged Italian citizens to form settle-
ments, gave them commercial privileges, and allowed them
to pay lower dues and taxes than the subjects of the
Empire. Such concessions were granted to colonists from124	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Amalfi, Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and Narbonne. The colony-
was generally styled community, and consisted of a landing-
place with a central commercial establishment (emporion,
fondaco, funduk); it was under the authority of an official
sent out from the mother city, and known as Podest&,
Consul, or Exarch, who, with the assistance of a council,
managed its religious, judicial, and administrative affairs.
The Latin Churches were subject to the Pope, and did
not acknowledge the authority of either the Empire or
the Patriarch. The Genoese colony of Galata and Pera,
on the other side of the Golden Horn, was allowed to erect
fortifications, and became practically an independent re-
public under the style of La Magnifica Communita. After
the conquest of Constantinople, the Turks put an end to
the independence and the fortifications of Galata, but did
not otherwise interfere with the foreign colonies. As they
had always practised a contemptuous tolerance for other
religions and customs, they saw no objection to Franks
worshipping their own God and deciding their own lawsuits
in their own way. As they had no commercial ambitions
or aptitudes, they saw no objection to encouraging and
protecting the trade of the Franks. In 1540 Capitulations
were signed with Venice recognising again the Venetian
" Bailo," who had been the head of the ancient community,
and similar treaties with the Netherlands, Poland, England,
and other Powers succeeded. As, however, the Turks have
always been inclined to confuse nationality and religion,
they were disposed to think there was one Frankish or
Latin race belonging to the Frankish religion, a circum-
stance which has often led to uncertainty as to the precise
significance of the words Frank and French.1 After the
decline of Genoese influence in Galata and Pera the French

1 The French themselves were partly responsible for this confusion be-
tween French and Frank (= European). In the latter part of the sixteenth
century their ambassadors constantly appealed to the capitulations granted
by Suleiman to Francis I., as proving that all nations not represented by an
ambassador at that time were under French protection in Turkey.THE TURKS

I25

gradually assumed the protectorate of Latin religious estab-
lishments in that quarter, and the French Capitulations of
1740 seem to recognise (though not very expressly) the
right now enjoyed by France of protecting the Roman
Catholic religion in most parts of Turkey.1 Those who
gave the Capitulations doubtless thought they had merely
made regulations about the superstitions and squabbles of
unimportant foreign Christians, just as by the ecclesiastical
and judicial liberty accorded to the Greek clergy they had
regulated the position of the numerous body of Christian
Ottoman subjects. But with the lapse of time a great
difference appeared between the two cases. In the case
of Ottoman Christians the Porte has always been able to
follow the spirit of its original regulations, which is to keep
the Christian in a subordinate position; but in the case
of foreign Christians they are obliged to follow the letter of
the Capitulations, which exempt from their immediate juris-
diction the most important commercial element in all the
large towns, and create a series of enclaves of non-Ottoman
territory in the Turkish dominions.

Thirdly, the Sultan styles himself Khalifatu-'r-rasuli-'llah,
Caliph (or Vicar) of the Apostle of God, or, in Turkish,
Khilafet-penahi, the refuge (or protection) of the Caliphate.
This title has been borne by the Ottoman sovereigns since
15 12, but, as a rule, has been little more than a title. It
has, however, been the policy of the present Sultan to make
a reality of the spiritual power, and to cause himself to be
recognised as not only Emperor of Turkey, but as head of
the Sunnite Mohammedan Church all over the world. In
view of the great importance of this claim and the con-
siderable success which has attended it, a somewhat detailed
examination of the Caliphate will not be out of place. No
one who has investigated the subject can fail to have
noticed how contradictory are the statements made about
the Sultan's claims. Nor is this surprising. There are at

1 In Northern Albania the Catholics are under the protection of Austria.126	TURKEY IN EUROPE

least, three versions of every religion—the belief of the
vulgar, the belief of the educated, and the real original
teaching of the religion, known to few and generally
believed by no one. When political considerations are
added, the case becomes more complicated, and there may
be a great difference between what ordinary persons say
they believe and what foreign savants think they ought
to believe. If the question were asked, Is the Emperor
of Russia the head of the Christian Church ? there would
clearly be a great difference between the replies of a
Russian peasant, a Greek priest, and an English Non-
conformist. Now, the claims of the Sultan to be head of
the Mohammedan Church are somewhat similar to those
which the Russian Emperor might put forward to be the
head of Christianity. Large sections of Mohammedans,
e.g. all Shiahs and the inhabitants of North-Western Africa,
reject his claim altogether; educated people in all parts
of the world see that it is hardly scriptural; but the majo-
rity of his subjects accept his pretensions without question
or reserve.

The word Khalifah means successor or deputy, and in
the Koran is applied to Adam and David, as the vice-
regents of God on earth. After the death of Mohammed,
it was essential that some head should be appointed to
rule the infant state, and Abu-Bekr, of the Prophet's tribe,
was elected, with the appropriate title of the Successor.
He was followed by Umar (Omar), Uthman (Osman), Ali,
the son-in-law of Mohammed, and Hasan, the son of Ali.
Hasan, and his brother Husein were killed, and a new
dynasty, known as the Ommiade (Umaiyah) Caliphs, was
founded under Muawiyah, son of Abu Sufyan of the
Koreish, one of the leading companions of the Prophet.
This dynasty made Damascus their capital, and numbered
fourteen Caliphs from 661 a.d. to 749 a.d., when Marwan
was defeated by Abu'l-Abbas, who was proclaimed CaliphTHE TURKS

127

at Kufa, and founded the dynasty of the Abbasides. This
family were descended from Al-Abbas, the paternal uncle
of the Prophet, and were held in high esteem on account
of this distinguished descent. They subsequently made
Bagdad their capital, and used the title of Khalifah until
the sixteenth century. Their power, however, began to
decline from the middle of the tenth century. From 910
to 1171, a rival dynasty, known as the Fatimites, who
claimed descent from Fatma, the daughter of the Prophet,
ruled in Egypt and North Africa, and in 12 5 8 the Mongols
took Bagdad, and made an end of the Abbaside power.
The uncle of the last Khalifah, however, fled to Egypt,
where his descendants asserted their claim to the spiritual
supremacy of Islam during three centuries. In 1517 the
Ottoman Sultan, Salim I., conquered Egypt, and the titular
Abbaside Khalifah, Mutawakkil Ibn-Amri-l-Hakim, was
induced to formally cede his rights and office to the con-
queror.

It should also be mentioned that an independent
Caliphate was established in the West by the descendants
of the Ommiades who had been expelled from Damascus.
This dynasty reigned at Cordova from 755 to 1225, and
after the capture of that city by the Spaniards, there were
Sultans bearing the title of Caliph at Granada, until they,
too, fell in 1484.

Let us now turn to the theoretical qualifications of
the Khalifah as laid down by Moslim theologians. It is.
agreed that there can only be one Caliph at a time, that
he must be the greatest Mohammedan prince of the age,
and that he must be elected by the Assembly of the
Faithful. Further, there can be little doubt that, according
to all the best authorities, he must be descended from
the Koreish, the tribe of the Prophet. This last qualifica-
tion is, of course, fatal to the claims of the Sultan, who
cannot possibly be descended from the Koreish or any128	TURKEY IN EUROPE

other Arabian family, and it is therefore disputed, or rather
passed over in prudent silence, by the established Church
in Turkey. But the early history of Islam makes it clear
that this dogma about the descent of the Caliph is not
mere theological pedantry or theorising. From the death
of the Prophet—nay, from the very birth of Islam—there
was a struggle between two tendencies, the one wishing
to spread a spiritual and world-wide religion, the other
to establish a theocracy under a military oligarchy. The
partisans of the first idea were known as Khawarij, and
we are expressly told that they held that the Caliph
might be of any tribe or country, and not necessarily of
the Koreish. This was considered a heresy, and in the
Caliphate of Ali the sect revolted from him, and were mostly
killed. There is, therefore, every reason to believe that
the tradition declaring that the Caliph must be of the
Koreish reposes on historical fact, and there is at any rate
no doubt that any one who follows the Sunna must accept
this tradition.

For this reason there are probably few Mohammedan
doctors, except those in the pay of the Sublime Porte,
who are ready to state ex cathedrd that they regard the
Sultan as Caliph, or to go beyond the cautious declaration
that since the welfare of Islam is the highest object for
all good Mussulmans, they should support all arrange-
ments which advance it. But accurate and dispassionate
theology is a rare science, and since the Sultan possesses
the most striking externals of the Caliphate—the kingdom,
the power, and the glory—only the very learned or the
very discontented see flaws in his title. In support of his
Majesty's claims, it may justly be said that he has " the
right of the sword," that is, he is the most powerful
Moslim prince of the age; also, on his accession, a form
of election is gone through by the Ulema, for it must
be remembered that the Caliphate is essentially electiveTHE TURKS

129

and not hereditary; also, he is the guardian of the sacred
cities of the Hejjaz and of Jerusalem, and in his keeping
are a fragment of the Prophet's mantle and other sacred
relics. It may be doubted how far the ordinary Turk's
respect for his sovereign is really due to the fact that he
considers him to be the head of Islam. We have already
observed that loyalty and obedience are characteristics
of the Turkish race, and were seen in their fullest deve-
lopment in the reigns of the earlier Sultans, who had
no pretensions to the Caliphate. On the other hand, no
pains are spared at the present day to keep his Majesty's
sacrosanct character before the eyes of his subjects, and to
impress upon them that absolute obedience is a religious
as well as a political duty. But the most important feature
of the Caliphate is that it enables the Sultan to claim to
be the chief, not only of the Turks, but of all Mohamme-
dans of every race and nation. In so mixed an empire
as Turkey, where a large proportion of the Moslim popula-
tion consists of Albanians, Arabs, and Kurds, such a claim
is very valuable to the sovereign, and it can also be
extended beyond the limits of the Empire. It is difficult
to say how far the Sultan's claims are respected outside
Turkey among Sunnites; they are certainly absolutely
rejected in Morocco and West Algeria. The Sultan of
Morocco claims to be a descendant of Fatma, the Prophet's
daughter, and in North-Western Africa is unquestionably
accepted as the Caliph. The Sultan of Turkey is also
not recognised by the various Dervish communities of
Africa, including the powerful confraternity of Senoussi,
and, as far as I know, no clear statement has ever been
made as to the views of Mohammedans in Russian and
British-Indian territory. Probably they vary according to
the political circumstances of the time. It is said that,
before the Russian conquest, the rulers of the Central Asian
Khanates did definitely accept the supreme authority of

1130	TURKEY IN EUROPE

the Sultan, though they were too distant for that autho-
rity to have any practical consequences.

Let us now pass to a consideration of the general work-
ing of the Turkish state. Every Sultan is a theoretical
autocrat, but it depends on each individual sovereign how
much he chooses to exert his powers. Practical autocracy
is an absorbing occupation, and requires, not only an indus-
trious and intelligent man, but also a system of communi-
cations sufficiently developed to enable the head of an
empire to keep in touch with the more distant portions.
The earlier Sultans who came to the throne after the con-
quest of Constantinople were not wanting in energy, but
their successors soon degenerated. They ceased to lead
their armies in the field, and then retired more and more
from the business of government, buried in the seclusion
of the palace, and engrossed by the enervating pleasures of
the harem. But even for those who had the capacity and
will for government it was physically impossible to exercise
any detailed control over the more distant provinces. In
days when there were neither railroads nor telegraphs the
Sultan might boast that the governors of Belgrade or Van
were his slaves, but as long as they were in their provinces
they were necessarily independent in all matters concerning
internal administration. The present reign, however, has
witnessed a remarkable union of all the conditions required
for real autocracy: an extension of the telegraph through-
out the Empire; a prince who scorns delights, and is content
to devote day and night to the examination of minutiae
which most heads of departments would leave to their
subordinates; and, lastly, an absence or elimination of all
elements capable of withstanding the Imperial will. Hence
Turkey, in the reign of Sultan Abd-ul-Hamid, is probably
the nearest approach which the world has ever seen to real
autocracy—that is, a state where everything is directed by
the pleasure of the ruler. It is not merely that all theTHE TURKS

acts of Ministers must receive the Imperial sanction; the
Sultan can and does interfere directly in every department
by sending orders to subordinates, and these orders are often
contrary to the general regulations which the Government
of the Empire is supposed to observe. This state of things
is not, strictly speaking, illegal; all power is in theory
delegated by the Sultan, and there is no constitutional
reason why he should not, as he does, interfere with the
exercise of this delegated power. The only restriction on
the exercise of his absolute authority is that it must not be
contrary to the religious law.

As we have seen, there is no distinction between Church
and State in Islam, and the Sultan, as Caliph, is pope as
well as emperor. A large part of his special religious duties,
however, are discharged by an official called the Sheikh-ul-
Islam,1 who may be regarded as the spiritual counterpart
of the Grand Yizier, and also, since there is no distinction
between law and religion, as a sort of Lord Chancellor. The
Sheikh-ul-Islam is strictly an official; he is appointed and
dismissed by Imperial order, and usually changed whenever
the Grand Yizier is changed. Although on occasions of
ceremony he appears at the head of the clergy, he has
in no sense the same sort of authority as an archbishop,
and is indeed often somewhat despised by religious persons
as a mere civil functionary generally chosen on account
of well-tried subserviency. His importance comes rather
from his legal than from his ecclesiastical character. He
is a supreme court of appeal for cases which can be de-
cided by the Sheri or religious law. In Turkey this law
is applied to all questions of real property, even in the case
of foreigners, and for the faithful it can be indefinitely
extended to all spheres of human life. The decisions of
the Sheikh-ul-Islam are known as fetvas, and generally
consist of a laconic reply to a question framed so as to

1 Or, more correctly, Sheiklm-'l-Islam.132	TURKEY IN EUROPE

be capable of being answered by the words olur (" it is per-
missible ") or olmaz (" it is not permissible "). The question
is always drafted in a quite general form, the plaintiff and
defendant being called Amr and Zeid, like John Doe and
Richard Roe in English law. What occasionally gives to
these fetvas an extraordinary interest is the fact that the
Sultan or Caliph is subject to them as much as any one
else. The Sultan may stop the Sheikh-ul-Islam from issuing
a fetva by dismissal, hanging, or any other process; but once
a fetva authorising the deposition or death of a Sultan is
issued, every good Mohammedan may and ought to obey
it. Murad, the elder brother and predecessor of the present
Sultan, was deposed in virtue of such a fetva.

It is obvious that it is of supreme importance to the
Sultan to have a perfectly loyal official as Sheikh-ul-Islam,
for he naturally is anxious that the holder of the office
should not only issue no fetva against him, but also justify
his policy. It is, however, difficult, even for a Sultan, to
get a fetva which is not legally correct. The earlier sove-
reigns were more than once prevented from ordering a
general massacre of Christians, and the present Sultan is
said to have applied in vain for a declaration that any form
of constitutional or parliamentary government is contrary
to the law of Islam. This inflexibility is due, not so much
to the high character of the Sheikh-ul-Islam, as to the fact
that he has very little choice as to the answer he gives
to the question asked of him. In the first place, he only
countersigns the fetva which bears his name; the substance
of the decision is prepared by an official called the Fetva-
Emini, who consults the necessary authorities and drafts
the document for his signature. But even the Fetva-Emini
has no initiative. In the phraseology of Sunnite theology,
" the door of free interpretation is closed." Not only is
religion limited by the Koran and the Traditions, but the
latter must be understood only according to the receivedTHE TURKS

133

explanations, and no amount of learning or sanctity autho-
rises any one to make use of the smallest particle of origi-
nality. The Sheikh-ul-Islam has thus little opportunity
for displaying initiative, but he can refuse to answer the
questions put to him, and if the questions concern "Zeid
the Caliph,'' this right, though negative, may become very
important.

The Grand Vizier is the Sultan's representative for
secular matters. Vizier (more correctly Vazir or Vezir)
means one who bears a burden, and is hence applied to a
Minister who takes up the burden of public affairs in order
to relieve the sovereign. The word is, however, little used
by the Turks, except to denote a rank as opposed to an
office, and the Grand Vizier is always known by the title of
Sadr Azam.1

He was originally the only recipient of the Sultan's
delegated power, and, as such, stood between the sovereign
and all the other officials of the Empire. He still nomi-
nally holds this position, and Imperial orders are made known
to the provincial authorities by a Vizirial letter. But his
real importance has been greatly diminished by the habit,
which has increased during the last few years, of sending
communications direct from the palace to other Ministers,
and even to quite small officials, so that it sometimes
happens that the Grand Vizier's instructions are met with a
respectful statement that contrary orders have been received
direct from the Sultan. The palace of Yildiz has become
almost a Government office. Among its officials are a large
number of secretaries, whose business is to convey his
Majesty's orders to their destination. It is not usual for
the Sultan to sign his commands, but no official would
venture to disobey a letter from one of the private secre-
taries making known to him the tenor of an Imperial

1 A'zam means " greatest," and Sadr literally " breast," hence the foremost
part of anything, the seat of honour or the principal post in a state.134	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Irade. It is characteristic of the present state of Turkey
that one hears little of Hatti-Sherifs, Firmans, or Yizirial
letters, but that it is hardly possible to speak of any kind of
business without constant reference to Irades; that is, the
expression of the Sultan's will communicated by his secre-
taries.

There are at present twelve Ministers, namely, War,
Justice and Public Worship, Marine, Foreign Affairs, Inte-
rior, Finance, Evkaf (" pious foundations "), Public Instruc-
tion, Civil List, Commerce and Public Works, Police, Mines
and Forests. They all hold their office at the Sultans plea-
sure, as does also the Grand Vizier. Sometimes the whole
Cabinet is changed, and sometimes single members of it.
In either case the change is generally sudden, and unac-
companied by any explanations. The importance of the
Ministry of War is somewhat diminished by the existence
of a special Military Commission which sits at the palace,
and by the independent organisation of the Artillery under"
a Marshal at Tophane. Similarly the Ministry of Police
is entirely separate from the Ministry of Justice, and the
Custom-House is practically separate from the Ministry of
Finance. Such arrangements show a tendency to prevent
each Minister from having a real grasp of his department,
and to break the official world up into a number of artificial
divisions which have no point of union except the sovereign.

'There are also two Councils. One is the Council of
Ministers, consisting of the Grand Yizier, the Sheikh-ul-Islam,
and most of the Ministers. This Council sits at the Sub-
lime Porte, but is also frequently summoned to the palace,
where it meets in a room adjoining that occupied by the
Sultan, and during its deliberations communicates frequently
with his Imperial Majesty by means of messages, but with-
out seeing him. Of all privileges enjoyed by Turkish
officials, the highest and rarest is the right of being allowed
to appear unsummoned in the Imperial presence and submitTHE TURKS

l3S

one's views. Any favourite who can do this becomes more
important than the highest functionaries who have only the
right of addressing the Sultan when called before him.
The Council of State is a much larger body, somewhat
resembling our Privy Council, and divided into a number
of sections, such as the Legislative Section, the Financial
Section, the Section of Appeal, and the Section of Cassa-
tion. It does not correspond to the Senates or Parliaments of
other countries, but is perhaps the hardest-worked body
in Turkey, as* it examines and sometimes decides upon a
multitude of matters referred to it either from below by the
various departments, or from above by the Sultan. Turkey,
though autocratic, is also a land of bureaucracy and circum-
locution. Cases are referred from one Ministry to another,
from the central to the provincial authorities, or vice versa,
from the Ministers to the Council of State, from the Council
of State to the Council of Ministers. What renders this
process a peculiarly dreary farce is the knowledge that the
decision in most cases does not rest with any of these
bodies. At any moment of the circumlocution process the
Sultan may, if so disposed, settle matters by issuing an
Irade, and if the case is of the smallest importance, after
every one has had their say, it will be submitted to his
Majesty, and remain an indefinite time until he has leisure
to pronounce on it. The palace of Yildiz is literally and
metaphorically filled with appeals and dossiers on which the
dust has gathered undisturbed while they await the Imperial
attention.

Perhaps the best-known name in connection with the
Turkish government is " Sublime Porte." This phrase, like
" The Sweet Waters," " The Golden Horn," and others which
sound Oriental, is not really so, but European in its origin.
It is never used by the Turks themselves as a synonym
for the Ottoman Government, which styles itself offici-
ally " Hukyumet-i-seniye," or the " Glorious Government."136	TURKEY IN EUROPE

" Sublime Porte " is an imaginative translation of Bab-i-Ali,
which means the " High Gate." There is some dispute as to
what exactly was the gate originally so designated, but at
present the name has a definite local signification, and is
applied to the building in Stamboul which contains the
offices of the Grand Yizirate, the Council of State, the
Foreign Office, the Ministry of the Interior, and various
Commissions; but, in diplomatic correspondence written in
European languages, the phrase is used as equivalent to the
Government of Turkey, much as the phrase Cabinet of St.
James is applied to the British Government.

Turkish public offices have perhaps larger clerical
staffs1 than those of any other country. Practically only
two careers are open to a Turk of good family educated at
Constantinople—the Army and the Civil Service; and almost
every young man who is not an officer spends some time in
one of the many bureaux of Stamboul. I say advisedly
spends some time, for it would be inaccurate to imply that
the majority of these Kiatibs or clerks do anything or
receive any money. Entrance into a public office is for a
young Osmanli much what entrance into Oxford or Cam-
bridge is for a young Englishman. He becomes a man;
dons a black frock-coat, and often assumes an additional
name to be used by all the world, that which he has
previously borne being reserved for the family circle and
intimate friends. The higher officials have, of course, duties
to attend to, and employ such of their subordinates as suit
them best; but the number of the latter is much greater
than is necessary, and a large proportion never do anything
but smoke cigarettes and drink coffee. Turkish offices
always seem full of people; ten or fifteen clerks will often
be congregated in one apartment, and even those who have
private rooms receive a continual stream of visitors and
petitioners, and apparently never engage in any consecutive
work. One result of this system is that there is littleTHE TURKS

137

secrecy. It is nearly always possible to find out what is
being done about a given matter, though the inquirer may
sometimes be perplexed by the variety of versions which he
will hear. Another natural result is that no private affair
receives any attention unless the persons interested continu-
ally remind the officials concerned of its existence, request
the heads of departments to order the necessary papers
to be written, and, when the order is obtained, beg some
friendly clerk to execute it as a personal favour. Yet one
cannot accuse the Sublime Porte of sterility; few public
institutions have produced so much imaginative literature,
and most aspects of the Eastern question are periodically
treated in circulars to the Powers, which generally present
quite novel and original statements of the case.

Before I proceed any further I had better emphasise a
distinction which has probably already dawned upon the
reader—that between the real and the paper government
of Turkey. If one takes as a basis the laws, statistics, and
budgets as printed, it is easy to prove that the Ottoman
Empire is in a state of unexampled prosperity. Life and
property are secure; perfect liberty and toleration are
enjoyed by all; taxation is light, balances large, trade
flourishing. Those who have not an extensive personal
acquaintance with Turkey may regard such accounts with
suspicion and think them highly coloured, but they find it
difficult to realise that all this official literature is absolute
fiction, and for practical purposes unworthy of a moment's
attention. Once in Russia, which is in many ways an
Eastern country, I missed a steamer on the Neva owing to
its having left a certain pier half-an-hour before the time
advertised. I tried to appeal to the pier-keeper's sense of
justice by pointing to the time-table displayed in his office,
but he could not see the point of my argument and
merely replied, " You should never pay attention to what
is printed." You never should, at any rate in Turkey.138	TURKEY IN EUROPE

No reform is clamoured for which does not already figure
in the statute-book; no complaint is made which cannot
be disproved by statistics. This is partly due to the
Oriental idea of literature. Just as no one would use the
language of everyday life in the most trifling letter, so
everyday facts are felt to be inappropriate to literary
composition. You cannot write a letter without describing
yourself as a slave and ascribing all virtues to your corre-
spondent. Similarly you cannot write a history without
describing the Sultan as ever-victorious, and you cannot
write of his country without describing it as well defended
and prosperous. The natural divorce between literature
and facts is so complete that the Oriental attaches little
more importance to striking statistics or to declarations of
the Imperial clemency than he does to epistolatory compli-
ments. He feels that it would be rude and bad style to
say anything else.

But there are other reasons for the difference between
the real and the paper government. The true Turkish
government is remarkably simple, for it consists of one
principle, and of one only, namely, that Turks are a ruling
race, and both individually and collectively superior to all
Christians. The importance of this principle lies in the
fact that it does not depend on the Sultan or any particular
class, but that it is the intense conviction of the whole
Turkish nation. Eastern peoples, not only in Turkey, but
in many other countries, form a solid national conspiracy
against foreign and Christian influence. They know when
their Government is forced to give way against its will;
they know when orders are meant to be obeyed, and
answer the rein in a moment; they also know when they
are not meant to be obeyed, but are what are called
" watery commands," and then they do not obey them.
It is an arduous task to make the Turkish Government
issue a distasteful order; but the foreigner feels that theTHE TURKS

139

situation is indeed hopeless when he sees that the order
obtained at the cost of such pains is not a victory, but
merely a first step in the struggle. Unless the Porte are
continually reminded of its existence, it is ignored. If
they are so reminded, they probably reply by copious re-
ports from the provincial authorities, proving that the
proposed measures are disastrous and impossible of exe-
cution, and perhaps by petitions extorted from Christians
begging that they may be left as heretofore to the clemency
of the Imperial Government. And in the end this national
conspiracy, this invincible inertia, nearly always wins the
day. The Turk changes not; his neighbours, his fron-
tiers, his statute-books change, but his ideas and his
practice remain the same. He will not be interfered
with; he will not improve; he will hear neither threats
nor advice; he will not turn aside from his old path to
please his friends or escape his enemies; he will follow
it to the end, though he may see clearly where he is going.
There have been many Turkish constitutions, laws, and
ordinances elaborated by Mahomed II., Suleiman, Abd-ul-
Hamid II., and many others, but it is unnecessary to
examine them, because there is no growth in the Turkish
state. The British state is only intelligible as the outcome
of a long series of historical changes. The French state
is only intelligible as a reaction against other forms of
government, and a result of social convulsions. But the
Turkish state is simply what it always has been; its
written laws and institutions are merely temporary forms,
almost disguises, which clothe for a time without really
affecting the vital realities of Turkish rule. I will there-
fore not attempt to trace the development of Turkish
institutions or examine the successive reforms, including
Parliamentary government, which have been introduced,
but will merely try to give some facts about the existing
administration.TURKEY IN EUROPE

The internal organisation of the country is nominally
subject to the Minister of the Interior. The Empire is
divided into a number of provinces called vilayets, at the
head of each of which is a civil governor-general called Vali.
There are six such provinces in European Turkey, namely,
Salonica, Monastir, Adrianople, Scutari, Janina, and Kossovo.
The district of Constantinople has a separate jurisdiction.
Each vilayet is subdivided into three or four sections
(Mutesarrifats or Mutesarrifliks) under a governor called
Mutesarrif. These subdivisions were formerly called Liva
or Sanjak, both meaning " flag," and the latter word is still
in common use. The Mutesarriflik is in its turn subdivided
into Kazas, each under a Kaim-makam or Lieutenant, and
each Kaza into a varying number of Nahies, or aggregates
of from five to ten villages, under a Mudir. All these
officials are civil servants. Except in rare cases the Yali
has no control over the troops; and the central power,
always fearful of provincial officials becoming too powerful,
makes use of the antagonism which easily arises between
the civil and military administrations.

The Judicial administration is also independent of the
Executive, but the two branches understand one another
very well when it suits their convenience, and, apart from
this, the Executive has authority, if not to try, at least to
arrest and imprison. So common is the exercise of this
power that it is esteemed an act of Imperial clemency
when the Sultan orders the release from prison of " all
persons against whom there is no charge." Two, if not
three, systems of jurisprudence coexist in Turkey. One is
generally known as the Sheri, or religious law, which is
based on the Sunna, and administered by Cadis, the supreme
court of appeal being the Sheikh-ul-Islam. This law is
religious only in the sense that it is derived from religious
works. In the case of Mohammedans it may be applied to
all transactions, but its peculiar importance depends on theTHE TURKS

141

fact that all questions respecting real property, whatever
be the religion or nationality of the parties concerned, must
be decided according to its principles. Real estate in the
Ottoman Empire is of three kinds: mulk or private pro-
perty, crown lands or mirie, and vacouf or property belong-
ing to religious institutions. This last category is very
extensive, and gives rise to most complicated cases. It is
the custom among Turks not only to leave lands directly
to mqsques or other pious foundations, but also to devote
part of the income arising from a piece of property to such
purposes. In either case the property becomes vacouf, and
its use and transfer are regulated by special rules, which, it
need hardly be said, generally prove inconvenient to non-
Moslims.

As a counterpart to the Sheri, native Christians are
allowed to have ecclesiastical courts, which are empowered
to decide cases affecting Christians of a particular sect in
such matters as marriage, divorce, and inheritance.

The general civil law of the Empire is contained in a
Code based on the Code Napoleon, and applicable to both
Moslims and Christians, and (with certain modifications
which I have mentioned in speaking of the Capitulations)
to foreigners as well as to Ottoman subjects. It is ad-
ministered by a series of courts and officials who are under
the Minister of Justice, whereas the Cadis are under the
Sheikh-ul-Islam.

The conditions of life in the capital and in the pro-
vinces are so different that it will be well to speak of them
separately. The only town which can compare with Con-
stantinople is Salonica. Though it has never been the
Imperial residence, its long and eventful history, its poly-
glot and cosmopolitan population, and the strong European
and non-Turkish influences to which it is continually
subjected, are all points of resemblance with the greater
city.TURKEY IN EUROPE

Constantinople has never been a national capital. It
was not Latin under Constantine; it was not Greek under
the Greek-speaking Emperors; it is not Turkish under the
Turks. It is and always has been a meeting-place where
the races of Europe and Asia gather together, and in so
doing lose more or less their national peculiarities and tend
to assume the type which is called Levantine. Nothing,
perhaps, gives one a better idea of the character of its
inhabitants than what is styled an Almanack ct Vusage du
Levant Every leaf which, is daily torn off is a museum
for the chronologer, philologist, and student of comparative
religion. It bears inscriptions in six languages: Turkish,
French, Bulgarian, Greek, Armenian, and Spanish in Hebrew
letters. It records the flight of time according to five
systems. Thus, the same day is described as December 9,
1898, new style, or November 27, old style (followed by
the Greeks, Bulgarians, and Armenians); or Rejeb 26, 1316,
for the devout Mohammedan, who counts from the Hijra; or
Teshrin-i-sani 27, 1314, for the official Turk, who follows
the "financial year" (a remarkable invention of the Sub-
lime Porte); or Kislev 25, 5659, for the Jew who does not
pretend to be a Christian. Nay more, the Almanack ex-
tends the same large impartiality to all religions. It
registers the disagreeable ends of Greek, Bulgarian, and
Armenian martyrs, and bids the believer rejoice, according
to his particular convictions, over the Immaculate Concep-
tion of the Blessed Virgin, the Prophet's journey to heaven
on a winged steed, and the Dedication of the Temple of
Jerusalem—all these exhilarating events being commemo-
rated on the same date. Besides this, it informs us that
the day in question is the 30th after Kassim,1 that twelve
o'clock Turkish or sunset is at 4.30 p.m. h la franca, and

1 The peasantry as a rule use none of the calendars given above, but divide
the year by two feasts, Kassim and Hidrelis, the former of which is regarded
as the beginning of winter, the latter of spring.THE TURKS

H3

that mid-day is 7.23 Turkish.1 How unlike the narrowness
of the almanack which hangs on the wall in front of me
at present, and assumes that all decent people belong to
the Established Church and are chiefly interested in know-
ing what are the lessons for the day! The little Levant
almanack does, it is true, give a certain pre-eminence to
Mohammed and his celestial tour; he sprawls over the
middle in triumphant Arabic flourishes, crowding the Bul-
garian and Armenian martyrs into corners, and casting
vowel points and spots parlously near the Immaculate Con-
ception. But though recognising the predominance of Islam,
it addresses a public which has no one language, religion,
or code of institutions. It wishes to be useful to the Pasha
and the Kabbi; to him who speaks Bulgarian and to him
who speaks French; to him who thinks the sun sets at
4.30, and to him who considers that mid-day is twenty-
three minutes past seven.

The population of Constantinople is like the almanack
One does not know whether to wonder most at the union
between these heterogeneous elements or at the utter want
of union and sympathy between residents in the same city.
In some few quarters the various communities are found
living together, but as a rule they inhabit separate districts.
Turks live chiefly in Stamboul, Nishan Tash, and on the
Asiatic shores of the Bosphorus; the Jews at Kuz-kunjuk
and Haskeui; the Armenians, Greeks, and Franks in
various parts of Pera, Galata, and the European shore of the
Bosphorus. The separation is greatest between the Mo-
hammedans and the Christians. The native Christian is
generally at least bilingual, but many Turks are profoundly
ignorant of all languages and customs but their own, and
many inhabitants of Pera know little more of Turkish and

1 Turkish time is based not 011 mid-day like ours, but on the sunset, which
is always twelve o'clock. As sunset is a variable hour, a Turkish watch has
to be regulated at least once a week. All the Bosphorus steamers and some
of the railways keep Turkish time.144

TURKEY IN EUROPE

the Turks than do the dwellers in London. Men jostle one
another in the streets, salute one another, cheat one another,
kill one another, and at the end of the day retire into worlds
as absolutely different as if they departed for homes in
France, Athens, and Kurdistan. But yet these people do
not really belong to different nations. Different though
they be in speech, dress, food, and customs, they are not
separated from one another by belonging to different gov-
, ernments with different problems and ambitions. They
have mostly no political life at all, and their ideas as to
nationality are eminently characteristic. Most of them
are, of course, Turkish subjects, but nothing is valued more
than the possession of a foreign nationality, because, as
explained above, it withdraws the holder from Ottoman
jurisdiction and entitles him to Consular protection. We
naturally think of nationality as being a matter of birth
and race, but in the Levant it is regarded as a kind of
privilege which may be acquired, lost, or changed. No one
sees anything incongruous in one brother being an English-
man, a second a Belgian, and a third a Turkish subject.
On the outbreak of the Turco-Greek war, Hellenic subjects
were placed under certain disabilities which affected their
business. One of them came to me and asked if he could
not be made then and there a British subject. He was
distressed to find it was impossible; but a day or two after-
wards I met him satisfied and smiling. He had become a
Servian, and all was right again.

The word Levantine is not considered complimentary,
and I use it reluctantly, but for the very good reason that
it denotes a definite type, and that there is no synonym.
The fact is that the name does not exactly suggest honest
and honourable dealings. Courts and Imperial cities do not
tend to develop the rugged and sterling virtues, but rather
encourage diplomacy and the arts of pleasing. For many
centuries before the Turkish conquest the Greeks had beenTHE TURKS

*45

characterised by astuteness rather than heroism, and pro-
bably the Byzantium of the Angeli and Palaeologi was in
essentials much like Pera to-day. But it cannot be denied
that the Turkish conquest intensified all the faults of the
inhabitants. They had to learn subserviency, not only to an
emperor, but to a governing class of scornful aliens. The
only road to power and prosperity lay in pleasing and flat-
tering the Turks. The latter, with their incapacity for ad-
ministration and commerce, required continual assistance;
but they continually let the Christian know that, though
he might be intellectually their superior, and apparently
indispensable, he was but a dog in their eyes, who might be
whipped or killed in a moment of caprice. Every Christian
who served the Turk was working against his own religion
and the traditions of his own race. Whatever ingenuity he
might display, whatever rewards he might gain, he could
not be stirred by a noble ambition or feel he was labouring
for a great cause. The number of foreign colonies at Con-
stantinople had doubtless always afforded employment for
the characteristic Levantine profession of go-between, inter-
preter, dragoman, agent, or whatever it is called. The
Turks increased this employment tenfold, for they under-
stood neither the languages of their subjects, nor anything
of trade and finance. As they farmed the taxes, so they
farmed every sort of business. The agent who conducted
any transaction was expected to produce a certain sum at
the end. Of course, he had to make his profit; how he
made it, how much he and his subordinates took, the Turk
did not care.

This method of transacting business is ingrained in the
Levantine nature. Their conduct cannot be justly com-
pared to that of an Englishman who should take a bribe.
According to their ideas, all the parties to a transaction,
official or commercial, must make something out of it.
How else should they live? The idea that they can live

K146	TURKEY IN EUROPE

on their salaries is ridiculous; for the salaries are, firstly,
inadequate, and, secondly, not paid. The Turk dislikes
giving fixed wages of any kind, and if he has a European
coachman or governess who want to receive their money
regularly and put it in a bank, he regards them with un-
friendly suspicion. He keeps and feeds his dependents,
gives them a largess now and then, and lets them have
plenty of opportunities for making money out of shop-
keepers and petitioners. Though, in Constantinople, one is
always hearing stories of vast bribes and vaster peculation,
no one seems to get rich. In other countries such opera-
tions, if successful, produce show and splendour, but here
not at all. This is partly because, as the proverb says, " 111
gotten, ill go." He who receives a bribe of £5 0,000 has
probably to distribute ^40,000 to various persons who
must be kept in good-humour. But, also, no one dare draw
attention to himself; and if any one did dare, it would be
hard to find an occasion for display. You cannot keep
racehorses or yachts, or give balls in Constantinople. This
brings us to another feature of Levantine life—the extra-
ordinary interference on the part of the police and Govern-
ment with individual liberty. It is difficult to make the
system of espionage which prevails at Constantinople seem
credible. It is customary to regard it as a recent abuse,
but it is doubtless of very old date. Travellers in the
seventeenth century mention that no one dare leave his
house at night for fear of the spies. For the last few years,
at any rate, Constantinople has been overrun by them. All
public gatherings, except those for religious purposes, have
been forbidden, and even social and family festivities ren-
dered impossible. No Turk dare associate with foreigners,
or give a large dinner-party to his own people, and two or
three Turks of eminence cannot safely meet in a private
house. The whole city groans under the tyranny of the
Minister of Police. It is inevitable that spies in theirTHE TURKS

*47

desire to show zeal should invent baseless accusations,
The highest functionaries may be summoned in the middle
of the night, and interrogated by persons much their in-
feriors in rank on utterly frivolous charges; and any one
who should venture to oppose this regime would find his
fortunes and perhaps his life imperilled. It is singular that
the Turks should endure tyranny so aggravating and so un-
necessary, for no doubt it is felt more by the Turks than by
the Christian inhabitants. One can only reply that every
nation gets more or less the government it deserves; and
that, if the Turks submit to such an imposition, it is because
both their good and bad qualities, their loyalty and obedi-
ence, as well as their inertia and want of ideas, contribute
equally towards a passive attitude. Yet I doubt if the
system is really kept up by secret executions and torture, as
often reported. My scepticism does not result from lack of
information, for I have heard the most detailed accounts
from natives of midnight horrors and wholesale drownings
in the Bosphorus; but, though no doubt many persons have
been somewhat strictly interrogated, I do not believe that
many have been tortured, in as far as highly uncomfortable
detention can be distinguished from torture. If one con-
siders the last five or six years in Turkey, it will be found
that not more public men have died than in other coun-
tries ; that the evidence on which their deaths are attributed
to poison is very slight, and that those who are suspected of
disloyalty and liberal views do not disappear more than the
others. On the other hand, there is no doubt that people
have been summoned in the night, placed on board a
steamer, and sent off to distant parts of the Empire,
nominally as officials, but really as exiles. The real evil
is that all the joy of life, all freedom and originality, all
political, intellectual, and social activity, are destroyed by
the ubiquity of this espionage. A man is spied on by his
colleagues, his subordinates, and his servants, who all write148	TURKEY IN EUROPE

reports of his daily doings, and no one can tell what silly-
invention may attract attention. Spies are themselves spied
on; and sometimes the spy and his victim are on friendly
terms, and the latter revises the reports made on his own
conduct.

There is no doubt that Christians are much better off
in the great cities than they are in the provinces. In
Constantinople they do not feel the evils of the present
administration more than the Turks, and perhaps not as
much. It is true that, since the attack made on the
Ottoman Bank in 1896 and the subsequent massacre of
Armenians, there has been a tendency to accuse native
Christians of conspiracy, and no doubt a corresponding
amount of blackmailing has taken place; but, on the whole,
the Christian in Constantinople is at least as well off as the
Moslim. In the first place, the great evils of provincial
administration are absent. The taxes are light, and not
farmed or collected by soldiers. The Greeks and Armenians
have a natural genius for trade, which causes both com-
munities to be in a flourishing condition; and, though they
are hampered by restrictions which make both material and
moral progress difficult, they are in an ordinary way left
much to themselves. The business aptitudes of the Christian
are so incomparably superior to those of the Moslim that
they infallibly secure for him a better position unless the
balance is redressed by the use of physical force. Before
the massacres of 1895 and 1896 one would have said that
their lives and property were safe. Certainly after these
outbreaks this statement can only be made in a very
qualified manner; but such massacres are exceptional
eruptions, and if the Christians are living on a volcano,
they are still living as people often do in such circum-
stances, quite comfortably. In the face of the fact that
these outbreaks passed unpunished by Europe, it may
seem paradoxical, but I think it is true, to maintain thatTHE TURKS

149

the Christians in Constantinople have relatively little to
complain of in the way of permanent oppression, because
some Power or other is always ready to air their grievances.
But there is no one to protect the Turks, and prevent their
own Government from pressing on them. And very rightly
too. I am no hater of the Turks, and think that in many
ways they are better than the Rayahs. But they are the
ruling race; they have only themselves to thank for what-
ever oppression they endure, and it is ridiculous to appeal
to foreign Powers, as " Young" Turks often do, for aid in
throwing off their self-imposed yoke.

Still, Turkish life in Constantinople is a gloomyjbusiness.
The rigorous measures adopted by the police to prevent all
assemblies stop amusement, whether public or private; the
censorship has almost destroyed literature, and everything
of human interest is carefully excluded from the press.
Turkish papers revel in essays on Madagascar, and such-
like distant topics, but dare not say a word respecting the
politics of Turkey and the neighbouring countries. No
foreign book which contains any criticism on the Ottoman
Government or the Mohammedan religion is allowed to
enter the country, and this prohibition is carried so far as to
exclude from Turkish soil, not only authors like Dante and
Shakespeare (who spoke disrespectfully of the Prophet), but
even all encyclopaedias and guide-books.

All life is regulated by Irades. Now an Irade is not
so much a command as a permission. The standing order
is, " Thou shalt do nothing at all," and every deviation from
this negative attitude requires a special authorisation.
Without such permission no Turk, especially if he be a
man of rank, can leave the capital, frequent the society of
foreigners, or conduct any sort of business. He cannot
marry his children, or acquire property, or devote himself
to any pursuit or study, without his actions being brought
to the notice of the Government and interfered with. HeISO	TURKEY IN EUROPE

probably finds himself obliged from time to time to con-
tribute large sums to patriotic or religious funds, and is re-
duced to various subterfuges to hide the real amount of
his fortune.

In contrast to the cosmopolitan life of the capital, it
may be said that the provincial government is thoroughly
Turkish. We naturally find everywhere an abundance of
non-Turkish population and non-Turkish customs; but the
whole system and spirit of administration are essentially
Ottoman, and need not astonish us, if we consider the
earlier Turkish states, such as the vast, loosely-connected
Empire of the first Seljuks, reaching from Samarcand to
the Persian Gulf. It was impossible that one government—
that is, one man—could really control such an Empire; at
the most, he could but receive a deputation from the distant
portions, if they were loyal, or, in the contrary case, send
troops to suppress a revolt. The Turkish mind has never
outgrown this stage. Their notion of sovereignty is taking
tribute, and gaining as much advantage as may be for
Osmanlis out of a given territory; but they have no idea of
uniting their provinces into a compact whole, or of estab-
lishing a community of interest between the rulers and the
governed. In considerable districts of Turkey the popu-
lation has never been really subdued, and the Government
do not attempt to enforce their authority. Such are the
Dersim, and large parts of Kurdistan and Arabia in Asia,
and most of Albania in Europe. Other parts, such as
Bulgaria, Crete, and Samos, have been detached from the
Empire by the interference of Christendom, and are now
connected with it by merely nominal ties. But the Turk
does not notice this. If the Sultan confirms the appoint-
ment of a governor, if a Prince or Khedive pays a respect-
ful visit to the sacred threshold of Yildiz, his notions of
sovereignty are satisfied. Neither does he concern himself
about the prosperity of the remoter districts of the Empire.THE TURKS

It was an old Turkish maxim that it is a good plan to keep
the border districts in a state of devastation, because such
frontier lands render it difficult for an enemy to penetrate
into the Empire. This principle is not perhaps consciously
followed by the modern Turks, but one is often reminded of
it when one enters Turkey. One cannot logically expect
the Ottoman Government to encourage the spread of trade
and commerce, or to develop the material resources of their
dominions, because they know that Christians will profit
thereby at the expense of Turks, and, worse even than
this, foreign companies, not amenable to Turkish jurisdiction
or Turkish methods, will establish themselves in the Turkish
dominions and curtail the Turkish power.

At Constantinople at least two Ministers and many
important officials are Christians, but in the provinces
hardly any considerable post is now held by a non-Moslim.
There are no Christian Yalis or Mutesarrifs, few, if any,
Christian Kaim-makams, and only a small proportion of
Christian Mudirs. The office of Christian vice-governor is
not really an exception to this rule, as I shall subsequently
explain.

In the chief town of every province or district is a
building called the Konak, in which are the Government
offices. It is not the residence of the governor, who
usually arrives there every day after his morning meal,
taken about 10 A.M., and departs in ample time to re-enter
the bosom of his family before sunset, or twelve o'clock
Turkish. At Salonica the New Konak is a magnificent
structure which compares favourably with any public office
in Europe; but this is an exception, and as a rule the
Government buildings are whitewashed, barrack-like build-
ings devoid of all architectural pretensions. About the
doorway hang fierce-looking soldiers with broken teeth and
battered uniforms. In the centre is a muddy courtyard,
and the ground-floor is devoted to stabling and stores. We152	TURKEY IN EUROPE

leave our goloshes at the foot of a somewhat rickety stair-
case of unpolished wood and arrive at the first floor, a
wooden uncarpeted corridor, thronged with soldiers, with
petitioners who object to being dismissed, and with people
who have been summoned and only wish they could get
away. Some wear frock-coats and some sheepskins. A
number of rooms open off the corridor, from which they
are separated not by doors but by heavy curtains. Over the
entrance of each is an inscription—such as " The Secretary/'
" The Guardian of Papers," " The Defterdar (Financial Agent)
of the Vilayet." Soldiers raise the curtain which closes the
most important of these apartments, and we are ushered
into the presence of "him who confers honour on the

governorship of the glorious Vilayet of-, the prosperous

and successful Mehemet Pasha." His Excellency sits behind
a desk of quasi-European style, or, if he be one of those who
wish to emphasise that they are " Old " Turks, on a low divan.
The carpets and other appointments are fairly luxurious,
but there is almost invariably a spider's web in the window,
and the panes are broken. Round the room are many
chairs, on which sit several silent, impassive men, some
perhaps in turbans and flowing robes, but most in Stam-
bouli frock-coats, an ungainly garment which buttons close
round the neck and shows no linen. Some of them are
certainly spies on the governor, and others friends who can
control the reports of the spies. Business seems to con-
tinue during the visit. Secretaries in frock-coats come in,
stand before the governor with their arms folded, and then
hand him immense strips of paper bearing a few lines of
writing. Some he endorses, and so refers them to other
authorities, and some he signs by dabbing his signet ring in
lamp-black and pressing it on the paper. A Turk attaches
no importance to a written signature, arguing with a logic
that seems strange to us that any one can write a man's
name but no one but himself can have his seal. If theTHE TURKS

1S3

governor wishes to dictate, a secretary squats down on his
heels and proceeds to write on a slip of paper held in his
hand. The mass of verbiage scribbled every day in a
Turkish office is appalling and would soon choke up all
the pigeon-holes of Downing Street. But though the
Turks write inordinately, they take no care of their papers,
-and as a rule merely stuff them into bags and throw them
away after a month or two.

The careers of Turkish governors are so various that it
would be misleading to sketch any as typical. Nominally,
the country has a civil service entered by examination from
the Government colleges and offering regular promotion.
Practically appointments are made by favour, and in all
important cases by palace favour. A year or two ago a
body was constituted with the title of " Commission for the
Selection of Functionaries," but it was never allowed to do
more than recommend candidates, and its recommendations
have generally received scant attention. The Government
has always persistently refused to let any officials, even the
most subordinate, be nominated except from Constantinople.
There are good and honest officials in Turkey, and, if they
were allowed to choose their own staffs, there would be a
reasonable prospect of reform and decent government. But
they are not. Whatever a governors character may be,
several spies are sure to be appointed as his subordinates,
.and, if he be a man of exceptional honesty and capacity, it
is pretty certain that his colleagues or subordinates will be
persons of the opposite character. Jealousy and suspicion
are at the root of all Oriental administration. If a man is
popular and well spoken of in his province, he at once
creates an impression that he may raise some kind of revolt
against the Central Government. But if he is unpopular
and has obviously no object but to fill his own pocket, he
is thought less dangerous. Some governors go through
a long and regular career in the civil service, serving as154	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Kaim-makams, Mutesarrifs, and Yalis in different districts,
and one often meets officials who have had wonderfully
varied experiences of Armenia, Mesopotamia, Arabia, Tripoli,
and the uttermost parts of the Ottoman Empire. Others
are promoted suddenly from other branches of the service,
and all are liable to sudden dismissal. Others again have
held high positions in the capital, attracted too much atten-
tion, and been sent away in disgrace.

Perhaps the greatest evil connected with Turkish posts
in the provinces is that they are all underpaid. The
most honest officials find that they cannot live on their
salary, and private fortunes are rare. There is, therefore,
no method of rubbing along except to supplement the exi-
guous remuneration of the Government by certain ancient
and well-known methods. Of course, if an official is natu-
rally dishonest and avaricious, he makes even freer use of
his opportunities; and, strange as it may seem, a reputation
for corruption and rapacity is not always unpopular even
among the provincials. They like a man whose " eye is
full" (gyozii tok), which means a man whose pockets are full
and whose eyes are not always wandering after his neigh-
bour's goods. Now a corrupt man, if of a certain standing,
has probably made his pile, and though from habit he will
go on taking a little, is less dangerous than a comparatively
honest man with no money behind him, who, when pressed
by any combination of circumstances, may squeeze hard in
order to extricate himself.

It may seem that some Turkish salaries are sufficient
for the position of the recipients; but here again we must
remember the difference between reality and paper. No
official figures on this subject can be taken, or indeed are
meant to be taken, in their natural sense. The Turkish
Government mostly pays its debts, whether salaries or sums
due for contracts, &c., by means of orders on provincial
treasuries known as havaUs. After much petitioning, anTHE TURKS

155

official at last receives a havaU for say one thousand Turkish
pounds, which let us hope for his sake is a much larger sum
than is really owing to him. The paper as first given to
him is probably a hham havaU, a " raw " or blank order,
that is to say, the name of the provincial treasury which is
to pay it is not inserted. The recipient takes this docu-
ment to a professional discounter of such papers and obtains
the best terms he can, probably about 50 per cent., or five
hundred pounds instead of a thousand. The discounter is
in touch with various provincial governors, and knows which
of them are prepared to cash the orders of the Sublime
Porte, and how much per cent, they will give. It is, of
course, advantageous to a governor to cash havaUs if his
provincial treasury will stand it, because he is certain to
make at least 10 per cent, off the transaction. The dis-
counter then has the name of a suitable governor inserted
in the havaU. The provincial treasury will be debited with
a payment of a thousand pounds. The nominal recipient
of this sum has received five hundred in satisfaction of his
claims. There remains another sum of five hundred pounds
(or, rather, as much of it as can be got from the provincial
treasury) to be divided between the discounter, the Yali, and
the financial authorities of the vilayet. The Vali's signa-
ture is necessary to authorise the payment of the money;
but there is a difference in Turkey between having an ad-
mitted right to receive money from the Government and
actually receiving it. The latter and comparatively rare
transaction can be only accomplished when the Def'terdar,
in consideration of weighty reasons, writes on the back of
the paper VtriM—" Let it be given.5'

Finances conducted on this system evidently require to
be judged by a special standard. In such circumstances
we cannot be astonished at the application of public funds
to private uses. In some ways bribery and corruption re-
dress themselves; if everybody accepts douceurs the money156	TURKEY IN EUROPE

circulates round, a^ it all comes to much the same in the
end. But naturally the methods of Turkish finance lead to
frightful evils. For instance, larg6 sums granted for public
works—buildings, roads, bridges, &c.—disappear mysteri-
ously with little or no result to show. The traveller may
propose to drive along a road marked on the Carte des Com-
munications Postales de VEmpire Ottoman as a route carossable
of the first class. The driver will object and say diffidently,
" There are a great many bridges on that road." In case
my reader has never made a journey in Turkey I should
explain that a bridge is regarded as a natural obstacle to
travelling. It is probable that it is either non-existent,
broken, or unsafe. In qny case, a detour of some length
will be necessary to find a place where the river can be
crossed. " There are many bridges on that road," repeats
the driver. "I know there are," you reply; "the Vali
told me that there had been a severe inundation a month
ago and that he had sent a Commission to examine all
the bridges. They made a very careful survey, and in
fact spent £1500 in repairing them." The driver looks
thoughtful and wonders how any one who talks Turkish can
say such strange things. Being a man of few words, except
when swearing at his horses, he does not argue, and merely
asks an extortionate price for the hire of his carriage.
When you come to those bridges (it would be incorrect to
say when you go over them), you will know how the Vali
and the Commission make their money, and admit that the
coachman has not asked too much.

Still greater are the evils which arise in connection with
taxation. The taxes on paper are moderate, and it can be
proved that the payment per head is less than in any other
country in Europe. But they are generally farmed. The
farmer has to make his own profit and to arrange for the
collection. If he employs his own agents, he has to pay
them and find the wherewithal to do so. More often theTHE TURKS

157

collecting is done by soldiers (the fact that this is expressly
forbidden has nothing to do with the 'matter), and the
soldiers, ragged, hungry men, whose pay is months in
arrear, have to keep themselves. When the practical
business of collecting begins, the question is not how much
a village ought to pay, but how much it can pay, and that
much is taken. The very leniency of the Turks proves
disastrous. Even tax-collectors are sometimes indolent or
good-natured, and will take no money from a village be-
cause it is very poor or very distant. But when bad times
come, the omission is remembered and arrears are exacted
with unsparing rigour. The provincial treasury cannot
tell what demands it may have to meet. When there is an
emergency—and the Sublime Porte has an emergency once
a year—peremptory commands are sent to every vilayet
ordering money to be remitted to Constantinople. In
favourable circumstances a Yali cannot think of improving
or developing a vilayet, but merely of keeping sufficient to
meet such immediate needs as paying the troops. In un-
favourable circumstances he cannot think at all of local
interests; the calls from the Porte are imperious; he knows
that his official good name and promotion are at stake;
and the more anxious he is to make a career, the more
likely is he to send the contents of his treasury to the
capital and leave a crowd of unpaid, half-fed men to live as
best they can from what they can take. Yet the Ottoman
Government will often allow itself to be cheated without
protest. One of the most important sources of revenue is
the sheep-tax. In estimating the budget, this tax is
calculated according to the number of sheep known to
exist in different districts, which 'prima facie seems plau-
sible. But sheep on the Imperial estates, which are many
and extensive, are exempt from the impost. Accordingly,
when the time of collection comes, the owners of sheep
around such lands pay the Sultan's bailiffs a small sum for158	TURKEY IN EUROPE

the right of driving their flocks on to the privileged terri-
tory, where they can defy the agents of the Ministry of
Finance. In other cases the authorities, in order to make
a small immediate gain, will weaken the resources of the
country, injure the public interest, and incur the dangers re-
sulting from scarcity of provisions. For instance, when the
tithe is taken in kind, the collectors often refuse to allow
the crops of olives or cereals to be gathered and stored, and
leave them so long that they are spoiled in the fields. The
reason of this is that the Government sells in the open
market the commodities taken as tithe, and, being anxious
to obtain as high a price as possible, diminishes the quantity
of the article in order to enhance its value.

In * the early days of the Ottoman Empire successful
warriors were rewarded with the gift of conquered lands,
which they held as fiefs. Macedonia is still full of country
gentlemen who originally obtained their lands in this way,
and until 1867 the provincial administration was to a great
extent based on this arrangement. Districts were ruled by
Dere-beyis or local magnates. These were either Turkish
feudal holders as described or non-Turkish chiefs (such as
are still found in Albania and Kurdistan), who were best
conciliated by allowing them sufficient authority to preserve
their nominal loyalty to the Padishah. The country was
thus split up into a large number of districts which might
be called either principalities or estates, the possessors of
which were practically independent and had power of life
and death within their own boundaries. It was inevitable
that the Central Government should alter this state of things
as soon as improved communications enabled them to do so.
Little as the Turks like railways, they are great patrons of
the telegraph, because it is the most powerful instrument
for a despot who wishes to control his own officials. It is
no longer necessary to leave a province to the discretion
of a governor, and trust that he will come home to beTHE TURKS

159

beheaded when that operation seems desirable. With the
telegraph one can order him about, find out what he is
doing, reprimand him, recall him, instruct his subordinates
to report against him, and generally deprive him of all real
power. As the Ottoman administration recks little of the
public convenience, they frequently summon a governor to
the telegraph office, and monopolise the wire for as long as
they choose in communicating with him. But the old
system was probably, on the whole, better. The Dere-beyi
no doubt felt a pleasure in exercising his power of life and
death, which seemed to others a superfluous activity; but he
had a proprietors interest in his estate, and was anxious to
promote local interests and send as little money to Con-
stantinople as possible. He was a centrifugal force, and in
his way promoted independence, whereas the modern Vali
is entirely centripetal.

I have alluded above to the office of Christian vice-
governor or Muavin. These officials are an interesting and
instructive study. They have long existed sporadically,
but at the beginning of 1896 the Porte published a series
of reforms for the " Vilayets of the Empire," which included
this institution among others. In the preceding autumn
the Sultan, under great pressure from the Powers, had
sanctioned the so-called " Armenian Reforms," and by sub-
sequently extending some of them to all districts, the
Turkish Government hoped to avoid before the Moslim
world the appearance of granting exceptional privileges to
Christians. The appointments were actually made, not
without some hesitation, of course, and pretence of making
great concessions, and extraordinary ingenuity was shown
in depriving them of all importance. First of all, the
Christian appointed was never of the same race and sect
as the population of the province, which was in itself
sufficient to prevent him from seriously exerting himself
for their welfare. Greeks were named to Bulgarian dis-160	TURKEY IN EUROPE

tricts and Catholics to Greek. Secondly, as long as the
governor was at his post, the vice-governor was not allowed
to do anything or see any important papers. He was there,
it was explained, to offer general advice, and to replace the
governor if need be; but he was, to some extent, a fifth
wheel to a coach, and the bureaucratic machine would be
deranged if the routine work passed through his hands.
Thirdly, when the governor went away he was temporarily
replaced, not by the vice-governor, as was expected, but by
the official highest in rank—generally the Defterdar. Now
Turkish rank is peculiarly mysterious. It is not social, and
it is not, strictly speaking, official—that is to say, it does
not follow that he who has apparently the highest office has
also the highest rank. It is granted independently of office,
much in the same way as decorations in England. It can
easily be imagined that the Christian vice-governor was
generally found to be the lowest in rank of the superior
officials.

The question of Christian functionaries presents many
difficulties. It is often asserted that the only effective
protection to Christians lies in the appointment of as
many as possible. This would no doubt be true if it
were possible to choose the functionaries from the in-
habitants of the province where they are to serve and
give them sufficient authority to secure their independ-
ence. But this the Mohammedans always succeed in
preventing. Theory cannot be reduced to practice, and
the faults of the Christians are the greatest obstacle to
their employment. Their servility and timidity render
them worse than good Moslims, and so ingrained are
their mutual hostilities and suspicions that every one
would rather be ruled by a Turk than by a Christian
of another sect.

When one reads European reports on the condition of
the Turkish provinces, or reflects on the wonderful thingsTHE TURKS

161

one has seen with one's own eyes, one is inclined to
think that the system cannot go on. It is annually
proved that the machinery of government is collapsing;
that there is no money and no food; that no one can
pay any taxes, and that everybody must starve. Yet it
all goes on next year eskisi gibi—" the same old way."
They that had been skinned are skinned again, and they
that were starving are starving still, but not dead. The
Porte which had no money to pay the soldiers last Bairam,
has no money to pay them this Bairam either. This year,
as last year, it is stated that there is positively no alterna-
tive but to sell a province to Russia. This year, as last
year, when the inevitable pay-day comes round, it is
found that the Porte has performed some mysterious
operation, probably described as " converting" its debts,
and has plenty of money again. It may safely be
affirmed that if any European Power were to undertake
to finance Turkey, the whole place would be bankrupt in
a week, and need years of recuperation. But political
economy seems to be one of those things which must
be accepted or rejected as a whole. Partial and blunder-
ing acceptance means collapse, but if, like the Sublime
Porte, you reject it in toto, if you discard such concep-
tions as the National Debt, and pay no regard to the
theory of wages, the theory of demand and supply, and
all other theories whatever, it seems to make no differ-
ence. Financially and economically the Turkish Govern-
ment means simply taking money from its subjects
with no intention of repayment. As long as Christians
cannot resist the demands for contributions, as long as
Moslims are content to serve with little or no return
and under considerable hardship, there seems no reason
why this system should ever come to an end. Its only
limits are the limits of human endurance.

This state of things is not new. People in Turkey

Li6i

TURKEY IN EUROPE

often attribute their sufferings to the policy of the present
Sultan, and maintain that the world went better ten or
twenty years ago. Some evils have, no doubt, become
peculiarly acute in recent times, but it is clear that the
•disease is chronic and inherent, not sudden or adven-
titious. Massacres, spying, and maladministration are not
peculiar to the reign of Abd-ul-Hami<t II., but are pro-
minent features all through Turkish history. Neither are
predictions as to the speedy collapse of the Turkish Em-
pire products of this century. Ever since the Turks
occupied Constantinople almost every traveller and states-
man who examined the condition of the country has
•expressed the opinion that the whole state was unstable
and decadent. One British Ambassador warned his Gov-
ernment in the reign of Sultan Ibrahim (1640-1648) that
the dissolution of the Empire was imminent; another,
when the Russians took Oczakow in 1735, expressed
the opinion that Constantinople was at the mercy of
Russia. Yet the Ottoman Empire has neither improved
nor disappeared. For its continuance there are two ob-
vious causes: first, and chiefly, the mutual antipathies
of the Christian Rayahs, who cannot combine against
the Turk; second, the divergent aims and interests of
the Christian Powers, who cannot agree on any successor
to him, though they recognise the exceptional and anoma-
lous character of the Ottoman Empire by their continual
interference in its internal affairs.

But one cannot help wondering why the Turks them-
selves let so strange a Government continue. The majority
of them are, in their own way, honest, patriotic, God-fearing
men: some of them are intelligent and energetic. Why
will they not reform ? One answer is that no changes seem
to make the Turkish Government any better. Perhaps the
greatest reform ever introduced into Turkey was the abolition
of the Janissaries. Yet it has not altered the general char-THE TURKS

163

acter of the administration, and probably no change which
would alter it would be acceptable to the Turkish people.
Many, particularly of the younger men, profess to be
anxious for " reforms," and are commonly known as Young
Turks or la jeune Ttirquie. Their ideal is some form of
constitutional government, such as the Parliament of 1877 ;
but I do not know that any section of them are sufficiently
definite or practical in their organisation to have any de-
tailed programme. They and their literature are the objects
of the special suspicion and severity of the Ottoman Govern-
ment, and a Christian rising creates less alarm than a con-
spiracy among Ottoman schoolboys.

Now, it may be that this horror of reforms springs from
a correct instinct that any change in the present order
of things would endanger the rule of Moslims over
Christians. If we assume that it is desirable to continue
the Ottoman Government—an assumption which no one
but a Turk need make—we must admit that this implies
the superiority of Turks to Christians. It does not mean
the equality of Turks and Christians; that is a thing which
is talked of but never realised, for the very good reason
that it is impossible. As long as force rules, the Turks are
superior to the Christians. They are stronger, braver, and
more united. But when force does not rule, when progress,
commerce, finance, and law give the mixed population of
the Empire a chance of redistributing themselves accord-
ing to their wits, the Turk and the Christian are not
equal; the Christian is superior. He acquires the money
and land of the Turk, and proves in a law-court that
he is right in so doing. One may criticise the Turkish
character, but given their idiosyncrasies, one must admit
that they derive little profit from such blessings of civilisa-
tion as are introduced into the country. Foreign syndicates
profit most, and after them native Christians, but not the
Osmanli, except in so far as he can make them disgorge164	TURKEY IN EUROPE

their gains. Those who have associated with Turks will
have discovered a fact which it is difficult for the rest
of the world to believe, namely, that they are afraid
of Christians. The periodical outbreaks formerly called
" atrocities/' but now described as " events" (a beautiful
euphemism which the Sublime Porte has imposed on the
diplomatic language of Europe), appear to us as a cowardly
slaughter of unarmed men and helpless women and children.
But no doubt the average Turk regards these same events
as necessary measures of self-defence. He is always ready
to believe that the Armenians and Bulgarians are import-
ing arms or planning to burn down Constantinople, and
says with sincere alarm that no Moslim's life is safe. I
have met many liberal Turks who talked freely of liberty
and equality, but never one who did not approve of the
Armenian massacres of 1895-6 and attempt to justify
them. The converse of this is, that the Christians in
Turkey do not feel any more sympathy for liberal or
" Young Turks " than they do for old and bigoted ones; for
young or old, radical or conservative, their complaints and
hopes are confined to their own race and religion, and
take no account of the majority of the population in their
dominions.

The Turkish reformer and the Christian have nothing
in common, and the mass of Turks mistrust the reformer.
Even in such a matter as military reform, where there can
be no doubt that improvements are in the interest of the
Moslim, and the Moslim only, the Turk will not take the
view which his friends think he obviously ought to take.
Foreign military instructors have again and again pre-
sented recommendations, and again and again they have
been rejected, sometimes openly, sometimes with a pretence
of acceptance, but always quite firmly. The Turk has a
dim perception that even in military matters he cannot
understand and practise European methods. If he triesTHE TURKS

i65

to do so, the control will pass out of his hands into those
of people who are cleverer than himself. But though he
may think them clever, he does not on that account feel
any respect for them. He regards them as conjurors who
can perform a variety of tricks, which may be, according
to circumstances, useful, amusing, or dangerous; but for all
Christendom he has a brutal, unreasoning contempt—the
contempt of the sword for everything that can be cut, and
to-day the stupid contempt of a blunt sword.CHAPTER V

on mohammedanism

Mohammedanism was introduced into Central Asia by the
Arabs, who, after conquering Persia, penetrated into Bokhara
and Fergana in the first decade of the eighth century-
It effectually drove out before it Buddhism and all other
forms of religion, and is now professed by all the Turkish
races west of Kashgar, and by some farther east in Siberia
and China. It is, as is well known, a religion which,
perhaps more than any other, affects conduct as well as
belief; it forces into its own peculiar mould every depart-
ment of human life, and modifies profoundly the character
of the nations which adopt it. It therefore merits some
attention from a social and political point of view.

The creed of Mohammedanism is generally compressed
into the well-known formula: " There is no god but God,
and Mohammed is His prophet.'' But there is another and
longer version which runs as follows:—

"I believe in God and His angels and His books and His pro-
phets, and the last day, and the predestination of good and evil by
God, and the resurrection after death. I bear witness that there is
no god but God, and I bear witness that Mohammed is His slave
and His prophet."

The tenets here enumerated comprise all that is most
important in Islam, and perhaps the easiest way to obtain
a clear idea of the religion in its theoretical and practical
aspects will be to consider these doctrines, without binding
ourselves to the order in which they are here enumerated,

though we may well begin with the belief in God.

166ON MOHAMMEDANISM	167

As is well known, Mohammed inculcated monotheism
in its most uncompromising and fiercest form. More than
half of the Koran is a polemic against polytheism or trini-
tarianism. " Say he is one God, God the eternal. He
begets not and is not begotten, and there is none like to
Him." So runs the chapter called IJchlas, which is con-
sidered to be equivalent in value to two-thirds of the whole
book, and which is recited by the devout many times a day.
To clearly understand the Mohammedan conception of God,
it must be remembered that Allah is an abbreviation of
Al-ilah,1 the God, that is, the one, true, only God, as dis-
tinguished from the minor divinities of the ancient Arabs.
There is something controversial in the mere mention of
Allah ; it is in itself a challenge to Christians and poly-
theists. The Koran is full of magnificent passages respecting
the majesty, omnipotence, and omniscience of this Deity.
It is He that has created and sustains us: in Him only we
live and move and have our being.

" With Him are the keys of the Unseen : none knoweth them
save Him. He knoweth what is on the land and what is in the
sea. There falleth not a leaf but He knoweth it. There is not a
seed in the darkness of the earth nor aught that is moist or dry but
it is (written) in the perspicuous book. He it is that taketh you to
Himself by night (i.e. in sleep) and knoweth what you have earned
during the day : then He raiseth you up again that the number of
your days may be fulfilled. Unto Him shall ye return and He will

declare unto you what ye have done." (jFrom the chapter of Cattle or
vls8-)

" What is in the heavens and what is in the earth sing praises
to God, for He is the Almighty and wise. His is the kingdom of
the heavens and the earth : He quickeneth and He slayeth and He
is mighty over all. He is the first and the last, the seen and the
unseen, and He knoweth all. It is He who created the heavens
and the earth in six days; then He sat down on His throne. He
knoweth what enters into the earth and what comes forth from it;
what descends from the heavens and what ascends to them. He is

1 La ilaha ilia Hlah—" There is no god (ilak) except the true God " {Allah).168

TURKEY IN EUROPE

with you wheresoever ye be, and whatsoever ye do He regardeth it."
( Beginning of the chapter of Iron or LVII.)

" Blessed is He in whose hand is the kingdom ; who hath power
over all, who created death and life to prove you and see which of
you doeth well. He is Almighty and ready to forgive. It is He
who created the seven heavens, one above the other. Thou canst
not see any discord in the creation of the Merciful. Look again—
canst thou see a flaw 1 Gaze again and again. Thy sight shall
return to thee dimmed and dazzled." (The beginning of the chapter
of the Kingdom or LXY III.)

" God, there is no God but Him, the Living, the Eternal.
Neither slumber nor sleep taketh Him; to Him belong what is in
the heavens and what is on the earth. Who is he that can inter-
cede with Him except by His permission ? He knoweth what is
before mankind and what is behind them (i.e. the future and the
past), and they comprehend nothing of His knowledge but what He
■chooseth. His throne extends over the heaven and the earth, and
the care of both is not a burden to Him." (The Heifer or II. 256.)

Yet, in spite of these splendid passages, which in the
original send a devotional thrill through the reader, it must
be admitted that the Deity of the Koran is not, according to
our ideas at least, an altogether satisfying object of worship.
Alone in the terrible isolation of His unapproachable glory,
He is connected by no links with His creatures. There is
neither Son, Madonna, nor Saint to act as mediator. The
Prophet, though " the best of men," has no claim personally
to a supernatural character, and it would be the height of
impiety to address prayer to him. Though God is in the
Koran habitually styled the Merciful and Compassionate,
and described as ready to forgive the penitent, the general
conception of Him is that of a Being more terrible than the
jealous God of the Old Testament. He has for His own
inscrutable reasons created the world and predestined part
of its inhabitants to eternal bliss and part to eternal torment.
Everything, both good and evil, happens by His will and
permission. Thus, though He may prescribe a certain moral
law for His creatures, He himself is above all law and mora-ON MOHAMMEDANISM	169

lity; piety cannot take the form of walking with God or
of struggling to imitate some divine idea, but must content
itself with acquiescence in the mysterious decrees of an
irresponsible Potentate. The name Islam or " Resignation/
by which Mohammedans designate their religion, sums up
its characteristics, and the same phrase may be translated
either " Yerily, we are Moslims," or " Verily, we are re-
signed." Obviously this conception of the Deity is really
not far removed from pantheism, or the worship of an un-
known and merciless force—Karma, fate, or whatever we like
to call it. But the ordinary language of Mohammedanism
tends to avoid such a view and to personify God as an
Absolute Monarch.

" 0 God, King of the Kingdom,1 Thou givest the Kingdom unto
whom Thou wilt, and Thou takest away the Kingdom from whom
Thou wilt; Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou humblest
whom Thou wilt. In Thy hand is good, for Thou hast power over
all. Thou makest the night to follow the day, and the day to follow
the night. Thou bringest forth the living from the dead, and the
dead from the living." (The chapter of the Family of Imran or

HI. 25.)

This view of the Almighty as " the only Potentate, Lord
of Lords and King of Kings," recurs all through the Koran,
and is curiously illustrated by the Namaz or form of public
worship ordained by the Prophet. There is no sacramental
rite, such as the Mass; sacrifices, though not unknown, are
never offered in mosques; properly speaking, there is no
priest, for the Imam claims no sacerdotal functions, and it is
merely for convenience' sake that he leads the prayers of
the congregation, and, so to speak, keeps time. Still more
remarkable, there are hardly any requests or supplications
in these prayers. They consist almost entirely of stately

1 It would, perhaps, be more accurate to translate malxlcu-l-mulki as
"Possessor of the Kingdom," but the words are evidently chosen because
they come from the same root, and " King of the Kingdom " reproduces the
literary effect.170	TURKEY IN EUROPE

formulae, enunciating the Unity of the Almighty, ascribing
to Him honour and praise, and blessing the name of His
Prophet. There is nothing which would satisfy a Western
Christian congregation smitten with a sense of sin or craving
for hysterical excitement. The whole performance is a
court ceremony and closely resembles an Eastern visit of
politeness. The Almighty has commanded that He should
be recognised five times a day; five times a day the pious
Moslim visits His house, performs his respectful salutations,
pays the proper compliments, and goes away again.1 Such
views of the Deity and of religious obligation are entirely
suited to the Turkish character, which is neither sentimental
nor speculative. The ceremonial of the mosque is plain,
sane, and dignified; it encourages neither superstition nor
excitement, and it cannot be made ridiculous. On the other
hand, it is dry, narrow, and wanting in those elements of
mystery, emotion, and poetry which mark the worship of
Christians in their nobler temples and are typified by the
dim splendours of a Gothic or Byzantine Cathedral, just as
the Namaz is typified by the bare, whitewashed walls of a
village mosque. The only Mohammedan nation who have
much taste for art, the Persians, are Shiites,2 a sect which
may justly be called heretical in the sense that they have
made out of Mohammedanism something very different from
the religion taught by Mohammed.

Let us now turn to the article of the Moslim faith
expressing belief in the prophets of God.

From what has been said of Allah, it might be supposed
that He is too far removed from mankind to take much
interest in their doings. If all things are predestined and
written in a book, logic suggests that there is no more to be
done. Like the deities of Epicurus, the Creator should take
His ease and watch the performance of the play He has pre-

1	Vide Note I., p. 202, "On Mohammedan Worship."

2	Vide Note II., p. 207, " On Sunnites and Shiites."ON MOHAMMEDANISM	171

pared. But popular religions and popular logic never coin-
cide. If some passages of the Koran suggest that God is a
distant, unknowable, inexorable law, others, and they are
perhaps the majority, preach the fear of a very present and
personal Master, who hears, sees, warns, punishes, nay, even
plots against the ungodly.1 He who has pre-arranged the
destiny of every soul cries to mankind through His prophets,
" Fools, why will you go to hell ? " In all ages He has sent
signs and messengers to His people, " If haply they would
have sense and believe." Mohammedan tradition asserts
that 124,000 prophets (nabi) and 314 apostles (rasul) have
come from God, of whom six have attained special emi-
nence—Adam, Noah, Abraham (the Friend of God), Moses
(He who spoke with God), Jesus (the Spirit of God), and
Mohammed (the Apostle of God). All Mohammedans have
a sincere veneration for both Moses and Jesus, though per-
haps antagonism to Jews and Christianity make them some-
what reticent in expressing it. The name of Abraham
(Ibrahim) is often given to men, and he is mentioned in
the daily prayers (" 0 God, bless Mohammed and his de-
scendants as Thou didst bless Abraham and his descend-
ants/') But Mohammed is " the seal of the prophets/' the
end and completion of the revelation. No message will
come after him, and for the purposes of practical salvation
the Moslim may disregard his predecessors. Mohammed-
anism is an ungainly word, but in one way more exact than
Islam; for the faith which it designates, though a deve-
lopment of Judaism and Christianity, bears in every tenet
and practice the impress of the personality of Mohammed.
Space does not permit us to give any adequate account of
this remarkable man, but it may be well to briefly recapitu-
late the chief events of his life.

He was born in 570 or 571 A.D., of the family of the

1<4The Jews were crafty and God was crafty, for God is the best of
crafty ones."172	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Hashimi, of the tribe of the Koreish, in Mecca. That city-
was a place of pilgrimage for the neighbouring tribes on
account of the shrine of the Kaaba, which it must be
remembered was pre-Mohammedan and the centre of a
cultus respecting which we have little accurate information,
except that it combined star-worship with the adoration of
stones, notably the celebrated Hajaru-'l-aswad or " Black
Stone," which is still an object of the deepest veneration to
all Mohammedan pilgrims. Mohammed was left an orphan
while still a child, and in early youth entered the service of
a wealthy widow named Hadija, whom he married when he
was twenty-five and she fifteen years older. Up to the age
of forty he was apparently little more than an honourable
and prosperous citizen of Mecca. He gained some experi-
ence of the world by accompanying Hadija's trading cara-
vans to Aleppo and Damascus, but according to the Sunnite
tradition he could neither read nor write. Doubtless he
always took an interest in religious questions, and obtained
both information and congenial society among the Hanifs or
philosophic inquirers, of whom there were many in his
native land ; for the Meccans were tolerant of speculation,
and regarded their religion as an industry rather than a
creed.

Mohammed had from childhood been subject to fits of
a nervous malady. Towards his fortieth year these seizures
increased in violence. He wandered in the desert and saw
visions. According to some authorities, a few of the short
Suras, now arranged at the end of the Koran, are to be
referred to this period, in which he was as yet unaware that
he had any definite mission. But orthodox tradition holds
that the verses first revealed are those which now stand at
the beginning of Sura XCYI. In a vision which he had on
Mount Hira, the Angel of God appeared to him and said,
" Read." He replied, " I cannot read." This command and
answer were repeated, and the third time the angel recited toON MOHAMMEDANISM	173

him the Sura, " Read in the name of thy Lord who created." 1
He confided this vision only to Hadija and a few relatives
and friends, and for two and a half years received no more
revelations, and fell into a state of despondency in which he
meditated suicide. One day he was seized with a violent
fit accompanied by fever, and was, according to his custom
when so attacked, wrapped up in a cloak. As he lay thus,
the angel again appeared and addressed him in the words of
Sura LXXIV., " 0 thou that art wrapped up in thy mantle:
arise and preach and magnify thy Lord." From this moment
rather than from the earlier revelation dates the commence-
ment of his active mission. Visions and revelations followed
quickly; converts more slowly; but he soon achieved the
earliest stage of greatness—unpopularity. The Meccans
regarded the offertory as the essential part of religion. They
lived on idolatry, and denunciations of the practice struck
at the root of their prosperity. At one moment Mohammed
seems to have thought of making a compromise, and recog-
nising in some way the existence of the pagan deities. It i&
greatly to his credit that he withstood the temptation and
braved the general hostility. Nearly all his family were
put under a ban, and during two years retired from Mecca
and lived in a ravine to the east of the city. At last they
were allowed to return owing to the influence of Abu Talib,
Mohammed's uncle, who, however, died shortly afterwards, as
did also Hadija.

Mohammed was now some fifty years of age, and appeared
to have failed entirely. His uncle, who had protected him,
and his wife, who had consoled him, were both dead. He
had few adherents; the mass of the Meccans regarded him
as a wild and dangerous radical, and, though his family
stood by him with Arab clannishness, they did not sympa-
thise with his ideas or like him any the better for the trouble
he had caused. In the next ten years all this was reversed.

1 Chapter of Clotted Blood, XCVI.174

TURKEY IN EUROPE

He became a soldiei- and a statesman, a conqueror and a
legislator. His country accepted him as its civil and reli-
gious head. He called upon the neighbouring sovereigns to
obey his message, and not long after his death his followers
•compelled them to do so.

This change in his fortunes was mainly brought about
by the flight of himself and his disciples to Medina, an
event which is commonly known as the Hijra, and appro-
priately chosen as the commencement of the Mohammedan
era. It was as useless to preach a new religion in Mecca
.as in the Vatican. All the habits, associations, and inte-
rests of the inhabitants connected them with the worship
which Mohammed wished to overthrow. In Medina, on
the contrary, the conditions were in his favour. The city
had apparently no conspicuous temples or deities; it was
full of Jews, and the inhabitants were hence familiar with
the ideas of monotheism and the coming of the Messiah.
There was also an old hostility between them and the
Meccans, so they took kindly to the idea of a purer
religion which would destroy the idols and the importance
of their rivals. It is true that in the long-run blood
proved thicker than water: the Prophet assigned to his
native town a religious importance which can only be
explained by his early training. But on first arriving at
Medina it is clear that he sought support chiefly among
the Jews, and was ready to make his religion a sort of
universal Judaism. For a year or more he bade his
disciples turn towards Jerusalem when they prayed, but
in the end the pride and intractability of the Jews made
him see that he must build up his system on a broader
base. It is curious to observe how that stubborn people
have rejected two of the greatest religions of the world.
Had they been more pliant we might have seen a Jewish
Empire and Jewish Sultans.

The Hijra took place in 622. The followers of theON MOHAMMEDANISM	175

Prophet migrated gradually and secretly. He himself
remained till the last, and fled somewhat suddenly owing
to a plot against his life. Once established at Medina,
Mohammed was soon recognised as the chief of the city.
He built the first mosque and arranged its ritual. He
also began a career of polygamy, contrasting strangely
with his earlier life, in which he was scrupulously faithful
and genuinely attached to the elderly Hadija. In the
second year he declared a holy war against Mecca, and
defeated the Koreish at Badr, but in the following year
was defeated by them at Ohod or Uhud. They followed
up this victory by the siege of Medina, but were repulsed,
and from the fourth to the seventh year of the Hijra
Mohammed extended his authority by a series of successful
expeditions against the neighbouring tribes. The Meccans
recognised his success by the pact of Hudaibiya, one of
the provisions of which allowed him to visit the Kaaba
at the season of pilgrimage. This he did in the next
year with 2000 men, remaining three days. The eighth
year of the Hijra was marked by an unsuccessful expedi-
tion against Muta in Syria, and by the final conquest of
Mecca. Mohammed accused the Meccans of violating the
pact of Hudaibiya, and advanced against them with a
considerable force. He occupied the city almost without
resistance, perhaps in consequence of an understanding
with some of the principal men, and proceeded to destroy
the idols in the Kaaba, but treated the shrine itself with
great respect, and had it repaired. After a fortnight's
residence in his birthplace he returned to Medina, and
subsequently successfully conducted several warlike ex-
peditions. The ninth year is often called "the year of
deputations," on account of the number of embassies which
came to the Prophet offering the submission of the various
tribes. In the early part of 632 he paid his last visit to
Mecca, and in June he died rather suddenly at Medina.176	TURKEY IN EUROPE

The salient feature which distinguishes this career from
those of other great religious leaders is its ultimate success
from a worldly point of view. Buddha renounced a crown:
Christ's kingdom was not of this world. Not only did the
manner of His death annihilate the aspirations of all who
had hoped for a temporal Messiah, but it is clear from
the silence or brevity of pagan writers that the whole
series of events which culminated in the Crucifixion passed
unnoticed by the Roman world, and were for the public
of the day of no political importance. Christianity could
never have attained its spirituality, its adaptability to all
climes and races, had it been connected with any particu-
lar form of government or society. But in the history of
Mohammedanism all these conditions were reversed. The
temporal success of the founder has proved ultimately the
failure of his system as a world-wide religion. He was
not crucified. On the contrary, it is eminently charac-
teristic of him that he declined to believe that Christ
suffered this punishment, evidently considering that God
could not have allowed a great Prophet to perish sa
ignominiously.1 He triumphed over his enemies, and
spent the end of his life as undisputed head of a theocratic
state, a portly, elderly man, full of years and honours,
revered by all with whom he came in contact as Pope
and Caesar in one. It is greatly to his credit that this
position never turned his head. In the hour of his glory
the epileptic visionary behaved like a prudent and cautious
statesman, disclaimed all miraculous powers, and continually
reminded his followers that he was but an ordinary man.
Neither can any great fault be found with his private life.
He would have been less open to criticism if he had not
received special revelations authorising his irregular unions;
but, on the whole, considering the state of public feeling
in Arabia at the time, it cannot be denied that the ten

1 Vide Note III., p. 208, "On Mohammed's Ideas of Christianity."ON MOHAMMEDANISM	177

widows and one maid whom he espoused were a very-
modest allowance for a man with the opportunities of
Solomon. But his success had a far-reaching and not a
good effect on his religious system. Mohammed con-
founded the Church and the State, because he was him-
self the head of both; he established not so much a
system of doctrines as a polity regulated by a vast
number of complicated ordinances, which, though purely
secular in their scope, have acquired a religious character
and sanction. Unity has not been preserved in Islam any
more than in Christianity, and it cannot be said that at
the present day the Mohammedan Church is one body
under one head; but in every country where it is the
dominant faith, its members are held together less by
common doctrines and observances than by the feeling
that they all belong to a privileged political order, which
confers certain rights, and exacts certain duties from its
members. Perhaps we may even hazard the surmise that
some of the first Moslims were attracted to the Prophet,
not so much by devotion to monotheism, as by a liking
for well-organised and successful military expeditions. Islam
has never won for itself the position of a cosmopolitan
expression of monotheism. Many Western philosophers
have called themselves Theists or Deists, but none have
become, or apparently thought of becoming, Mohammedans.

The Creed couples the books and the prophets of God,
and we had better follow its example by treating of
Mohammed and the Koran together, for the book cannot
be separated from its writer. Theoretically Moslim theo-
logians hold that the Almighty has revealed 104 sacred
books: ten to Adam, fifty to Seth, thirty to Enoch, ten
to Abraham, and one apiece to Moses, David, Jesus, and
Mohammed. "This book," said Gabriel, in delivering the
Koran to the Prophet, "is a guide to the pious . . .
who believe in what was revealed to thee and what

Mi78

TURKEY IN EUROPE

was revealed before thee." The revelation to Moses is
called the Taurat, from the Hebrew Tora or law. It is
mentioned in the Koran (e.g. " He has sent down to thee
the Book confirming what was before it, and has revealed
the law and the gospel before for the guidance of
men"), but it is related in the " Traditions" that when
Omar proposed to read the Pentateuch to the Prophet,
the latter looked annoyed. Well, pereant qui ante nos
nostra dixerint. The Psalms of David are several times
alluded to in the Koran under the name of Zabur, and
once quoted. " We have written in the Zabur, ' My
righteous servants shall inherit the earth.'"1 The book
revealed to Jesus is called Injil, a corruption of Euan-
gelion, but is not identical with the Gospels, for it is
a book given to Jesus by God, and not an account of his
life and teaching. According to strict theology, Jews and
Christians are called " People of the Book " (Ehlu-'l-Kitab),
and enjoy a position superior to that of heathen poly-
theists. The courteous Mollah, who shows the intelligent
stranger round his mosque, and hopes that the largeness
of his views will find a counterpart in his gratuity, often
lays stress on the fact that Christians and Moslims are
alike "people of the Book." But, except on such occa-
sions, I doubt if the respect paid by Moslims to our
Scriptures is of any practical importance or effect.

As Mohammed superseded all previous prophets, so does
the Koran obliterate and replace all previous revelations.
Not even the learned make any pretence of studying them,
and, indeed, all but the last four are purely imaginary. But
the Koran is a living reality, and, within certain geographical
limits, as important a phenomenon for the science of huma-
nity as is the Bible. Never was there a religion more bib-
liolatrous than Islam. The Moslims lavish on a book that
veneration which it is forbidden to accord to images or
1 Sura XXI.; cf. Ps. xxxvii. 29.ON MOHAMMEDANISM	179

symbols. Not only is the Koran believed to be inspired
in our sense of the phrase, but it is held to be the ipsissima
verba of the Almighty, created by Him from all eternity,
and preserved in the highest heaven till the time of
Mohammed, when it was sent down to the lowest sphere,
and thence delivered to the Prophet piecemeal by the
angel Gabriel. It is amazing that any Arabic-speaking
people should accept this account of the Koran, for never
was any work more clearly not a connected whole, but a
collection of disjointed fragments. The Prophet dictated
to various secretaries the thoughts which he considered
as revelations, and these were subsequently collected into
a volume under the direction of the Caliph Osman. The
present arrangement of the work is purely arbitrary, the
chapters being placed according to length, the longest first.
The chronological order is rather the exact opposite, the
short rhapsodical suras, many of them full of feeling and
poetry, being the early utterances of Mohammed when the
revelation first burst on him, whereas the long didactic and
legislative discourses, which are comparatively tame and
flat, are the work of a man with an assured position, much
of whose early enthusiasm has died away. It is difficult
for a Western to judge of the Koran fairly. Its faults as
a literary production are certainly glaring. The style is
loose and often ungrammatical; the author frequently
repeats and sometimes contradicts himself,1 and had no
notion of telling a story clearly. Compare the histories of
Abraham, Joseph, and other well-known characters as given
in the Bible and as related by Mohammed, and it will be
seen that the Arabic account is hardly intelligible to a
reader unacquainted with the subject. It was perhaps the
consciousness of a certain natural obscurity that caused the
Prophet to so often reiterate his main doctrines in the most
striking and definite form, and endeavour to make his work

1 Vide Note IV., p. 212, "On Abrogated Verses in the Koran."i8o	TURKEY IN EUROPE

a plain and perspicuous book, which on all main points
it certainly is. But what we cannot well judge of is the
linguistic effect of the Koran as a rhetorical composition.
There is no doubt that its rhyming periods have an over-
powering attraction for the Arab ear, which is charmed and
intoxicated by the resonant sound, so that it takes no
notice of the imperfections of the sense—a phenomenon
not unknown in the religious literature of other countries.
Most Turks, however, though they know what their prayers
mean, have no pretension to a knowledge of Arabic, and
their attitude is similar to that of the old lady who found
such comfort in "that blessed word Mesopotamia." Yet,
however little they may understand the sacred book, it has
an important influence on the life and general condition of
the Turkish Empire.

Firstly, the unprogressive character of Mohammedanism
is due mainly to the Koran. We have seen how the differ-
ence between the lives of Christ and Mohammed is reflected
in the differences between their religions. Not less marked
has been the effect of the sacred books of Islam and
Christianity. One of the most remarkable features of the
Gospel is its indefiniteness, in the best sense of the word—
that is to say, there is so little in it applicable to only one
place or one epoch. If one thinks of what are usually
considered the crying faults of the times in which our
Lord lived—such as idolatry, slavery, and various forms
of cruelty and lust—it is surprising to find that they are
not denounced in the Gospel or even forbidden. A per-
fectly general system of morality, applicable to all ages, is
enunciated, which renders these and other sins impossible
for those who practise it, but detail and local colour are
conspicuous by their absence. The Koran is the opposite
of all this. Mohammed denounces the idolatry, infanticide,,
and other evil customs of the Pagan Arabs, somewhat after
the manner of the Prophets of the Old Testament, andON MOHAMMEDANISM	181

conferred an inestimable boon on Arabia by changing the
existing condition of religion and society. Unfortunately,
he also thought proper to legislate in detail for the form of
society which he preferred—a state of things certainly far
superior to that which he abolished, but still not one to
be forced upon all nations in all times and 'countries. He
legalised polygamy, slavery v and other things to which
objection may be taken, and it is impossible to detach
his theological teaching from his legislation. The weakness
of Islam is that a liberal interpretation of the Koran pre-
sents almost insuperable difficulties. The New Testament
lends itself to many modes of treatment; both Roman
Catholics and Broad Churchmen read it with approval;
it was not composed by the founder of the Christian
religion; it puts forward no claims on its own behalf, but
appeals mutely to the succeeding ages to interpret it as
best suits their need. The Koran, on the contrary, after
an introductory prayer, opens with the notable words,
" There is no doubt in this book/' and throughout con-
stantly asserts that it is a revelation sent by the Almighty.
Its precepts are put forward, not only as injunctions of
the Prophet, but as divine orders. Such coherency and
thoroughness were, and still are, an enormous force for
Mohammedanism as the Church militant. They give it an
unequalled power of converting, drilling, and disciplining
savage nations. But the same characteristics become a
source of weakness in the religion of a great state in
contact with European Powers. Much of Mohammed's
legislation is wholly incompatible, not only with what is
commonly called civilisation, but with commerce and other
business which a nation must carry on, if it does not desire
to be left behind. Yet there are no means of modifying
the law of the Prophet, or of setting it aside as non-
essential. No Western critic or Eastern heretic has ever
disputed the genuineness of a single chapter, or even verse,182	TURKEY IN EUROPE

of the Koran. The book announces itself as the Word of
God, " a direction to the pious," and must be accepted as
a whole, and unreservedly, or not at all. As the Prophet
left his Church and State, so they are now, and so they
must remain—austere, rigid, unalterable, with only a curse
and a sword-thrust for those whose institutions do not
harmonise with their prescriptions.

Such is the general effect of the Koran, and it is not
a good one; but in another and special manner its teaching
has proved disastrous in Turkey and other countries where
there are Christians under a Mohammedan government.
During a great part of his mission the Prophet was engaged
in actual warfare with the Meccans or the tribes of the
Hijaz. The suras composed during this period reflect his
own feelings at the time, and contain violent denunciations
of the unbelievers, and exhortations to his followers to slay
them without mercy.

"Fight in God's way with those who fight with you. . . . Kill
them wherever ye find them . . . for sedition is worse than slaughter.
But fight them not by the sacred mosque until they fight you there;
then kill them, for such is the recompense of those that misbelieve.
. . . Fight them that there be no sedition, and that the religion
may be God's" (II. 185).

"And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off their
heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds"
(XLVII. or Mohammed, 4).

There is every reason to believe that such passages had
reference to the particular occasions on which 'they were
uttered, and were not meant to be specially applicable to
Christians, whom Mohammed intended to treat with toler-
ance. But Moslims, and particularly Turkish Moslims, are
very uncritical. Their method of interpretation is exactly
that of the devout Christian who said, "None of your
contexts for me. Plain Scripture is what I go by." De-
nunciations such as those cited are quoted in a detachedON MOHAMMEDANISM	18 3

form, and not only contribute to maintain permanently
hostile feelings between the Mohammedan and Christian
subjects of the Sultan, but are used to excuse, even if they **
do not provoke, deliberate massacre.

Of course these diatribes, even if read in their true
sense, show how great is the difference between Moham-
medan and Christian ethics. The Prophet did not love
his enemies or turn his cheek to the smiter. All his moods
and vicissitudes, his struggles, anger, triumph, and prosperity
are reflected in his book, and form part of the moral law
of his followers. It may seem unjust to call the Koran
worldly, for it insists continually and vehemently on the
awful reality of the next life and the folly of those who
attach importance to earthly things. The Prophet, of course,
praises martyrs and self-sacrifice, but he seems to point to
an ideal of dignified and prayerful, but distinctly mundane,
prosperity. He enjoins alms; he bids his followers deal
justly with widows, orphans, and the poor, but as men in a
superior position creditably fulfilling their obligations. He
did not consort with publicans and sinners, but with men
of liberal views from the best families of Mecca. The
quality on which he unconsciously lays stress, and which,
doubtless, characterised him in his later years, as it char-
acterises his followers now, is a certain grave dignity,
hating, above all, anything frivolous and fussy, but not
averse to discreet self-indulgence in private, and perhaps,
according to our ideas, not entirely clear from the charge
of hypocrisy.

Islam is the youngest of the great religions, and there-
fore has had less time to change. But even if full weight
be allowed for this relative youth, it is remarkable how
accurately the precepts of the founder are obeyed, how
closely his example is followed. Could St. Peter or St. Paul
enter the cathedrals which bear their names, could Buddha
visit the temple of the Grand Lama at Lhassa, they would184	TURKEY IN EUROPE

probably be mystified and astonished by the religious ser-
vices which they would witness. But were Mohammed to
** be present at the Namaz in St. Sophia, there is no reason
to believe he would see anything to arouse his surprise
or criticism. The whole ceremonial, the gestures and the
language, come from Arabia, and are what he himself used
and prescribed 1300 years ago. This invariability is not
altogether due to the minuteness of the Koranic regulations.
The omissions of that work on some subjects are as remark-
able as its prolixity on others, and it is by no means a
complete thesaurus of Moslim law and ceremonial, e.g.
circumcision, which is generally considered of binding obli-
gation, is never enjoined. This and a host of other rules
which regulate the life of the individual and the community
are due to the example or verbal precepts of the Prophet as
reported in the " Traditions," often spoken of collectively as
the Sunna or Sonna.1 They are not theoretically of the same
weight as the Koran, but they form for all intents and pur-
poses a sacred book, and no orthodox Mohammedan would
dream of questioning their authority. The most remarkable
instance of the deep impression left by the local environment
of the Prophet is the Hajj,2 or pilgrimage to Mecca. Every
Mohammedan is bound once in his life to visit the holy
city, and there perform a number of ceremonies, unique in
the ritual of Islam. It is clear that Mohammed, partly not
to offend his followers, partly in obedience to his own pre-
judices as a Meccan, felt bound to respect the ancient
ceremonies and sacred sites. By so doing he unavoidably
forged another link in the chain which connects his
religion with superstition and barbarism. During the Hajj
Islam has no pretensions to be cosmopolitan, but becomes
entirely Arabian, and adores not the Lord of all worlds
but old Meccan fetishes. The devout Haji cannot but

1	Vide Note V., p. 212, " On the Traditions."

2	Vide Note VI., p. 213, "On the Ceremonies of the Hajj."ON MOHAMMEDANISM	18 5

return with increased prejudices against progress and
civilisation.1

To return to the Creed. The belief in angels is perhaps
the least important article of all. It contributes that element
of mythology which no popular religion has ever been able
to eliminate, and seems to consecrate the many stories
respecting ghosts, witchcraft, and magic current among the
superstitious peasantry. Just as in morals, the Moslim
cannot escape from the antiquated prescriptions of the
Koran, so in the intellectual sphere he is bound to believe
in the existence of a whole pantheon of angels, devils, and
jinns. The last named, who are repeatedly mentioned in
the Koran, are supernatural beings, created from fire, not,
like mankind, from the dust, and possessed of miraculous
powers. They were the servants of Solomon, as recounted
in Sura XXVII., and Mohammed himself is said to have
preached to them near Taif.

The doctrine of the last day, or judgment of God and
the resurrection of the dead, is so familiar to the Christian
world that one is apt to forget that most pagan nations
hold it either not at all or in an exceedingly fragmentary
form. It is one of the greatest achievements of Mohammed
that his words still succeed in implanting in rude converts
from heathenism, as well as in educated Moslims, an intense
conviction of the reality of the next world, and a readiness
to sacrifice this brief life for the unending life to come.
The joys of Mohammed's paradise have generally been
stigmatised as coarse and sensual. The criticism is just;
for though there are not wanting in the Koran passages
which seem to point to higher and more spiritual ideas,
they are rare and obscure, whereas the descriptions of the

1 Mohammedan doctors say that Islam consists of the performance of five
duties : (1) Bearing witness that there is but one God ; (2) praying five times
a day ; (3) giving alms ; (4) fasting in Ramazan ; (5) making the pilgrimage
to Mecca once in a life. It is noticeable that the Hajj is treated as of the
same importance as the profession of monotheism.186

TURKEY IN EUROPE

material pleasures to be enjoyed by believers are many
in number and explicit in detail. But it is worth while
noticing that the houris, which have so struck Western
imagination, are not the chief feature of the Koranic para-
dise, which is really the ideal of the dweller in the desert,
and the opposite of the evils most familiar to him on earth.
As the frozen Eskimo has been said to think of heaven as
essentially a hot place, and to pain the missionary by his
simple and outspoken desire to go to hell-fire, so the scorched
Arab naturally connects bliss with coolness, shade, and run-
ning water, and an examination of the Prophet's words will
prove that these are the joys of heaven on which he most
insists.

But whatever we think of this heaven and hell, there
can be no doubt of their reality for the Moslims. The
Turkish soldier believes in paradise as firmly as did the
followers of the Old Man of the Mountain, and exposes
himself without hesitation to a death which will take him
straight to eternal felicity. For it is to be observed that
the award of the last judgment is not strictly in accordance
with our ideas of right and wrong. All non-Mohammedans
are doomed to eternal punishment, and all Mohammedans
will reach heaven eventually after passing through a more
or less lengthy purgatory. Martyrs, however, will go straight
to bliss; and by martyrs are meant all who fall in battle
fighting against the infidel—a characteristic definition. Such
a doctrine harmonises admirably with the spirit of a mili-
tary race, but is somewhat apt to make the Moslim think
he has no moral obligations towards Christians, though it
would be most unfair to say that this is the teaching of the
Koran. We have seen elsewhere that the Turk has no
definite equivalent for our word Turkey. He consequently
draws no clear distinction between what we should call
natives and foreigners. He speaks of Christians, Franks,
and Moslims, but he would never talk of a Turkish Chris-ON MOHAMMEDANISM	187

tian in the same way that we might speak of an English
Roman Catholic. Hence he sees no distinction in kind
between a war with Russia and an attack on Armenians;
both are jihad, or battle with the infidel. He has a ten-
dency, and a tendency which is daily becoming more pro-
nounced, to regard every Christian as an enemy of the
Moslim religion and the Moslim state, and to restrict the
most elementary moral duties to persons of his own creed.
In this restricted sphere Turkish morality is, no doubt, on
the whole satisfactory, particularly among the lower classes
and in the provinces. But it may be doubted if the most
liberal and tolerant Moslim is ready to punish a member of
his own creed for the worst excesses against Christians.

No doctrine of Islam has left a stronger impress on the
nations who have adopted it than the belief in predestina-
tion, or the decrees of God—kadr or Tcismet. It is the un-
doubted teaching of orthodox Mohammedanism1 that all
the actions of mankind are absolutely predestined by the
Deity, who writes them down beforehand in a register (" the
preserved tablet"). It is popularly believed that on the
festival called " The night of decrees " (Leilatu-'l-berat) the
guardian angels receive from the Almighty a tablet on
which is inscribed the fate of their charges during the
coming year, and pessimistic fancy adds that he who listens
may hear them weeping as they read the lines of destiny.
Not only does the Moslim hold that the course of the
world is predestined, but he thinks of the will of God as
something external to himself, which may mar his best

1 It is natural that so energetic a man as Mohammed should occasionally
have used language inconsistent with fatalism. There is a remarkable passage

(Sura IV. 80) which, according to the commentator, contains no contradic-

tion, though the infidel reader may feel less certain as to its coherency :—

"Wherever ye may be, death will overtake you, though ye were in lofty
towers. And if a good thing befall them they say, 4 This is from God ;' but
if a bad thing, 'This is from thee.' Say, lAU is from God.' What ails these
people 1 They can scarce understand a tale. Say, ' What befalls thee of
good is from God, and what befalls thee of bad is from thyself'"188	TURKEY IN EUROPE

efforts or unexpectedly crown his supineness with unmerited
prosperity. Such ideas paralyse the natural energy of the
Turk, and reflect themselves in popular language. " The
pestilence raged for forty years, and the people whose time
had come to die did die," says a proverb. Why then take
any sanitary precautions ? It is irreligious to suppose you
can avoid answering your name at God's roll-call by sprink-
ling yourself with carbolic acid or any other profane nasti-
ness, and if your name is not on the list, you run no danger.
All Turkish life, private and political, is permeated with
this spirit. The people are in a way full of vigour, but
no race has so little ambition in the sense of deliberately
prosecuting a distant object. The early Sultans indeed
cherished the idea of the conquest of all Christian Europe,
and showed a fair amount of skill and perseverance in
directing their absolute power to this end. But it is long
since any plan other than merely negative can be traced
in Turkish policy. " Sufficient unto the day is the evil
thereof" (the saying, I admit, is not Mohammed's); let us
adopt any temporary shift to procure money or get rid of
the interference of foreign Powers for the next week, and
leave the future to God. Doubtless He will " set the dog
to worry the pig;" the Kussians will probably fall foul of
the English, and the servants of God will be able to repose
again. The extraordinary thing is that the Empire which
has practised this policy for so long is still, and, in spite
of the prophecies of its enemies, alive and apparently able
to obtain money whenever it is really required, and to show
vigour when least expected.

We have thus enumerated the chief doctrines of Islam,
and endeavoured to see what is their practical effect on the
life of the nation which professes them. The result of our
brief examination seems to be that this effect is, in the
main, cramping, restrictive, and sterilising; and it is there-
fore necessary to point out that this religion has anotherON MOHAMMEDANISM	189

and vivifying side. Probably no system has done so much
to encourage individual liberty and responsibility, despite
its formality, despite its despotism, despite the fatalism
which it teaches. It is the most unsacerdotal religion in
the world; it recognises no sort of priest, and calls on every
man to save and justify himself before the Almighty. The
most solemn ceremony performed by the Caliph as head
of the faith does not differ in kind from the daily prayers
of the most illiterate peasant. This sense of individual
importance has its counterpart in daily life, for instance,
in the Turkish soldier—the incarnation alike of Islam and
of the Turkish race. According to military experts, he has
not only the passive obedience of the Slav, but a readiness
in finding expedients and an individual initiative which are
rare in the armies of other countries. Islam has hallowed
and strengthened the sense of discipline, the unquestioning
submission to authority, which have always characterised
the Turk; but, on the other hand, by inculcating on every
man a feeling of his dignity and a consciousness of his
responsibility, it encourages and enlivens individual effort
in the few spheres in which those who profess it are able
to show energy. The Sultan may be a Roman emperor;
but every Turk is a Roman citizen, with a profound self-
respect and a sense not only of his duties, but of what is
due.to him.

Islam also deserves all credit for the temperance which
it preaches. No doubt the upper classes in Constantinople
drink considerably, and drink with the deliberate intention
of intoxicating themselves. But putting aside this section
of society, which may justly be described as contaminated
by European influences, it may be safely said that the great
majority of the Turkish nation—soldiers, peasants, mer-
chants, and the learned professions—never touch alcohol.
Against the moral value of this abstinence may be set off
the position assigned to women; but any just criticism ofTURKEY IN EUROPE

Mohammed's legislation on this subject and its results must
not lose sight of two points. Firstly, Mohammed did not
invent the seclusion and subjection of women. He accepted,
with some improvements, the current Arabian ideas on the
subject. The system of the harem is in its origin not
Moslim, but simply Oriental. The only reproach that can
be made against the Prophet is that on which I have
already dilated—namely, that by too definite legislation he
rendered subsequent development and reform impossible.
Secondly, those who talk of the degradation of Mohammedan
women would do well to remember that in Mohammedan
countries prostitution and illegitimacy are almost unknown.
It is true that only the length of his purse and the temper
of his lawful wives (both of them very effective restraints)
limit the unions which a Moslim may contract with slaves,
but the offspring of such unions are legitimate children,
and inherit share and share alike with the children born
in wedlock. A Moslim woman is never free, but, on the
other hand, it is almost impossible to imagine any circum-
stances in which she would be cast on the world without
a protector. A certain solidarity characterises, not only
family relations, but all Moslim society. There are no
paupers; giving alms is not a mere theoretical obligation,
but an essential religious duty really discharged. It may
be replied that there are many beggars. There are, and
the spectacle is very unpleasant; but, from the beggars
point of view, could they, given their misfortunes, have
a better life ? If one has twisted limbs or any incurable
malady, including laziness, is it not more healthy, interest-
ing, and lucrative, to sit begging at street corners than to
be the inmate of a charitable institution ? One thing is
certain—Moslim beggars never starve.

Nor is Islam wanting in more intellectual excellences.
If we could only strip from it its bibliolatry, and sever
the fatal connection between religious and secular law, theON MOHAMMEDANISM	191

manly simplicity of its cardinal doctrines, its calm accep-
tance of the existing order of the world, rising superior to
explanations based on emotion and sentiment, and its dig-
nified resignation to the will of God, must command our
approval and sympathy. Those who have devoted adequate
and impartial attention to the life and work of the Prophet
of God will mostly admit that a feeling of admiration and
respect dominates their most critical estimates of him, and
will not refuse to join in the modest benediction which
generally accompanies his name, " God bless him and grant
him peace/'

Any estimate of the influence of Islam in Turkey would
be misleading without reference to an important pheno-
menon on which we have not yet touched—the dervishes.
It may seem, and indeed it is, a flat contradiction of most
of the previous statements in this chapter to say that Islam
is so essentially a Semitic religion that it is hardly ever
held in a pure form except by Semitic races. But the con-
tradiction exists in fact. Moslim law, politics, society, and
morality—above all, everything connected with mosques
and similar institutions—show a rigorous adherence to the
precepts of the Prophet. But in the domain of personal
religion, although the true Turk is more stolid than the
other races of the Empire, Turks as well as Aryans crave
for something more human than Allah, something more
emotional than the disciplined gymnastics of the Namaz.
The Persian and Indian Shiahs have modified Islam more
profoundly than they would care to admit, in order to satisfy
these cravings; and in Turkey, side by side with the rigid
orthodoxy of the Mollahs, we find that the dervishes supply
the element of mystery, ceremony, and excitement which
the populace love, and which Mohammed would probably
have disliked. They appeal to the highest and lowest
forms of religious sentiment. Educated minds find pleasure
in the poetical speculations of the Mesnevi, while wonder-192	TURKEY IN EUROPE

working saints, holy tombs, singing, dancing, and quasi-
magical ceremonies please the vulgar.

The Persian word dervish appears to mean originally a
begging monk, though not necessarily or usually a celibate,
but is now often loosely applied to the members of any reli-
gious confraternity. Thus the followers of the Mahdi and of
the Sheikh Senusi are often styled dervishes, although their
peculiar tenets appear to consist chiefly in an attempt to
return to the primitive conditions of the Moslim state and
have nothing in common with those of the Turkish der-
vishes. It is only of the latter that I speak here. There
are several orders of them, the most important being the
Bektashis, the Mevlevis, and the Rufais (the two latter
commonly known to Europeans as dancing and howling
dervishes); but they all possess certain common peculiari-
ties which may conveniently be treated of together. The
peculiar ritual or method of imparting mystical doctrines
practised by any order is called its tariq, or road, and the
members are said to follow such and such a road.

As we have seen, the transition from the Moslim idea of
God to pantheism is not difficult. The Semites, not being
metaphysical, do not make this transition; but other races
have a tendency to do so, and the dervishes give expression
to this tendency. All things are created by God, and all
things happen by His will and pleasure. " There is no power
or strength," or, as we should say, force," except in God." He
alone exists, and the whole universe is an emanation of Him,
and in fact is God. The distinction between the Creator
and the creature, between thee and me, disappears; all is
reduced to unity. For the fully initiated there are no
personal pronouns. It is related in the Mesnevi that a
lover—that is, the inquiring human soul—knocked at the
door of his beloved, by which name the Divine Power is
typified. The voice from within cried, " Who is there ?"
The lover answered, " It is I." " This house will not holdON MOHAMMEDANISM

me and thee," replied the voice. The lover departed, and
after a year of prayer and fasting returned, knocked again,
and in answer to the question, " Who is there ?" replied,
" It is thou " " Let myself come in," replied the voice, and
the door opened.

This is, no doubt, an extreme specimen of dervish mysti-
cism ; one cannot arrive at such conceptions without con-
siderable training; but they are the goal towards which all
dervish and Sufi1 teaching tends. These philosophers are
far from believing, with Mohammed and his real followers,
that God has revealed the truth in " a plain book." For
them the religious man is not so much a believer as a seeker
after truth, and his life a journey through several stages, of
which the last is absorption into the Deity. Their religious
terminology is full of such expressions as " the knowledge
and love of God," which, however, bears a more mystical
and less personal meaning than we attach to it. Mohammed
would probably not have liked the phrase, and would cer-
tainly have explained it as signifying " Fear God and read
the Scriptures."

Dervishes observe the Mohammedan forms of prayer,
Ramazan, and other ceremonies; but they have also their
own characteristic form of worship called Zikr, consisting of
the repetition, sometimes continued during several hours, of
some religious formula, such as " There is no God but God,"
or the ninety and nine names of the Deity. The formulae
used are almost all of unimpeachable orthodoxy; but the
spirit of the performance is widely different from that of the
Namaz, as its object is to distract the devotee's mind from
earthly things, and finally to throw him into the state of
trance or ecstasy, called hal. The repetition of such for-
mulae can, no doubt, be defended from the Sunna; but it is
clear that the whole doctrine and practice of the dervishes

1 A name of uncertain derivation given to the mystical and poetical
philosophy of such Persian authors as Hafiz.

N194

TURKEY IN EUROPE

contain a large pre-Mohammedan element, which is per-
haps Indian in origin. The connection with Persia is clear
enough. Some of their most revered Sheikhs came from
Persian-speaking countries and wrote in Persian; they are
on good terms with the Shiahs and share their peculiar
respect for the Caliph Ali. This personage is the great
subject of contention between the Sunnite and Shiite sections
of the Moslim world. The former consider that he was the
fourth Khalifa, neither greater nor less than the others; the
latter that he was the rightful successor of Mohammed.
They reject the Sunnite Khalifas, and specially execrate the
memory of the first three, who kept Ali out of his rights,
and of those who were responsible for the murder of his
sons Hasan and Husein. Somehow or other, Ali has become
associated with mystical and heretical doctrines; his ad-
mirers are suspected of considering him not only the equal
of the Prophet but an incarnation of the Deity, and mono-
grams of his name are a conspicuous feature in most dervish
Tekkes. Hence he has among rigid Sunnites a somewhat
equivocal position, similar to that of the Virgin Mary among
Protestants.

It is somewhat difficult to explain the position of der-
vishes in the Turkish Moslim world. They cannot. be said
to be unorthodox, for nearly every religious man is a lay
member of one or other of their orders. They profess an
ostentatious respect for the externals of Islam, and they
have a great influence among the people. But, on the other
hand, their esoteric doctrines, as expounded in such a work
as the Mesnevi, cannot be reconciled with the natural mean-
ing of the Koran, and there is a deep-seated animosity
between dervishes and the officials of the established Mo-
hammedan Church, such as Mollahs and Softas. The Mollahs
are beneficed clergy in receipt of some small salary attached
to mosques and other pious foundations, the Softas theo-
logical students. There are many thousands of them inON MOHAMMEDANISM	195

such religious centres as Constantinople and Konia, but the
reason why most of them have adopted this learned profes-
sion is not by any means a passion for theology, but a desire
to escape military service, which can only be done by pro-
fessing oneself a religious student. If once accepted in a
medresse, or school, they are practically provided for during
their lives, and can lead an existence of almost absolute
idleness. Their chief occupation consists in learning by
heart treatises on Moslim law, which they make no attempt
to understand, and they are often unable to read or write.
These large houses of fanatical and ignorant men, mostly
between the ages of twenty and forty, without regular em-
ployment, are a constant source of danger, and are some-
times disbanded by the Government. It would, perhaps, be
an illusion to imagine that the average dervish is less ignorant
and superstitious than the average Softa, but he is certainly far
more gentle and less fanatical; the authors whom he studies
are, if more extravagant, less cramping, and the farther he
travels on the road of pantheism the more tolerant does he
become. But to pantheism is closely allied the dangerous
doctrine that, as both good and evil come from God, there is
no difference between them. Such a tenet can be safely held
only by those few who have really mastered their passions
and extinguished their desires; but it is to be feared that
many dervishes find it easier to understand that the prohi-
bition of such things as alcohol does not apply to the elect
than to attain to the corresponding stage of self-control.

There is a certain external resemblance between Moham-
medanism and old-fashioned Anglicanism, and it is curious
to observe that some of the religious ceremonies of dervishes
are superficially analogous to those of extreme ritualists.
The ceremonial lighting of candles and the use of incense
in public worship, both of which are practised by dervishes,
are as hateful to the Mohammedan clergy as to the British
Protestant. " It is never related in the Traditions," a Mollah196	TURKEY IN EUROPE

once said to me, " that our Lord the Prophet went about
lighting candles on the tombs of dead dervishes. Had it
been necessary or useful we should certainly have heard
that he did so." 1

Of the orders mentioned above, the Bektashis were
founded in the fourteenth century by Haji Bektash, a native
of Bokhara. He also named and blessed the corps of Janis-
saries, which has always maintained a certain connection
with the order. The Bektashis have a remarkable shrine
and monastery—if, indeed, the latter word can be rightly
used of them—at Aramsun, near Csesarea, in the vilayet
of Angora. They are very widely spread over Turkey, and
are particularly influential in Albania. They have the re-
putation of being exceedingly antinomian both in theory
and practice. It is said, though I have never been able to
verify the statement, that the present Sultan is, or was, a
member of the order.

The Rufais were founded by Ahmed Rufai of Baghdad,
where his tomb still exists. They attempt, by the perform-
ance of their peculiar Zikr, to arrive at a state of ecstasy, in
which they cut themselves with knives and apply red-hot
irons to their mouths or other parts of their persons. They
are generally known as " The Howling Dervishes," because
the earlier stages of the ceremony, which are publicly per-
formed at two Tekkes at Constantinople, consist of shouting-
some short formula, such as " Ya, Allah ! " until the vocalists
fall on the ground exhausted, drenched in sweat. Many of
them are negroes, and any one who has had an opportunity of
seeing, in the Southern States of America, a negro service in a
church sufficiently far removed from white influences, will be
able to observe how congenial this form of ceremony is to the
African, whether celebrated in the name of Juju, Mohammedr

1 There is no objection to having lamps burning round a tomb or to large
wax candles being lighted when light is required. The enormity consists in
superfluously and ceremoniously lighting candles in the daylight.ON MOHAMMEDANISM

T97

or Christ. As far as I know, the later and severer stages of
this Zikr are not performed in Constantinople, at least not
publicly; but their existence is testified to by a collection
of cutlasses and uncanny spiked iron implements suspended
on the wall of the Tekke near the Mihrab. The Rufais
claim miraculous powers; and in Scutari, at the conclusion
of the Zikr, diseased children are brought in, and either
breathed upon by the Sheikh or placed under his feet. I once
walked back from the ceremony behind a father and his little
girl ^ho had sore ears, to cure which malady she had been
breathed upon by the Rufai Sheikh. " Thanks be to God,"
said the father, " his blessed breath touched you, and the
pain has gone." " But my ears hurt still," said the little
girl. " Oh no, they don't," said the father, with the calm
assurance of a dogmatic theorist. " They hurt more than
ever," said the little girl, considerably nettled.

The Mevlevi, or dancing dervishes, have perhaps a
greater historic and literary interest than the other orders,
and their picturesque ritual makes them popular in every
part of Turkey. They merit, therefore, some attention. The
founder of the sect was Jelalu-'d-Din-er-Rumi, commonly
called Mevlana, or " Our Lord," a native of Balkh, who came
with his father to the court of Alau-'d-Din, the Seljuk
Sultan who reigned at Konia in the early part of the thir-
teenth century. He there enjoyed an immense reputation
for learning and wisdom, and is said by his biographers to
have performed many miracles, and, in particular, to have
often transported himself to distant places, and to have re-
ceived similarly marvellous visits from foreign sages. He
composed a celebrated poem, called the Mesnevi (Arabic,
Mathnawi, or couplets), consisting of six books of Persian
verse, in which the Sufi system of pantheism is inculcated
with considerable elegance of expression through the medium
of a series of legends and apologues. The generalship of the
order is hereditary in his family, and the holder is commonly198	TURKEY IN EUROPE

known as the Chelebi1 of Konia, from the place of his resi-
dence. He is a person of great importance, and it is the
custom for him to gird each Osmanli sovereign, when he
ascends the throne, with the sword of Osman.

The popular account of this practice is as follows:—
When Osman was beginning his conquests, and had taken
Broussa and other towns from the Greeks, he sent a polite
embassy to Sultan Alau-'d-Din, who was then the most
considerable Turkish sovereign in Asia, to explain his pro-
ceedings and his desire to remain on good terms with the
greatest chieftain of his race. Alau-'d-Din replied that he
had no objection to the Osmanlis taking from the Greeks
whatever they could get, and, as a proof of his goodwill,
sent the celebrated Jelalu-'d-Din to give Osman a sword of
honour, a ceremony slightly suggesting the investiture of a
vassal. But this story presents difficulties. According to
the ordinary chronology, Alau-'d-Din reigned from 1219 to
1236 ; Jelalu-'d-Din was born in 1202, and died in 1273 ;
Osman reigned from 1288 to 1328.

I was once told by a Zaptie that when the Chelebi pro-
ceeds to Constantinople to gird on the sword, he does not
go farther than Scutari himself, but sends a representative
to perform the ceremony, because if he were to set foot in
Constantinople, he would, ipso facto, become Sultan and
Caliph. This is probably pure fiction, but it shows how
highly he is esteemed.

It is related of Mohammed that " when he heard the
noise of a musical pipe, he put his fingers into his ears;"
but Jelalu-'d-Din was passionately devoted to music, and,
like Luther, did not see why the devil should have all the
good tunes. He instituted the practice of dancing, or rather
whirling rapidly round to the sound of reed flutes, as a
means of attaining spiritual ecstasy. This exercise is called
by the dervishes sema, hearing, or muqabile, meeting—the

1 Chelebi means a refined or cultivated man.ON MOHAMMEDANISM	199

idea being that the soul rises above all earthly things, and
is alone, face to face with God, whose voice it can then hear.
The services of the dancing dervishes at Constantinople
have become little more than a show to make money out
of tourists; but at Konia they are conducted on a larger
scale and are seriously devotional, the public not being as a
rule admitted.1 Konia is, or was, a city of mud hovels, among
which tower a few majestic but dangerously dilapidated
gateways and minarets, dating from Seljuk times, white,
chaste, and inscribed with the austere warnings of the
Koran. In equal contrast to these and to the ignoble
modern tenements, rises a blue dome above the tomb of
"Our Lord" (Jelalu-'d-Din). The building beneath it con-
sists of three parts—a mosque, in which are performed all
the rites that can be required of devout Mohammedans; a
dancing-room or sema-Tchane; and a gallery leading from
it, in which is the tomb. The latter is protected by silver
railings, and the rich stuffs with which it is covered—the
lamps, candles, and other accessories—give it the appearance
of a Roman Catholic altar. On the walls are mystic mono-
grams, Persian inscriptions, and invocations to Sheikhs and
Pirs. When a solemn sema is performed in this building
at night, the strange costumes and tall head-dresses of the
whirling figures, the blaze of light, the weird music of the
moaning flutes, and the dimly descried glory of the altar-
tomb, combine to create an impression of mystery and splen-
dour which are often expected, but very rarely found, in what
those who have never been there call the gorgeous East.

I have heard on good authority that, in the dangerous
period in the winter of 1895-96, when religious and national
feeling ran high in Turkey, it was mainly owing to the
Mevlevis that the Softas of Konia were prevented from
attacking the Christian population of the town. The whole

1 I visited Konia before the railway reached the town. It may be changed
now.200	TURKEY IN EUROPE

sect are certainly most interesting and often excellent
people, and display a large-mindedness and receptivity to
European ideas which seem incredible to those who have
not talked with them. It is unfortunate that the same
studies which produce this spirit also lead them to retire
from the struggle of the world, and exert little active
influence.

I once had an opportunity of conversing with a high
functionary of the Mevlevi sect. By his request I visited
him between i o and 11 p.m., as the month was Kamazan,
and the earlier hours of the night were taken up by the
ordinary Mohammedan prayers. From his house, which
stood in a large courtyard, there issued a rhythmical noise
like the pulsations of a steam-engine, and I wondered if
there could be a factory in the neighbourhood. As I went
up the staircase the mysterious noise grew louder "and
louder, but I could not imagine whence it proceeded until
I was suddenly introduced into a large room where at least
a hundred dervishes were seated, some against the walls
and some on sheepskins spread in the middle of the floor,
dressed in flowing garments, blue or drab, and wearing tall
felt hats shaped like flower-pots. The noise was produced
by these all chanting " Ya Hu, ya Hu, ya Hu, ya Hii1 in a
low guttural voice, which spiritual exercise they intended
to continue till morning. The expression of their faces was
that of men in a mesmeric trance, and not one of them
seemed to notice the arrival of a stranger. In the middle
a stoutish man of about forty was walking up and down.
He was dressed like the others, but his shaggy yellow beard
and golden spectacles made him look more like a German
professor than a dancing dervish. He apologised for re-
ceiving me so late, saying, with a tolerant but weary air,
that he was obliged to attend the long prayers recited in

1 Hti or Huwa, the third personal pronoun in Arabic, is often used in the
sense of God.ON MOHAMMEDANISM

20I

mosques after sunset during Ramazan, and I thought he
also seemed rather glad to escape from his own religious
eeremony. He then took me into another room which
presented a very singular appearance, as it was lighted by
ten silver candlesticks placed on the floor in the shape of
the letter Y. There was no sofa or divan of any kind, and
we sat on cushions placed on the floor. On the wall were
hung some pictures of Mecca and of the Bektashi shrine
at Aramsun, as well as some remarkably bad photographs
which he had taken himself. He had obtained a kodak,
he told me, from Paris, but with infinite difficulty, and he
regretted that local prejudices did not allow him to use it
freely. To my great surprise he offered me raki, and took
some himself, though as a rule the laxest Mohammedan
will at least pretend not to drink in Eamazan. He apolo-
gised for not speaking French, which he said he could read
a little, and asked me if I could recommend him a good
French newspaper of liberal views. Then he said that he
had heard that Sir J. Redhouse had translated the Mesnevi
into English. Had it produced much effect in London ?
He had heard that music was used in English services, as
in those of the Mevlevis, and he seemed to think it would
be natural that British congregations should take to dancing
as well. I did not like to disappoint him by saying that I
had not heard of the existence of any dancing dervishes in
England, and therefore spoke of the Mohammedan Church
at Liverpool. He said with some hesitation, and in a low
voice, that this was not what he had meant. He did not
care about the introduction of Mohammedanism into Eng-
land, but he had hoped that people might have seen that
the mystic principles enunciated in the Mesnevi were com-
patible with all religions, and could be grafted on Christianity
as well as on Islam.202	TURKEY IN EUROPE

NOTES TO CHAPTER Y.

I. On Mohammedan Worship.

The prayers offered by Moslims fall into two classes. The first,
and by far the most important, is thfe form of prayer prescribed by
the Prophet, called Salat in Arabic, but generally known in Turkey
by the Persian name Namaz. The second class comprises all other
supplications, which are often distinguished from the ISTamaz by the
name of Du'a. Every Namaz consists of two or more repetitions of
a ceremony called Rikat (literally "prostration "), which may be re-
garded as the unit of worship, a service being said to consist of so
many rikats. A rikat is little more than the repetition in several
prescribed attitudes of the formulae Allahu akbar1 ("God is most
great") and Subhana 'llah (apparently meaning something like " "We
sing the praises of God ") and of a few verses of the Koran. These
latter may vary, but need not do so; a pious Moslim fulfils the duty
of prayer if he repeats the same gestures and formulae some twenty
or thirty times every day of his life. The Namaz should be per-
formed five times a day : at sunrise, when the sun has begun to
decline, midway between this hour and sunset, at sunset, and about
two hours later. There is a further distinction of prayers into farz,
or those believed to be prescribed by God, and sunnet, or those
founded on the practice of the Prophet. Thus, the mid-day prayer
consists of four rikats which are farz, but these are preceded by four
and followed by two rikats which are sunnet. There are also three
extra hours of prayer, and extra rikats, which may be performed at
the ordinary hours, but these are only observed by the very devout.
It is essential that the prayers should be said in Arabic, and that the
worshipper should have performed his ablutions. Men may say
them anywhere, but it is more meritorious if they attend a mosque.
Women should pray at home. At public services the Imam alone
prays aloud, the congregation repeat the words to themselves.

The word mosque is a corruption of Masjid (a place of prostra-
tion). The earliest form of these places of worship was apparently
an open stone platform with a wall at one end, but in Turkey they
are always covered buildings, pointing towards Mecca. The direc-
tion of the Holy City is marked by a Mihrab or niche, on each side
of which stand two large candles, and over which is almost invari-

1 Or, in Turkish pronunciation, ekber.ON MOHAMMEDANISM	203

ably written, " Whenever Zacharias visited her in the Mihrab."1
Near the Mihrab may usually be seen several Korans on wooden
stands, and to the right of it is a pulpit called Minbar, ascended by
a flight of steps. More in the centre of the building, but still on
the right hand, is a platform raised on pillars, on which sit Mollahs
who ofteu read the Koran between the services. On the walls are
generally large shields on which are written the names of God,
Mohammed, and the first four caliphs, and pious artists are pretty
sure to have painted on every convenient space caligraphic exerciser
which are often hard to decipher, but which generally prove to be
"There is no God but God, and Mohammed is his Prophet," the
verses of the Throne (Sura II. 256), the Fatiha, or some such senti-
ment as " God is the Light of the Heavens and the Earth," " God
is He who sees and hears." Near the door are places for ablution,
and in large mosques at Constantinople there is often on the left-
hand side a sort of private pew called Mahfil, in which the Sultan
can worship unseen at the Friday prayer.

With these explanations the reader should be able to follow any
Namaz, say the mid-day Friday Namaz at St. Sophia.

A little before the time for prayer an official called Muezzin
mounts the minaret and calls out a formula known as the Ezan,
which is as follows : " God is most great (four times). I testify
that there is no God but God (twice). I testify that Mohammed is
the Prophet of God (twice). Come to prayer (twice). Come to
salvation 2 (twice). God is most great (twice). There is no God but
God." Inside the mosque the Mollahs sitting on the elevated plat-
form repeat the same call, adding at the end, "Prayers are now
ready." Meanwhile worshippers have been dropping in and take
their places in long lines across the mosque. As they enter they
put off their shoes and leave them at the door. This usage is not
really ceremonial, but intended to keep clean the floor, which is
covered with matting. Those who have not performed their ablu-
tions at home wash their hands, feet, and faces in the mosque,
and take water into their mouths. Before beginning his prayera
each person repeats to himself a formula called Niyet : "I pro-

1 This strange inscription is chosen simply because it contains the word
Mihrab, which means here chamber. The passage comes from Chapter III. of
the Koran, which gives an account of the youth of the Virgin Mary. Per-
haps it is necessary to remind the reader that most Oriental inscriptions are
pointless. If they come from a holy book and look ornamental, no one
requires any more.

8 In the morning he adds, " Prayer is better than sleep."204

TURKEY IN EUROPE

pose to offer up this day to God alone, with a sincere heart and my
face turned towards Mecca, prayers of " so many rikats. The Imam
stands alone in front of the congregation, facing the Mihrab. The
first part of the Namaz is not said in unison, but by each person for
himself, kneeling and rising independently of his fellows. This is
because the rikats in question are sunnet, and not farz. As soon as
the farz rikats begin the whole congregation perform the prescribed
gestures simultaneously with the regularity of soldiers at drill. The
movements of the Imam are the same as those of the congregation,
and, as already explained, all the rikats are similar. The worshipper
raises his hands to the side of his head, and, touching his ears with
his thumb, says, "God is most great." Then, with his hands folded
below his waist and looking at the ground, he says, " I extol Thee,
O God,1 and praise be to Thee : blessed be Thy name and Thy great-
ness be magnified and Thy praise be glorified, for there is no God
save Thee." Then he says, " I seek refuge in God from Satan, the
accursed," and then recites the Fatiha, or first chapter of the Koran :
" In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Praise be
to God, the Lord of the Worlds, the Merciful, the Compassionate,
the Ruler of the Day of Judgment. Thee do we serve, and of Thee
we ask aid: lead us in the straight way, the way of those to whom
Thou art gracious, not of those against whom Thou art wroth, nor
of those that err." After this he repeats as many verses of the Koran
as he thinks proper. As a rule the Ikhlas (LXII.) is used, " Say,
He is God alone: God the Eternal: He begetteth not, and is not
begotten : And there is none like unto Him." Then he bows down,
placing his hands on his knees, but still standing, and says, " God is
most great. I praise God " (Subhana 'llah), the latter thrice. Then,
still erect, but with his hands at the side of his body, " God hears him
who praises Him. O Lord Thou art praised."2 Then he falls on
his knees and again says, " God is most great;" and then prostrat-
ing himself, with his forehead on the ground, repeats thrice " Sub-
hana 'llah." Then raising his body and sitting on his heels, he says,
" God is most great;" and then prostrating himself again, again
repeats, " God is most great—Subhana 'llah." This ends one rikat.
The second rikat of a series omits the introductory formulae and com-
mences with the fatiha. After every two rikats the worshipper sits
down with his left foot under him, and spreading his hands on his
knees says the following prayers: " Homage is due to God, and

1	Subhanaka 'llahumma.

2	A man praying alone says both verses. In a mosque the Imam says the
first and the congregation the second.ON MOHAMMEDANISM	205

prayers and good works. Peace be upon thee, O Prophet, and the
mercy of God and His blessing. Peace be upon us and on the
righteous servants of God." Then holding up the first finger of the
right hand, "I testify that there is no God but God, and I testify
that Mohammed is His slave and prophet." Every two rikats end
with this formula, which is called Teshahhud. At the end of the
whole set of rikats which make up any set of prayers, the following
is recited in the same sitting posture :—

" O God, have mercy on our Lord Mohammed and the family of
Mohammed, as Thou didst have mercy on Abraham and the family
of Abraham; for Thou art worthy to be praised, and Thou art
glorious."

" O God, bless our Lord Mohammed and the family of Mohammed,
as Thou didst bless Abraham and the family of Abraham; for Thou
art worthy to be praised, and Thou art glorious."

'' O Lord God, give us the blessings of this life and the blessings
of life everlasting; save us from the torments of hell."

Then turning the head first to the left and then to the right, he
says twice, "The peace and mercy of God be with you."

The full mid-day prayer on ordinary days consists of ten rikats,
four sunnet, four farz, and two more sunnet after the farz. On
Friday two extra sunnet rikats are recited, and there is also a sort
of sermon. A Mollah ascends the pulpit and pronounces an oration
called khutbe. In St. Sophia, and other mosques which were once
churches, he leans on a sword when preaching, and it is said that
in time of war he holds a drawn sword in his hand. The khutbe is
perhaps hardly a sermon in our sense of the word, for it is largely
addressed to the Deity, and contains prayers for the protection and
triumph of Islam. It also contains a commemoration of the early
Caliphs and companions of the Prophet (after each of whose names
the congregation respond, "May God-be pleased with him"), and a
prayer for the present Caliph. In Afghanistan and other inde-
pendent Moslim kingdoms I believe the sovereign of the country is
prayed for. In Russia and India prayers are sometimes offered for
the long life of the Czar or Queen, but this is a very different matter
to mentioning their name in the khutbe. " God bless the King,
God bless the faith's defender, God bless (no harm in blessing) the
Pretender," as the old Scotch song has it. On solemn occasions it is
usual for the Imam to offer up extra prayers, selected or composed
as he thinks best, which are called Munajat. I believe they are
always recited when the Sultan is present.206	TURKEY IN EUROPE

During Ramazan real sermons are often preached in the even-
ing. At this season, too, a long service called Teravih, consisting of
twenty rikats, is performed after the last Namaz, but the rikats do
not differ from the ordinary type.

The Koran frequently enjoins the offering of sacrifices and the
practice is considered meritorious. On the feast of Kurban Bairam
every adult male is bound to sacrifice a sheep. A sacrifice may not
be performed in a mosque, and is not, I believe, attended by any cere-
mony, except cutting the animal's throat with the words Bi-'smi-
'llah ("In the name of God"). It is meritorious to give the flesh
to the poor.

Apart from the Namaz, which is essentially a service to be
recited at certain hours, Mohammedans are accustomed to say a
prayer (Dua) on any solemn occasion, such as a departure, circumci-
sion, opening of a new house, &c. The fatiha is often thought suffi-
cient for such purposes, but sometimes other prayers are used which
are generally a collection of phrases from the Koran strung together.
Prayers for the dead are regarded as a sacred duty and Turkish
epitaphs generally end with the appeal, " (Say) the fatiha for his
soul."

The following are the principal religious seasons observed in
Turkey. The dates are given according to the lunar months (which
are always used for religious purposes), and, of course, vary every
year when expressed in the solar reckoning:—

Ramazan : a month of fast in which neither food, drink, nor
tobacco must be taken between sunrise and sunset. People conse-
quently sleep through the day as much as they can and devote the
night to amusement or devotion. I have already mentioned the
Teravih services. Towards the end of Ramazan comes the Leil-ul-
Kadr, or "night of power."1 It is commonly observed on the 27th,
but, according to strict tradition, the exact date is unknown, and it
is only certain that it is between the 26th and 29th of Ramazan,
for which reason it is the custom to spend as much of those four
nights as possible in prayer, it being currently believed that there
is one moment at which all the requests of those who are found wor-
shipping are granted. Ramazan ends with the feast of Bairam (Sheval

1 The highly mysterious chapter of the Koran (Sura XCVII.) which speaks
of this night is as follows : " Verily we sent it (the Koran) down on the night
of power. And who shall make thee know what the night of power is ?
The night of power is better than a thousand months. In it descend the
angels and the spirit by permission of their Lord in every matter. It is
peace till the rising of the dawn."ON MOHAMMEDANISM	207

1), called in Arabic 'Idu-'l-fitr. The first morning prayer is per-
formed with great ceremony and followed by a khufbe and special
supplications; feasting continues for three days. About two months
later (Zi-'l-hijje 10) comes a second feast of three days, called in
Turkey Kurban-Bairam, but in Arabic-speaking countries Idu-'l-azha,
commemorating the sacrifice of Ismail (whom Mohammedan tradi-
tion substitutes for Isaac) by Abraham. On the first day the
morning Namaz is again performed with great solemnity and every
adult male sacrifices a sheep on returning to his house.

Other festivals are the following:—Leilu-'l-berat {vide supra,
page 187), on Shaban 15. Hirka-i-Sherif (Ramazan 15), the " Feast
of the Prophet's Mantle." The Sultan proceeds to the mosque
in the Old Serai in which this relic is preserved, and after per-
forming the mid-day prayer, venerates it and shows it to a select
company of high officials who accompany him. The relic is said to
be a small fragment of greenish cloth wrapped up in forty silk hand-
kerchiefs, each larger than the other. Mevlud, or birthday of the
Prophet (Rebiu-'l-evel 12). Leilu-'l-Miraj (Rejeb 27), the night
when Mohammed went up to heaven on a winged steed. On all
these occasions, including the entire month of Ramazan, it is cus-
tomary to illuminate the mosques and minarets at night with
hundreds of small lamps. A Turkish festival always begins at sun-
set on the previous day—e.g. if the date of the Mevlud is given as
July 30, the feast lasts from sunset July 29 to sunset July 30.

II. On Sunnites and Shiites.

The most important division of Mohammedans is into Sunnites
and Shiites. The latter number some fifteen millions in Persia and
India; to the former belong practically the whole of the rest of
Islam, for the heretical sects are of little numerical importance.

The Sunnites believe in the office of Khalifa, Successor or
Vicar of Mohammed, and accept Abu-Bekr, Omar, and Osman as
the first three Khalifas. They accept the six books of traditions
which are commonly designated by the name of Sunna. They are
divided into four schools, all equally orthodox, and differing only
in their interpretation of minute points of law and ritual—the
Hanafiyas (Turkey, Central Asia, and North India), Shafi'iyas
(Egypt)> Malakiyas (Morocco and North Africa), and Hambaliyas
(parts of Arabia).

The Shiites reject the institution of the Caliphate and hold that208	TURKEY IN EUROPE

after the death of Mohammed the headship of the Mohammedan
Church was vested in an Imam. The first Imam was Ali, whom
they consider the successor and almost the equal of the Prophet,
and the office continued to be hereditary in his family until the
time of the twelfth Imam, commonly called Imam al-Mahdi, who
mysteriously disappeared down a well, but is believed to be still
alive. His reappearance will announce the coming of the day of
judgment. The Shiahs have also a great veneration for Hasan and
Husein, the two sons of Ali, of whom the first was poisoned and
the second slain in battle near Kerbela. Their deaths are com-
memorated at the Persian festival of Muharrem. In distinction to
the Sunnites, who hold that truth can only be found in tradition,
and that no one at the present day is capable of forming a new and
independent opinion as to the interpretation of the Koran or sayings
of the Prophet, the Shiites maintain that certain learned doctors,
whom they call Mujtehid, have a right to use their judgment and
form such opinions. They reject the six books of the Sunnite tradi-
tions, but have other collections of traditions of their own. There
are various small differences between their ritual and law and those
of the Sunnites, the most important being that they are said to
admit temporary marriages, and to allow that a man may deny his
religion in order to save himself from persecution.

III. On Mohammed's Ideas Respecting Christianity.

Christ and Christianity are often mentioned in the Koran; and
it is a matter of some interest but great difficulty to know what was
the extent of Mohammed's acquaintance with the religion and what
was his real attitude towards those who professed it. He clearly
assumes that Christianity is a familiar reality to his audience, and
we can hardly doubt that he did his best to learn its tenets ; but, on
the other hand, it seems to me plain that he had never discussed
the religion with an even moderately orthodox Christian, and that
he had never read, or rather had read to him, any of the Gospels, at
least in their entirety.

In his own way the Prophet was a student of comparative re-
ligion, but it must be admitted that he was amazingly ignorant and
uncritical. He could not read; he believed that all his utterances
on religious questions were divinely inspired, and he slew those who
criticised them. Such a method begets a habit of rash assertion,
and it is instructive to observe some of his statements aboutON MOHAMMEDANISM	209

Judaism. It is clear that he had talked with Talmudists, and was
acquainted with even the details of many Talmudic legends. Yet
he accused the Jews of saying that Ezra was the Son of God,1
though there is nothing in Hebrew literature to warrant this strange
charge. He said that Pharaoh's vizier was called Haman, and that
the Virgin Mary was the sister of Aaron. Many critics have been
loth to admit that he was capable of confusing the two Miriams;
but litera scripta manet, and no explanation has been offered more
plausible than the irrefutable remark of the orthodox commentator
that for all we know the Virgin may have had a brother called
Aaron. Clearly the man who made such errors may have misrepre-
sented what he heard about Christianity; but his remarks on the
Crucifixion seem to me to prove conclusively that he had heard very
little. In Sura IV. 155, he says that Christ was not crucified, and
treats the statement that He was as a calumny of the Jews, similar
to their aspersions on the virtue of the Virgin Mary. Had he been
acquainted with ordinary Christian ideas respecting the Resurrec-
tion and Atonement, he would probably have denounced them, but
he could not have made a passing allusion to the Crucifixion as a
piece of Jewish scandal-mongering. No doubt, in the seventh cen-
tury, Oriental Christianity was more occupied with discussions on
the nature of Christ than with the doctrine of the Atonement; but
still Mohammed could hardly have conversed with Christians with
out discovering that the Crucifixion was as integral a part of their
faith as the Trinity or the sonship of Christ, and he would presum-
ably have criticised it as seriously as he criticised those doctrines. It
is often supposed that he came into contact with Gnostics, Ebionites,
and other schismatics. Perhaps so. It does not seem to me to be
proved that the theories of such people formed a natural part of the
intellectual atmosphere which he breathed, but we are all at the
mercy of linguistic hazard, and, maybe, the only Christian with
whom he could communicate was some fantastic sectary.

Directly or indirectly he knew that the Christians believed in
the Trinity and considered Christ to be the Son of God, and he
directed a severe polemic against these doctrines. He thought that
the Trinity consisted of the Father, Son, and the Virgin Mary.
This misconception seems to me to be easily explicable, particularly
if we suppose that his knowledge of Christian doctrine was second-
hand. There is a venerable, but eminently probable, anecdote which

1 IX. 30. " The Jews say Ezra is the Son of God and the Christians say
that the Messiah is the Son of God."

O2io	TURKEY IN EUROPE

relates that a Russian peasant, when questioned about the Trinity,
said he considered that it consisted of God, the Madonna, and St.
Nicholas. Perhaps the special title of Jesus, "The Spirit of God,"
arises from a confusion between the second and third persons of
the Trinity. Mohammed's declarations regarding the nature of
Christ are precise. He was miraculously created by God and had
no father ; but he was not the Son of God, because such an expression
implies relations between God and a woman which are incompatible
with the Moslim idea of the Deity. " When He decreeth a thing
He only saith 'Be' and it is." He ordered the miraculous birth of
Christ, but "He begetteth not and is not begotten." With this
reservation the Koran speaks of Christ with deep respect and
accords to him (Sura IY. 169) the title of " Rasulu-'llah," which is
the peculiar designation of Mohammed himself, and generally trans-
lated "Prophet of God," but more accurately "apostle." It also
contains long accounts of His nativity, which sometimes verbally
recall the first chapter of St. Luke, and of his miracles, among
which is that of making a clay bird live and fly, as recounted in
some apocryphal Gospels. It is not clearly stated in the Koran
what was the end of Christ's mission ; but, according to the Sunna,
when the Jews wished to crucify Him, He was taken up by God
into heaven, whence He will come again "to break the cross and
slay the swine." There is a curious passage in Sura Y. recounting
how Christ caused a table with food to descend from heaven, which
seems to be a confusion of the Last Supper and St. Peter's vision as
related in Acts x.

In Sura LXI. we read: "Jesus, the Son of Mary (Isa-ibn-Maryam),
said, ' O children of Israel, verily I am the Apostle of God to you,
confirming the law that was before me and giving you glad tidings
of an Apostle who shall come after me whose name shall be Ahmad.' "
Ahmad is a derivative from the same root as Mohammed, both
meaning "praised" or "glorious," and the Prophet no doubt meant
to say that Christ had foretold his coming. It is generally supposed
that the passage is an allusion to the promise of the Paraclete,
and that, in some corrupt Greek text, TlapaKXrjTos had become
changed into UepiKkvros, which might be rendered by Ahmad in
Arabic.

The following are a few of the more remarkable passages from
the Koran dealing with Christianity :—

Sura Y. 76 ff. "They are infidels who say, 4 Yerily God is the
Messiah, the Son of Mary.' But the Messiah said, 4 O children ofON MOHAMMEDANISM	211

Israel, worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' . . . They are infidels
who say, ' Yerily God is the third of three, for there is no God but
one.' . . . The Messiah, the Son of Mary, is only a prophet: prophets
before him have passed away. And his mother was a just woman.
They used both to eat food " {i.e. were not supernatural beings who
could live without nourishment).

IY. 169 ff. "0 people of the Book, do not exceed in your
religion or say of God aught but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus
the Son of Mary, is but the Apostle of God and His Word, which
He cast into Mary, and a spirit from Him. Believe in God and
His Apostles, and say not Three (i.e. that there is a Trinity).
Forbear : it will be better for you. God is one God. Far be it
from Him to beget a Son. . . . The Messiah doth not disdain to
be a servant of God."

Y. 116 ff. "On the day when God shall assemble the Apostles
and shall say ... 4 0 Jesus, Son of Mary, didst thou say unto
men, Take me and my mother for two gods beside God ?' He
will say: ' Glory be to Thee. It is not for me to say what is not
true. If I had said it, Thou wouldst have known it. Thou
knowest what is in my soul, but I know not what is in Thy soul.
... I never told them aught but what Thou didst bid me: worship
God, my Lord and your Lord.'"

IY. 155. (The Jews are accursed) for their unbelief, "and
because they spoke against Mary a gross calumny, and because they
said, 'Yerily we have killed the Messiah, Jesus the Son of Mary,
the Apostle of God.' But they did not kill him and they did not
crucify him, but they had only his likeness. Those who differ about
him are in doubt concerning him: they have no knowledge about
him and only follow an opinion. They did not really kill him,
but God took him up to Himself."

II. 59 (repeated in Y. 74). "Yerily they who believe (Moslims)
and Jews and Christians and Sabseans—whoever of them believeth
in God and the last day and doeth what is right, shall have their
reward from their Lord. There is no fear for them, neither shall
they grieve."

Y. 85. " Thou wilt certainly find that the worst enemies of the
believers are the Jews and idolaters, and thou wilt find nearest in
love to them those who say, 6 We are Christians.' This is because
there are priests and monks among them, and because they are not
proud." (This was evidently composed when he was disgusted at
the stubbornness with which the Jews rejected his advances, but in212	TURKEY IN EUROPE

many other passages he says more or less expressly that, as far as
truth and error are concerned, the Jews and Christians are all much
of a muchness.)

IV. On Abrogated Verses.

The Koran contains an extraordinary number of contradictory
statements, as the reader may have noticed even in reading the
brief extracts which I have quoted. There is indeed an initial con-
tradiction in the very account given by Mohammed of his revelation ;
for, though he considered that a connected and pre-existing book
was being revealed to him piecemeal, he was also aware that there
were inconsistencies in this revelation. In Sura II. 105 we read :
" Whatever verses we (that is, God) cancel or cause thee to forget,
we bring a better or one like it." There is considerable difference
of opinion among the orthodox as to what are the precise verses
which are cancelled by God, but it is agreed that at least some
twenty are abrogated by subsequent revelations. The Moslim
divines show great faith and ingenuity in reconciling contradictory
passages, and as a rule only admit abrogation where two different
ceremonial or legal injunctions are found in the text. It is clear
that the Prophet was not able to read and revise his own words as
a whole; and, as he was a ready speaker and something of an
opportunist, the uncorrected reports of his discourses are less
grammatical and less consistent than the published versions of
modern oratory.

V. On Mohammedan Traditions.

The Traditions, called Sunna (custom) or Hadis (Arabic, Hadith,
saying), are a record of the sayings and doings of Mohammed as
handed down by his companions. They are contained in six collec-
tions, compiled about two and a half centuries after the Hijra,
which mention the name of the persons through whom each tra-
dition has passed. The "science of the traditions" consists in
carefully scrutinising the continuity of the chain and the credibility
of the various links. The most important collection is called the
Sahihu-'l-Bukhari, compiled by Mohammed Ismail of Bokhara. He
is said to have examined 600,000 traditions handed down by 40,000
persons, and to have accepted of them only about 7000 traditions
and 2000 trustworthy authorities. Although the six collections
are not believed to be the Word of God, as is the Koran, it is heldON MOHAMMEDANISM

213

by the Sunnites that no one at the present day is competent to
criticise them, that they must be accepted without reservation, and
that all Moslims are bound to follow the precepts and example of
the Prophet. On these six collections is based the Moslim system
of jurisprudence known in Turkey as Sheri (Arabic, Shar ), but here
again there is no freedom of interpretation, as it is held that since
the four doctors Abu-Hanifa, Malik, Shaffi and Ibn Hanbal, no
one is competent to form an independent judgment. Both the
Sunna and Jurisprudence are now chiefly studied in digests such
as the Multeka and Hidaya.

VI. On the Ceremonies of the Meccan Pilgrimage.

The pilgrimage to Mecca must be performed once in his lifetime
by every Moslim who is in good health and has the money neces-
sary to defray the expenses of the journey, and to support his
family during his absence. It is said that the Sunna does not
recognise the performance of this duty by proxy, but it is certainly
the practice in Turkey for wealthy persons to send a substitute.
The ceremonies of the pilgrimage must be performed in the first
ten days of the month Zilhije (Arabic, Dhu-'l-hijja), but pilgrims
usually start about two months previously and allow themselves
ample time to repose in Jeddah on arriving, and to undergo the
quarantine to which they are usually subjected. On reaching the
last stage before Mecca they assume the pilgrim's dress, which
consists of two seamless garments, one thrown over the shoulder
and one worn round the waist. The head must be uncovered, and
the feet shod only with sandals. As they go to the holy city they
sing a song called Talbiya : "I am ready (labbaika), O God, I am
ready. Thou hast no partner. Thine is the praise and the grace
and the kingdom. Thou hast no partner." On arriving at Mecca
they proceed at once to the building known as " the sacred mosque "
(Masjidu-'l-Haram), which is not like an ordinary mosque, but con-
sists mainly of an open square surrounded by marble colonnades.
In the centre of this space is the Kaaba, said to have been first
erected by Adam and rebuilt by Abraham. It is a square stone
building covered with an embroidered black cloth. Set in the wall
near the door is the celebrated black stone. The pilgrim walks
round the Kaaba seven times and kisses the black stone. He then
visits a spot called the " Station of Abraham," ascends Mount Safa,
and runs seven times from the summit of this mountain to that214	TURKEY IN EUROPE

of Mount Marwa. These ceremonies are accompanied by various
special prayers and take several days. On the 7th of Zilhije a
sermon is preached in the sacred mosque, and on the 8th the
pilgrims proceed to the valley of Mina and remain the night. On
the 9th they run to Mount Arafat, pray there, and proceed later to
a place called Muzdalife, where they stay the night. On the 10th
day, which is the climax and conclusion of the pilgrimage, the
pilgrims go again to Mina, cast seven stones at each of three pillars
in memory of Abraham's having treated the devil in the same way,
and then each of them sacrifices an animal in the valley of Mina.
They then repose for three days, but before leaving again circum-
ambulate the Kaaba, kiss the black stone, pelt the pillars, and
drink the water of the well Zemzem. It is said that the Kaaba
is quite empty, but there appears to be some uncertainty as to
whether the pilgrims may enter it or not. A Moslim who had
made the pilgrimage told me that they can do so on condition
they never tell a lie again, but that most of them find this restric-
tion incompatible with their secular avocations and refrain. But
as he admittedly had not entered the sacred building himself, I
cannot vouch for his accuracy. The pilgrims suffer much from
the bad sanitary condition of Mecca and the extortion of the
inhabitants, but the Moslim world seems to think that such hard-
ships enhance the merit of the pilgrimage, and to be unwilling to
make any reforms.CHAPTER YI

the orthodox church

The ti,tle at the head of this chapter is used merely for
convenience, and not as implying any judgment on the
correctness of the doctrines taught by the Church of
which it treats—the Church, that is, of Constantinople,
Russia, and the greater part of the Balkan Peninsula.
Eastern Church is too wide a designation, as it seems to
include Armenians, Nestorians, and other bodies with whom
the Orthodox Church is not in communion; and Greek
Church is too narrow, and likely besides to give rise to
serious misconceptions. It seems, therefore, simplest to
describe this Church by the name she gives herself, Ortho-
dox—or, in Russian, Pravoslavny—just as we call a certain
style of religious belief Evangelical, without necessarily im-
plying that we think it accurately represents the teaching
of the Gospel.

The Orthodox Church, though intensely hierarchical,

acknowledges no one head like the Pope. It is recognised

that an assembly of bishops representing the Church

can pronounce infallible judgments on matters of faith

and discipline; but the Patriarchs possess no authority,

as does the Pope, different in kind from that exercised

by bishops. They enjoy a certain pre-eminence, but even

in their own Sees are not autocratic, and only rule with

the assistance of a Council. At the present day the

Orthodox Church consists of some twelve Churches, using

different languages and varying in points of detail, but

united as equals in one communion or federation, united,

215216	TURKEY IN EUROPE

too, in a particular detestation of the despotism of the
Pope. These ecclesiastical federated states fall into two
classes: first, the ancient historical Churches, mostly under
Patriarchs; secondly, relatively modern national Churches.
Of these latter, the Russian is the most ancient and by
far the most important; but, as Greece, Roumania, and
Servia were detached from the Turkish Empire, their
respective Churches were recognised by the Patriarch
of Constantinople, though not always without a struggle,
as " autocephalous and isotimous."

Before the foundation of Constantinople in a.d. 330
there were three Patriarchates — Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch. Either as the See of St. Peter, or, more pro-
bably, as the Imperial city, Rome had an undisputed claim
to the first place. In the East, Alexandria was the most
important Church, and the bishop, who was originally
styled Pope,1 had some pretensions to universal juris-
diction. The dioceses of Pontus, Asia, and Thrace were
governed by exarchs of their own at Csesarea, Ephesus,
and Heraclea, Byzantium being administered by a suffragan
of the latter. When, however, Byzantium became Con-
stantinople, and the residence first of a Christian emperor
and then of the only Christian emperor, it was natural
that the bishop of the Imperial city should acquire an
exceptional position. The transfer of the seat of empire
from Rome to Constantinople decided the character of
Eastern and Western Christianity. The Pope, left free
from civil control, was able to acquire temporal power,
and gradually to develop into that most interesting and
durable of potentates, the Sovereign Pontiff and Vicar of
Christ upon earth. The presence of the emperor effect-
ually prevented the bishop of Constantinople from even
aiming at so high a destiny. Any idea of making the

1 His present title is still " Pope and Patriarch of the great city of Alex-
andria and (Ecumenical Judge."THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 217

Church an imperium in imperio was nipped in the bud
by the banishment of St. John Chrysostom, which ter-
minated the struggle between the rash prelate and the
Emperor Arcadius (404) and once for all adjusted the
relations between the Court and the Patriarchate.

But though the emperors were determined to teach
the bishop of Constantinople his place, and see that he
did not intrench on the prerogatives of the Crown, they
had np objection to his being the first of bishops, and
willingly aided him to assert his pre-eminence in the
East; and, though they admitted that the bishop of
" Old Rome" possessed a certain seniority, they con-
stantly called that ambitious prelate to order. In this
ecclesiastical struggle Constantinople was destined to be
worsted; but the ecclesiastical conquest of the East was
an easy matter, rendered easier by the fact that, com-
paratively early in the history of the Church, the mass
of the population in the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch
accepted the Nestorian or Monophysite heresies with hier-
archies of their own, which left the orthodox Patriarchs
little more than their title. The second Council of Con-
stantinople (351) decided that the Patriarch of Alexandria
was to direct the affairs of Egypt only; Pontus and Thrace
were constituted independent dioceses, and the Patriarch-
ate of Constantinople was declared to be second in dignity
to Rome alone. Antioch seems to have acquiesced in this
arrangement; but Alexandria and the Pope protested, with-
out, however, producing any effect.

In the fifth century the power of the See of Constanti-
nople increased by leaps and bounds. St. John Chrysostom
asserted a claim to the dioceses of Asia and Pontus. Under
Theodosius, the Patriarch Atticus claimed also Thrace and
Illyricum. This enterprising prelate even caused the con-
secration of bishops to be forbidden unless the consent of
Constantinople was obtained; and in the law which placed2l8

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Illyrieum under his jurisdiction it was at first enacted that
the See of Constantinople had all the prerogatives of " Old
Rome," but the clamours of the Pope and of the bishop of
Salonica caused this provision to be abrogated. Finally,
the Council of Chalcedon (451), in its canon No. 27, entrusted
the Patriarch of Constantinople with the dioceses of Thrace,
Asia, and Pontus, which made his power for the moment
almost greater than that of the Pope. The latter protested,
and drew a distinction, never abandoned by the Roman
Church, between the doctrines enunciated by General Coun-
cils and the disciplinary canons they might enact. Alex-
andria and Ephesus also protested; but the latter, one of
the most ancient and powerful Sees, and even now held
in peculiar veneration, was reduced to submission by the
Patriarch Acacius (471-489), who also claimed, and in
some measure successfully asserted, the right of conse-
crating other Patriarchs.

Shortly after this we find the bishop of Constantinople
beginning to use the title of (Ecumenical Patriarch, which
he still bears. The epithet had previously been sporadically
applied to the bishops of both Rome and Alexandria ; and it is
not surprising to find that the Emperor Justinian, with his
vast ideas of Imperial reunion and extension, should have
been the first to give to his Patriarch a designation which
seemed to imply that Constantinople was the centre of the
world for the Church as well as for the State. Under the
Emperor Maurice, in 582, the Patriarch John the Faster
used the title in a more formal manner in summoning a
General Council of the East. The Pope, Gregory I., protested
energetically, and induced Phocas, the successor of Maurice,
to abolish the title; but it was soon resumed and not again
abandoned. It is difficult to say what is the exact meaning
of the adjective. Perhaps the See of Constantinople has
never been devoid of a secret desire to exercise universal
jurisdiction, but it has not been successful in executing thisTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 219

wish. At the present time the Patriarch is Metropolitan of
the Orthodox Church in Turkey, except in such parts as
come within the dioceses of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch,
Sinai, and Cyprus. Over these, and over the Russian, Hel-
lenic, Roumanian, Servian, and Austrian Churches, he has no
authority, and is merely given a certain ceremonial and
honorary precedence as primus inter pares.

But when Antioch and Alexandria were on the wane,
and Rome and Russia had not yet assumed their present
importance, Constantinople had in some ways an oecumeni-
cal position. During the fifth and sixth centuries it is the
centre, not only of Eastern, but of general Christian history;
and this is perhaps the reason why the General Councils
of the Church, almost forgotten in England except by the
learned, are still familiar names to the laity and peasantry
of the East.

Of the first six Councils all were summoned by em-
perors, and five were held at or near the Imperial city,
of whose political life and activity they formed an integral
part. From Constantine onwards every emperor consciously
or unconsciously strove after what was both the highest
Christian ideal and the great desideratum of practical
statesmanship—the unity of the Church. The convenient
laxity of paganism combined unity and variety—the fact
that some preferred to sacrifice to Apollo and some to
Venus did not hinder both from being members of the
same State religion. When people took to quarrelling,
anathematising, and killing one another because they could
not agree as to the precise character of their deities,
the State seemed threatened with a new form of discord,
which clearly called for a calming and unifying treatment.
Such treatment the emperors endeavoured to apply in two
ways; sometimes by summoning General Councils, to ex-
change and formulate ideas, sometimes by testy edicts,
forbidding what the Court regarded as tiresome and per-22o	TURKEY IN EUROPE

verse wrangling. In the first case, they won the approba-
tion of the Church, and even the honours of canonisation;
in the second, they were anathematised for their pains
by the angry disputants. In formulating doctrine the
Church accepted the collaboration but not the authority of
the emperor.

Even before the Empire had been definitely transferred
to Constantinople, Constantine felt the necessity of putting
,an end to the Arian dissension—that great controversy
about the nature of Christ which threatened to rend the
Church asunder. Arius, a presbyter of the Church of
Alexandria, taught that there had been a time when God
the Father existed alone, and that the Son only sub-
sequently came into being, which seemed to deny the
divinity of Christ, and to make him a mere creature.
Constantine at first regarded the quarrel as a tiresome
dispute of clerics, but he soon saw that the case was
serious, and summoned a Council at Nicsea (Iznik), at the
sittings of which he was himself present. As is well known,
the Council, which drew up, at least in part, what is known
as the Nicene Creed, condemned Arius. Arianism, it is
true, died hard; but the verdict of the Council was final,
and the principle established that Catholic doctrine could
be defined in this manner.

The central doctrine of Christianity — the essentially
divine nature of Christ — was thus laid clearly down, but
doubt and confusion were still possible respecting the Third
Person of the Trinity; for it seems probable that the
Creed of the Nicene Council was shorter than the form
now in use, and concluded somewhat abruptly with the
simple formula, " I believe in the Holy Ghost." The
heresy known as Macedonian denied the personality and
co-equal Godhead of the Holy Spirit, but was condemned
at the second (Ecumenical Council summoned at Constanti-
nople by the Emperor Theodosius in 381. As alreadyTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 221

mentioned, this Council was important in another way as
establishing the position of the Patriarchal See of Con-
stantinople.

The doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ
being thus satisfactorily defined, it was natural that the
Church should attempt the solution of the further
problem of the nature of Christ—that is to say, the ex-
planation of how Christ is both God and man. It was
inevitable that, in the discussion, before the question was
clearly posed and answered, many erroneous speculations
should prevail. The most important of these was the
doctrine of Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who
brought matters to a crisis by publicly preaching against
the use of the title " Mother of God " (Theotokos), applied
to the Holy Virgin. He appears to have held that she
was only the mother of a man, with whom the Divine
Person united Himself. This doctrine was condemned
both by Cyril of Alexandria and by the Pope; but the
Patriarch of Antioch and the Eastern bishops generally
disapproved of the anathemas in which Cyril formulated
his criticisms, and the Church was divided into two hostile
camps.

The third Council was summoned at Ephesus by Theo-
dosius II. The Pope was represented by legates and the
Patriarch of Alexandria was present. The emperor did not
attend, but sent a high official to keep order, a necessary
but inadequate precaution, as the proceedings of the
Council, which was exceptionally turbulent, were a dis-
grace to ecclesiastical discipline. After much violence and
vituperation, the doctrine of Nestorius was condemned; but,
unlike the Macedonian and Arian heresies, did not dis-
appear. Henceforth, though the General Councils define
Catholic doctrine, their anathemas do not annihilate, but
merely create heretical Churches, which continue to the
present day. It would be .beyond the scope of this work222	TURKEY IN EUROPE

to give any account of Nestorianism ; suffice to say, that
though relegated to the extreme East, it has had a long
and varied history, and in point of missionary zeal can
compare with any Christian communion, its conquests
having extended to Persia, Central Asia, India, and China.
The headquarters of the sect are now in the Turkish district
of Hekkiari, on the borders of Persia.

A reaction against the heresy of Nestorius led his
opponents into the contrary error. His theory destroyed
the unity of Christ's person by separating the two natures.
Eutyches, an archimandrite of Constantinople, in his desire
to preserve this unity, confounded the two natures by
teaching that the human nature was transformed or ab-
sorbed into the divine, and that, after the incarnation, Christ
existed only in this divine nature. The partisans of this
dogma were known as Monophysites; and the heresy seems
to have aroused more stir than any other, perhaps because
no one could say whether he was a Monophysite or not
until his definition of faith had been criticised by his
enemies. Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople, held a
Synod which condemned Eutyches. The latter demanded
a General Council, which was summoned by the emperor
at Ephesus, and at which Pope Leo was represented by
delegates. This Council rehabilitated Eutyches, and de-
posed all his enemies from their Sees; but its proceedings
were violent and scandalous in the extreme. Flavian died
of the blows he received; and though the Emperor Theo-
dosius confirmed the decisions of this Council, the Pope
disavowed them, and proved the stronger. In a Synod
held at Rome, he gave the Council of Ephesus the name
of Council of Brigands, which has clung to it since, and
insisted on the convocation of a new and valid Assembly
of the Church. The cause of union was favoured by the
death of the Emperor Theodosius at this juncture; and his
successor, Marcian, consented to submit the decisions ofTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 223

Ephesus to another Council, but resisted the attempts of
the Pope to have it summoned in Italy, and fixed the
place of meeting at - Chalcedon (the modern Cadikeui),
opposite Constantinople, on the Asiatic shore. The Council
was largely attended by Eastern bishops and by two
delegates of the Pope, who, with the Patriarch of Con-
stantinople, sat as presidents, though the business seems
to have been chiefly directed by nineteen Imperial com-
missioners. The decrees of the Brigands' meeting were
reversed, the bishops whom it had deposed were restored
to their Sees, and the orthodox faith in one Christ " to be
acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change,
division, or separation," was solemnly proclaimed.

But the Monophysite doctrine was even less affected
by anathemas than Nestorianism. It long survived in high
places at Constantinople, and is even now professed by the
Armenian, Coptic, Abyssinian, and Jacobite Syrian Churches.
The last-named body derives its name from Jacob Baradai,
bishop of Edessa (ob. 588), whose energy and genius gave a
new life to the doctrines of Eutyches.

This state of things was most distasteful to the em-
perors. The Council of Chalcedon, instead of establishing
unity, had given definite shape to discord. Catholics and
Monophysites were everywhere contending, and not merely
with spiritual or intellectual weapons. At last, in 482, the
Emperor Zeno, with the assistance of his Patriarch Acacius,
endeavoured to still the strife by the publication of an
ordinance called the Henoticon—half creed and half law—
in which he expressly stated that Christ was both God and
man, but carefully avoided the use of the word " nature."
This unhappy compromise not only pleased no one, but
nearly led to a decisive rupture between the Eastern and
Western Churches, and actually did produce a schism
which lasted thirty years. The Pope Felix excommunicated
Acacius, and the messengers, afraid to deliver the sentence224	TURKEY IN EUROPE

publicly, pinned it on his back as he was officiating in his
own cathedral. He at once retorted by excommunicating
the Pope; and it was only in the reign of Justin (519) that
unity was re-established and Rome triumphed.

A more serious attempt to reunite the Monophysites to
the Catholic Church was made in the reign of the Emperor
Justinian. It resulted in the holding of the sixth (Ecu-
menical Council, and was further interesting as presenting
a new phase in the relations between Constantinople and
the Papacy. It will not have escaped the reader that the
Pope was gradually arrogating to himself a special authority
as a sort of court of appeal. He had insisted on sum-
moning the Council of Chalcedon, his legates shared the
presidency with the Patriarch of Constantinople, and he
had successfully required the abolition of the Henoticon.
But Justinian, whose great ideal in temporal matters was
the reunion of the West to his Empire, was not the man
to tolerate such pretensions in an Italian bishop. Pope
Agapetus died in Constantinople, whither he had been
sent by Theodahad, the Ostrogothic king, on a mission to
the emperor. The Emperor and the Empress Theodora,
who was a Monophysite, arranged with the deacon Yigilius,
who had accompanied Agapetus, that he should be made
Pope on condition of favouring union with the Monophysites.
He was accordingly sent back to Rome, and Sylverius, who
had meantime been elected Pope, was banished, and util-
mately died in exile.

In 544 the Emperor published an edict condemning
what were called the " three chapters " or articles. He had
been led to suppose that the opposition of Monophysites to
the Council of Chalcedon was based less on its statements
respecting doctrine than on the approval which it seemed
to bestow on Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas
who were suspected of Nestorianism. He hoped that by
stigmatising the works of these authorities, without mak-THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 225

ing any reflections on the Council of Chalcedon, he would
put forward a compromise acceptable to many. The edict
raised an uproar, particularly in the West, and Pope Yigilius
seemed inclined to forget the terms on which he had been
raised to his dignity. He was, however, speedily brought
to book, and summoned to Constantinople, where he spent
seven adventurous but ignominious years, during which he
was excommunicated by a Synod which sat at Carthage,
dragged from under the altar of a church where he had
taken refuge, and proved to have made secret engagements
with the Emperor. At last the fifth General Council met
in 553, attended from the West only by five African bishops,
for Yigilius could not be induced to be present. It acted
as the Emperor wished, confirmed the four previous Councils,
but condemned and declared contrary to the Council of
Chalcedon, the "three chapters." The unhappy Yigilius
shortly afterwards made a humiliating submission, saying
that his opposition had been due to the influence of the
devil. He was then allowed to leave Constantinople, but
died before reaching Rome. Justinian caused Pelagius to
be named his successor, and formally confirmed the election.
The Imperial nominee accepted the decrees of the fifth
Council, but by so doing, caused a schism in the West itself,
for the Church of Aquileia remained in separation from
Rome for a century and a half.

For about fifty years there was little controversy; but
the experience of the Emperor Heraclius during his Persian
wars led him to regret that the Eastern parts of his Empire
were alienated from the Catholic Church, and, following the
example of Zeno and Justinian, he endeavoured to invent
a new compromise. His formula led to the Monothelete
(one will) heresy, but was first stated in the form that there
was but one energy in Christ, and it was hoped that, this
once admitted, the dispute as to the natures might be

forgotten. Sophronius, subsequently Patriarch of Jerusa-

p226	TURKEY IN EUROPE

lem, opposed this doctrine, but the Pope Honorius, in reply
to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who consulted him on
the subject, seemed to approve of the idea that Christ had
but one will. Sophronius wrote a pamphlet condemning
these views as unorthodox, but Heraclius, who thought that
he had at last found a successful compromise, approved
by so high an authority as the Pope, published an edict,
called the Ecthesis (638), in which he forbade any one
to talk of energies, and laid down that "one will is to
be confessed, inasmuch as the Saviour's manhood never
produced any inclination contrary to His Godhead." This
was accepted by the four Eastern Patriarchs, but Pope
Honorius died, and John IV., who doubtless felt it
was a dangerous precedent to let an emperor make
edicts about doctrine, condemned the Ecthesis without
•delay.

Heraclius died in 641, but the dissension continued
nnder his successor, Constans II. Moved by the protests
of certain African bishops against the Monothelete heresy,
the Pope wrote to the Patriarch, Paul of Constantinople,
urging him to abjure his erroneous views. The Patriarch's
reply was an animated defence of Monotheletism, and, on
its receipt, the Pope excommunicated him. The Emperor
replied in an edict called the Type, somewhat resembling
the Ecthesis, but more peremptory, in which he ordered the
question not to be discussed. This led to another duel
between the Pope and Emperor, in which the latter evi-
dently wished to imitate Justinian's vigorous handling of
the relations between the Papacy and Constantinople. The
Pope began by holding a Synod at the Lateran (649), in
which he condemned the Type, and then wrote to the
Emperor requiring him to condemn the Monothelete
heresy. Constans, however, was prepared to assert his
authority: the Exarch of Ravenna received orders to en-
force the Type in Italy; the recalcitrant Pope was seizedTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 227

and shipped off to Constantinople (654), and, after much
hard usage, was banished to Cherson.

A long struggle with the Saracens and the Arab siege
of Constantinople left Constantine Pogonatus little leisure
to deal with ecclesiastical affairs in the first part of his
reign. When the danger had passed, he saw that his
father's policy had not been a success. The controversy
which the Type had contemptuously forbidden appeared
to possess—perhaps because it was forbidden—a vital
interest. Constantine, therefore, adopted a new policy.
Like his father, he declined to meddle in the question
of one or two wills, but he submitted the problem to the
Church for decision by experts. In this frame of mind he
wrote a letter to Pope Agatho, whom he civilly addressed
as " (Ecumenical Pope," and suggested the calling of a
Council. The Pope gladly complied. The meeting as-
sembled at Constantinople in 680, but was attended by
three bishops from Rome, who brought a letter from Pope
Agatho containing an exposition of the Catholic faith.
The Council followed this document, condemned Monothe-
letism, and anathematised the memory of Pope Honorius.1

These General Councils suggest many interesting con-
siderations, which can be only alluded to here. We see,
on the one hand, that the Emperor, though recognised as
the head of the Church, was made to clearly understand
that he could not interfere in questions of doctrine—a
line which even the Czars of Russia do not. cross. On
the other hand, the power of Rome grows stronger. In

1 This condemnation of a Pope by a General Council is interesting as
affecting the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, and was discussed at the time
of the Vatican Council. The boldest apologists suggest that the acts of the
Council were tampered with, and that Theodore should be read for Honorius.
It has also been irreverently suggested that the Western mind of the Pope
did not understand the problem propounded by the subtle East. Adopting
this last view in a more respectful form, it may fairly be maintained that
Honorius's error was one of negligence rather than of active commission, and
that he never pronounced in favour of Monotheletism ex cathedra and as
sovereign Pontiff.228	TURKEY IN EUROPE

spite of the cases of Yigilius and Martin, the Pope had
acquired an immensely strong moral position by the time
of the sixth Council. The Emperor requested him to
summon the meeting; he prejudged the question under
discussion in a Synod held at Rome, and sent, by his
legates, a definition of what he held to be the Catholic
doctrine, which was accepted by the Council. Thirdly, it
must be noticed that the Councils implicitly affirm that
Christian doctrine is a subject for faith and not for reason.
Each heresy condemned was a well-meaning, though pre-
sumptuous, attempt to offer an explanation of the Godhead
conceivable for the human mind. In every case the Church
replied by formulating a mystery to be believed by faith,,
but, strictly speaking, inconceivable and incomprehensible
for our finite intelligence.

During the eighth and the first half of the ninth
century the Church was agitated by a new question—
the propriety or impropriety of using images in Christian
devotions. The crusade against sacred statues and pictures,,
initiated by the Isaurian and Amorian emperors, was called
Iconoclasm, and its adherents Iconoclasts. The movement
was essentially Asiatic. The emperors who began it be-
longed to the race of the hardy mountaineers of the
Taurus, and it seems probable that they had come under
the influence of the Paulicians (a sect of Manichaean origin),,
and perhaps of Mohammedanism. Though we know the
Iconoclasts only by the accounts of their enemies, it is clear
that the aversion to images was only one of many points
in which they differed from the practice of the Byzantine
Church. They further condemned the worship of the
Virgin, the veneration of relics, the invocation of saints,
and, above all, the practice of monasticism. There is a
Mohammedan air about all these tenets; and it is very
probable that Leo the Isaurian, observing the immense
progress made by the new religion, and the abuses to whichTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 229

Byzantine Christianity was prone, conceived the idea of
purifying the worship of his Empire, and, at the same
time, benefiting the State, by doing away with the in-
creasing multitude of monks, whose useless lives seemed
a real danger to society. It is also remarkable that the
Iconoclast emperors were by no means Puritan fanatics;
they were reproached with their frivolity and fondness for
gorgeous ceremonies. Also, their power rested mainly on
the army, which was strongly opposed to images—a very
Mohammedan trait.

Leo began his crusade in 725. He destroyed many
images, particularly the miraculous figure of the Saviour
called avTKpcovvTw, closed the schools of theology, and
deposed the Patriarch Germanus. The Pope, Gregory II.,
refused to recognise the Emperor's nominee as Patriarch,
and strongly condemned Iconoclasm, which met with
general opposition in Italy, and provoked serious dis-
turbances. Leo then transferred Sicily, Southern Italy,
and Illyricum from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Rome
to that of Constantinople, and only recognised the Pope's
power in the territory of the Exarchate of Ravenna. This
important step was really the first formal distinction be-
tween the Eastern and Western Churches, and it was
precisely over this point that the final separation occurred
in 1054.

Constantine V., called by his enemies Copronymus, was
a more violent Iconoclast than his father. He held a
Synod in Constantinople which condemned the worship of
images, and he instituted a persecution against their wor-
shippers, and particularly against monks. Many of his
victims are still revered as martyrs in the Orthodox Church.
In his reign the Pope called in the aid of Pepin—the first
move towards the creation of the Western Empire. The
next Emperor, Leo IV., was an Iconoclast, though milder
than his father, and was succeeded by his son, ConstantineTURKEY IN EUROPE

YI. As the latter was but ten years old, his mother, the
Dowager Empress Irene, ruled in his name. She was an
Athenian princess, and therefore a fervent adherent of
image-worship, for the geographical division of Asia re-
presenting Iconoclasts and Europe Iconodules is almost
without exception. Constantine and Irene invited the
Pope to summon an (Ecumenical Council to decide the
controversy; and the meeting duly assembled at Con-
stantinople, but was broken up by the mutinous soldiery,
who were still Iconoclastic. It then transferred its sittings
to Nicsea, where, in 786, it pronounced in favour of the
worship of images, though a careful distinction was drawn
between veneration (n/jLrjTiKrj 7rpoo-Kuvr]o-i$) and adoration
(aXriOivt] Xarpeta), which is to be paid to God only. Rome
and Constantinople were thus once more united religiously;
but it was in the reign of Irene, as related elsewhere, that
the Eastern and Western Empires were separated by the
coronation of Charlemagne by the Pope—a step as important
for ecclesiastical as for secular history.

The Iconoclastic movement, however, was not yet dead,
and lasted another half-century. Nicephorus, an Asiatic by
race, reversed the policy of Irene, and it was not until the
European house of Macedonia came to the throne that
image-worship was finally established. Leo the Armenian
began his reign by attempting a curious compromise. He
proposed to allow icons in churches, but to hang them so
high that no one could kiss them. This, however, pleased
nobody, and he found himself forced to become a thorough-
going Iconoclast. Like Constantine V., he summoned a
Synod, at which only the East was represented, and again
condemned images and their worshippers. A little later
the Emperor Theophilus (829-842), was a vehement
Iconoclast. He was supported by the Patriarch, John the
Grammarian, and his persecution of Iconodules was nearly
as severe as that of Constantine V., except that he did notTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 231

inflict the punishment of death for religious differences.
It is instructive to notice that both the triumphs of image-
worship took place in the reigns of women. On the death
of Theophilus, his widow, Theodora, like Irene, became
regent. She at once deposed the Iconoclastic Patriarch,
proclaimed that all were free to worship images, and
convoked a Synod which instituted the feast called " The
Celebration of Orthodoxy " (still observed on the first Sun-
day of Lent), in which the re-establishment of Iconodulism
is commemorated.

It may seem strange to have given so much space to
the remote past of the Orthodox Church, but there is
nothing disproportionate in the attention devoted to this
period. It was the period of growth and formation. Of
the two great movements we have briefly sketched, the
first, the intellectual striving after definition, which brought
about the Councils, created the accuracy of dogma—the
orthodoxy of which the Church is so proud. The second,
the Iconoclastic movement, ended in the establishment of
a ceremonial and symbolism which too easily degenerate
into superstition. The two together make up the Ortho-
dox Church as she is at the present day. After the Icono-
clastic controversy the development of the Church came to
an end. The conversion of the Slavonic nations is certainly
a brilliant achievement of missionary enterprise, but after
about the ninth century the intellectual life and movement
were dead and have never since revived. It is not enough
to say that the East elaborated dogma and the West
discipline. The quality of intellect which produced Mono-
physites and Monotheletes was quite capable of dealing
with such subjects as Purgatory or the nature of the
Eucharist. But when the Western Church was arguing
out these and many other problems, the Eastern Church
seems to have sunk into intellectual sloth, and to have
been incapable of controversy, which, whatever ill may be232	TURKEY IN EUROPE

said of it, is the surest sign that a religion interests those
who profess it.

It must not be supposed that the controversies of the
West led to innovations, and that the Eastern Church
remained true to the primitive faith. She has simply no
definite doctrines at all on a variety of points, because, from
inertia, and perhaps we should add political troubles, she
has never clearly posed or attempted to solve the questions
which agitated the West. This attitude has some advan-
tages. In all branches of the Eastern Church religious
persecution is rare, and these large fluid views about many
questions may seem to compare favourably with the rigid
definitions of Roman Catholicism, and to approach the
spirit of liberal and advanced Christianity. But this is not
really true. The same priest who shows a becoming diffi-
dence in laying down exactly what happens to the soul
after death is in practice ready to excommunicate any one
who makes the sign of the cross differently from himself.
If we turn to any ecclesiastical history, we find that, till the
end of the period of General Councils, Constantinople is
the centre of the Christian world. Afterwards, the Eastern
Church drops entirely out of sight, and is hardly mentioned
in general works, so that the curious investigator has some
pains in tracing her history in obscure and learned treatises.

A certain section of religious opinion often compares
the Orthodox and Anglican Churches, and even makes
efforts for their union. The element of truth in this view
is obvious; both bodies are branches of the Catholic
Church which protest against the claims of the Pope to
supremacy. Nevertheless, the comparison is historically
misleading. The Reformation, though also a political
protest against Papal claims, was due to an intellectual
movement, to an upheaval and revulsion, to the revolt of
many intelligences in many countries against certain super-
stitions and abuses. The separation of the Orthodox andTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 233

Roman Churches had no such cause; it was based on no
intellectual movement, it involved no important religious
principle, except the quasi-political question of the position
of the Pope. It was due simply to the fact that the East
inevitably tended to separate from the West, and that no
organisation, either political or ecclesiastical, could contain
two such centres as old and new Rome. The distance
between them naturally gave each a separate development
which in time made each Church feel they were not really
•one body. But, on the other hand, it was only distance
and want of contact which enabled them to remain united
so long. But for the geographical separation of the coun-
tries, the schism must have happened in 800. After that
period there was in the West a pope as religious, and an
emperor as secular head of the Christian Church. In Con-
stantinople there was an emperor as head of the same
Christian Church, with a Patriarch subordinate to him.
The Church containing these four incompatible personages
was no real unity and could not but tend towards dis-
integration.

It must be remembered that at the period we have
reached—about a.d. 850—no one had any idea of there
being more than one Church in the sense of more than one
religion. There were Churches of Constantinople, Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch, just as there are in England,
Scotland, Ireland, and America Churches which are prac-
tically identical with the English Church; but there was
nothing akin to the common modern idea of a Christianity
divided into Roman Catholics, Greeks, Armenians, Pro-
testants, Irvingites, and all the other religious denomina-
tions catalogued in " Whitaker." There existed only the
Church—apt to split into factions over questions of ecclesi-
astical jurisdiction, but still essentially one—and heretics.
The latter, in as far as they were not extravagant sectaries
with pretensions to a secret special revelation, mostly in-234	TURKEY IN EUROPE

habited remote and inaecesible districts (such as Armenia
and Ethiopia) where they were not reminded of their diffe-
rence from the rest of Christendom.

We have already sketched the relations between Con-
stantinople and Rome up to the middle of the ninth cen-
tury. The various Councils, the Henoticon of Zeno and
consequent schism, the treatment of Pope Yigilius by Jus-
tinian and of Pope Martin by Constans II., the Type, the
Ecthesis, the Anathema against Pope Honorius, the with-
drawal of South Italy from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of
the Pope, the Iconoclastic controversy and final triumph of
image-worship, are all important points in these relations,
which had reached a stage of tension that small personal
incidents might easily convert into a rupture.

The Emperor Theophilus was succeeded by his infant son,
Michael III., his widow, Theodora, and her brother, Bardas,
being co-regents. The latter was in many ways an able
prince, but his immorality scandalised the pious and austere
Patriarch Ignatius (son of the Emperor Michael Rhangabe),
who refused him the communion on the Epiphany of 857.
Bardas on this deposed him from his See, and named in his
place Photius, one of the most interesting figures in Byzan-
tine history. He was at the time of his elevation to the
Patriarchal throne commander of the Imperial Guard and
private secretary of the Emperor, and, though a military
man, renowned for his vast erudition. His subsequent
career proved him to be a master of subtle diplomacy, who
would have been a worthy occupant of the chair of St. Peter
had not fate made him its bitter adversary. Though merely
a layman, he was at once consecrated deacon, priest, and
bishop. There were precedents at Constantinople for this
cumulation of orders, but Photius doubtless felt that the
whole transaction lent itself to hostile criticism and would
receive it. He therefore lost no time in informing the Pope
of his appointment and requesting his recognition. TheTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH

Pope, suspecting no doubt that such loyal words from the
pen of a Byzantine Patriarch must be prompted by some un-
usual circumstance, sent legates to inquire into the matter.
Bardas and Photius made these officials believe that it was
in the interests of the Papacy to recognise the latter in
order to avoid a renewal of the Iconoclastic movement, and
filled their purses with weightier arguments. A Grand
Synod was held at Constantinople which, with the assent of
the legates, confirmed the deposition of Ignatius and the
appointment of Photius.

But by the time the legates returned to Rome, the
Pope had already heard the other side of the question from
Ignatius. He disavowed the action of his ambassadors, and
in a Synod held at Rome (863) pronounced the deposition
of Photius and his adherents, threatening them with ex-
communication if they did not withdraw. It would appear
that the Emperor took part in the dispute, and addressed to
the Pope a letter, which is now lost, although the answer of
Nicolas is extant. In it he combats, in the most uncompro-
mising language, the theory or practice of Constantinople
which made the Emperor head of the Church, and made
great capital out of an unfortunate phrase of Michael
III., in which he seems to have called Latin a barbarous
language. " Cease," said the angry Pontiff, " to call yourself
Emperor of the Romans, since these Romans are barbarians
in your eyes. It is ridiculous not to know the language
of those whom you call your subjects." It was not, perhaps,
very politic of the Pope to personally offend the Emperor,
seeing that the emperors were not always firm supporters
of the Patriarchs. In this case, however, another cause
tended to unite Michael and Photius in a firm alliance
against Rome. The kingdom of Bulgaria had been carved
out of the territories of the Eastern Empire, and con-
verted to Christianity by the labours of the Eastern monks,.
Cyril and Methodius. The Bulgarians, however, inquired236	TURKEY IN EUROPE

of the Pope (as well as of Byzantium) what was the true
Christian faith, and received from him the answer that the
only true Patriarchates were those of Rome, Alexandria, and
Antioch, and that the bishops of Constantinople and Jerusa-
lem, though styled Patriarchs, had not the same authority,
because their Sees had not been founded by Apostles.
Nicolas followed up these disagreeable observations by a
practical campaign against the Orthodox Church in Bulgaria
so effective that he drove out the Greek monks and sub-
stituted for them Latin missionaries. The Emperor was
furious, and ready to support Photius in any attack on the
Pope, whose despotic temper had also alienated from him
many of his own bishops. It was not, however, desirable to
put forward the Bulgarian question as a pretext for the
rupture. The personal and secular side of the controversy
had already been somewhat too accentuated, and the Pope
might find it easy to pose as the champion of pure and un-
political religion assailed by an ambitious and usurping
prelate and a grasping emperor. Photius, therefore, struck
a, deeper note, and boldly accused the Pope of heresy.

His chief weapon in this audacious attack was the Pro-
cession of the Holy Ghost. The Council of Constantinople,
which completed the third article of the Nicene Creed, un-
doubtedly contained the phrase, " The Holy Ghost ....
who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and
the Son together is worshipped and glorified." What is
known as the Filioque clause was first added in Spain in
the fifth century. The Spanish Church had suffered much
from Arianism, and it was no doubt felt that the doctrine
of the Single Procession tended to establish a difference
between the Father and the Son incompatible with true
Catholicity. The matter was debated at the Council of
Aix-la-Chapelle in 809, and though the Pope refused to
dogmatise, the formula was gradually inserted into the
Roman Creed.THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 237

Photius addressed an encyclical letter to the bishops of
the East denouncing this heresy and other Latin errors, such
as the celibacy of the clergy, the observance of fasts on
Saturday, the use of milk during the first week in Lent, and
the refusal to recognise the validity of confirmation conferred
by priests. This letter was followed by a Council, which
met at Constantinople in 867, and solemnly excommuni-
cated the Pope. Unfortunately for Photius, in this same
year, Basil the Macedonian assassinated Michael and seized
the throne. He immediately deposed the Patriarch and
reinstated Ignatius. Though this action was probably
prompted by the personal opposition offered by Photius to
the new emperor, it may also be explained by motives of
policy. Basil I. was the first of those who hoped—and
who have successively been disappointed in their expecta-
tions—that Eastern and Western Christianity could combine
against the Moslim enemy. He made a short-lived alli-
ance with the Emperor Louis II. against the Saracens, and
was, therefore, naturally desirous of closing the breach be-
tween Constantinople and Rome. Overtures were made to
the Pope, Adrian II., who insisted that the decisions of the
Council of 867 must be formally reversed, and Photius with
all his adherents excommunicated. The Emperor assented.
The Pope sent legates to Constantinople, who held the eighth
(Ecumenical Council1 (869-870) and anathematised Photius.

It is another proof of the genius of this remarkable
man that this sentence by no means broke up his party.
They continued faithful to him, and created a schism in the
Patriarchal Church; while the hollowness of the entente
with Rome, and the strength of the forces which dragged
Greeks and Latins asunder, were apparent before the Coun-
cil was over. An embassy from the Bulgarian Church,
whose overtures to Rome have been already mentioned,
arrived with a request for instruction in the true faith. The

1 Not recognised by the Orthodox Church.238	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Oriental bishops were unanimous in insisting that Bulgaria
belonged to the Eastern and not to the Western Church;
angry reflections were made on the interference of the Pope
in other people's dioceses, and the Bulgarians were formally
declared to be within the limits of the Patriarchate of Con-
stantinople. The Papal legates protested, but, in striking
contrast to the honours which had attended their reception,
were unceremoniously embarked on a vessel which, oddly
enough, was immediately attacked by pirates, who stole the
Acts of the Council. Ignatius seemed likely to have as
violent a controversy with the Pope as Photius, and John
VIII., who had succeeded Adrian II., threatened him with
excommunication. Photius was not slow to avail himself of
his opportunities. Basil naturally desired to unite the
Eastern Church, and the Pope, unable to find a satisfactory
emperor in the West, was disposed to come to terms with
Basil. The result of all this was that, when Ignatius died
in 877, Photius again became Patriarch; another Council
was held at Constantinople (879-880); the Pope again
sent legates, and again entirely failed to subdue the Church
of Constantinople. The instructions given to the legates re-
quired that Photius should offer an apology for his previous
conduct, and recognise that Bulgaria fell within the sphere
of Rome. Instead of this, the Council declared all the pro-
ceedings against him null and void, again assigned Bulgaria to
Constantinople, and maintained the exclusion of the Filioque
clause. The Pope excommunicated him for the third time,
but, secure under the protection of his old enemy, Basil,
he maintained his position, without, however, making any
further attack on Rome or bringing about a rupture be-
tween the Churches as he had done in 867. When Leo VI.
succeeded Basil in 886, he banished Photius to a monastery,
and named his own brother Patriarch.

It may seem strange that the Orthodox and Roman
•Churches should have continued in nominal union for moreTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 239

than a century and a half after this; but two explanations
can readily be given. The first was the natural tendency
already noticed to regard the Church as one. Controversy
and struggle had been frequent, but had invariably ended
in the expulsion from the Church of a small number, and
the reaffirmation of the unity of the main body. No one
recognised the possibility that the Church might split into
two opposing halves. The second cause was that, during the
years between Photius and Michael Cerularius many cir-
cumstances conspired to prevent the Popes and Patriarchs
from attacking one another. The period was perhaps the
most discreditable in the history of the Papacy; there was
a succession of corrupt and scandalous Popes, many of
whom were hardly ecclesiastics, and none of whom paid any
attention to the questions of dogma and jurisdiction which
had brought their predecessors into conflict with new Rome.
During the same period the Patriarchs of Constantinople,
though with one exception eminently respectable, were en-
grossed by personal struggles with the Byzantine emperors.
In 906 Leo VI. contracted a fourth marriage, which was
forbidden by the laws of the Church. He was, in conse-
quence, excommunicated by the Patriarch Nicolas, whom he
deposed, naming Euthemius in his place. As in the case of
Photius, the deposed Patriarch had a large following. The
matter was referred to Rome, and the Emperor's marriage
sanctioned, though only as a special dispensation. Before
his death the Emperor reinstated Nicolas, and Euthemius,
now deposed, but supported, as his rival had been, by a
strong party, divided the Church into two factions. In
933 Theophylact, son of the co-regent Romanus, though
only sixteen years old, was enthroned as Patriarch, and the
Pope, who was represented by legates at the assembly, sent
a written permission allowing him and his successors to
wear the pallium without reference to Rome. He filled the
office of Patriarch twenty-four years, and by his debauchery24O	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and mundane tastes scandalised the Byzantine Church,
which was unused to such a spectacle. Theophylact was-
succeeded by the austere Polyeuctes, who quarrelled with
the Emperor Nicephorus on account of his marriage, and
with the Emperor John Zimisces because he assassinated
Nicephorus. These conflicts left him no time to quarrel
with the Pope, but the anti-Roman feeling was growing.
The Patriarch Sisinnius, at the end of the tenth century,
renewed the attacks of Photius, and his successor Sergius
omitted the name of the Pope from the Liturgy. The
Emperor Basil II. and the Patriarch Eustathius (i o 19-
1025) resumed friendly relations with John XIX., and un-
successfully endeavoured to have the Church of Constan-
tinople recognised as oecumenical in its own sphere (in suo
orbe), in the same way as the Church of Rome was oecu-
menical for all Christianity. But the Pope would accept
nothing but submission to his absolute supremacy.

The last blow which cleft asunder the already gaping
fabric of the Universal Church—that glorious conception
which, since the early ages of Christianity, has perhaps
never really existed in fact, that splendid title which asso-
ciated in a nominal unity such differences of rite, such
divergences of sentiment, so many racial antipathies, so
many discordant ambitions—this last blow was dealt by tho
monk Michael Cerularius, who was elected to the patriarchal
chair of Constantinople in 1043.

Two causes led to the consummation of the schism at
this particular epoch. The one was the presence of Latin
churches and convents at Constantinople, which continually
reminded the Byzantines that in language, rites, and reli-
gious discipline the Roman Church was different from their
own. Seeing how lofty was the tone employed by the
Pope in dealing with the Patriarch, we may suspect that
his subordinates irritated both clergy and people by their
arrogant pretensions. Cerularius was clearly supported bjrTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 241

public feeling when he closed the Latin churches and con-
vents. The second cause was that at this period the
Normans invaded Apulia, and, as they acknowledged the
supremacy of the Pope, the district thus became united
to the Roman Church, from which, as we have seen, the
Emperor Leo III. had detached it. Hereupon the Bul-
garian archbishop of Ochrida, in concert with Cerularius,
wrote a letter to John, Bishop of Trani, in which he called
the Westerns half-Jews, half-Pagans, and stigmatised their
use of unleavened bread, their omission of the Alleluia
during Lent, the observance of fasts on Saturday during
the same season, and the permission to eat the flesh of
animals strangled. Nicetas Pectoratus, abbot of the con-
vent of Studium, also published a dissertation in which he
more particularly attacked the celibacy of the clergy.

The closing of the Latin churches, and these attacks
on the Latin religion in Italy itself, could not but call
forth a rejoinder from Rome. The Emperor Constantine
Monomachus was, as the emperors always were, anxious to
preserve religious unity, and Leo IX. sent legates to Con-
stantinople in 1054 to see if peace could not be restored.
Had the discussions been conducted with urbanity, the
rupture might have perhaps been postponed, though not
for long. As it was, the violent proceedings and language
of the chief legate, Cardinal Humbert di Silva Candida, who
poured upon the Greeks, and particularly on Nicetas, the
whole vocabulary of theological invective, speedily brought
matters to a crisis. On July 16, 1054, Humbert entered
St. Sofia during divine service, and laid on the altar the
decree of excommunication against the Patriarch and his
adherents, after which he with some difficulty made his
escape.

The event thus accomplished, though often obscured
and misunderstood by being regarded as a trivial ecclesias-
tical dispute, ranks with the foundation of Constantinople

Q242	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and the coronation of Charlemagne as one of the turning-
points in the relations of the West and East. Above all,
it was for the East of cardinal and doleful import. In
it found expression that dull antagonism, that deep-rooted
want of sympathy between the two great geographical
divisions of Christendom which prevented them from ever
combining against the common aggressor, and which thus
proved the main causes of the fall of the Byzantine Empire
apd the establishment of the Turk in Europe. Basil I.
could not induce Louis II. to fight with him against the
Saracens; the Crusades directed against the Moslim turned
into attacks on Eastern Christendom; the Greek populace
massacred the Latins in 1182; the Latins sacked and seized
Constantinople in 1204; Western Europe declined to pre-
vent the Turks taking Constantinople in 1453, just as they
did not interfere to prevent the Armenian massacres of
1895—96. In these last two cases it is clear that, given
the actual political and religious situation, nothing could
have been done. Had there, however, been a real com-
munity of Christian feeling, such as undoubtedly unites
together Mohammedans in different countries, neither one
event nor the other would have been possible.

One interesting point about the schism under Cerularius
is that, until it was a fait accompli, nothing was said about
the Procession of the Holy Ghost. Even the position of
the Pope was not much discussed. Cerularius appears to
have been ready to allow him a general primacy, and to
have called Constantinople the daughter of Kome; and
there is no proof that he put forward any excessive claims
on behalf of his own See. The points at issue were all
trivial and external. It is a clear proof that the popular
conscience of Eastern Europe must have felt that the Latins
were essentially alien and hostile; otherwise, no religion
could have divided on such ridiculous pretexts.

After the rupture Cerularius appears to have held aTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 243

Synod at Constantinople attended by the Patriarch of
Antioch and the Metropolitans of Cyprus and Bulgaria, in
which the Latin Church was condemned as heretical and
the name of the Pope ordered to be omitted from the
prayers of the Church. But our information about this
Synod is scanty. It is clear that the animus of the Greeks
against the Latins was even at this period much greater
than that of the Latins against the Greeks. The Popes do
not seem to have immediately perceived that the schism of
1054 was a more definite rupture than the many which had
already occurred and been healed. During the later half
of the eleventh century, Rome made many overtures for
reunion, to which the Byzantine emperors lent a willing
ear; as they seem at this period to have had hopes that,
if the Churches could only be united, the Pope might
recognise them as the temporal heads of Christendom. But
the opposition of the Eastern clergy and people rendered all
such efforts abortive.

The century and a half which followed the schism wit-
nessed two movements, which, by bringing Greeks and
Latins into more intimate contact, made plainer the
jealousies and antipathies which divided the races and their
religions. These movements, perhaps only two expressions
of one tendency, were the development of Frankish com-
merce in the Levant, and the Crusades. The former led to
the massacre of the Latins at Constantinople in 1182, the
latter to the sack and capture of the same city by the
Crusaders in 1204. In the course of the twelfth century,
the commerce of the Empire passed almost entirely into the
hands of the Venetians, the Genoese, and the people of
Amalfi. They had their own quarters assigned to them in
Constantinople, with their own churches and clergy, and were
exempt from the heavy taxes with which the emperors
crippled the industry of their own subjects. The animosity
excited both among the clergy and people of Constantinople244	TURKEY IN EUROPE

by the sight of privileged foreigners living in their city and
prospering to their detriment, found at last expression in
the slaughter already alluded to, which strikingly resembles
the Armenian massacres of 1895-1896. The Latin quarter
was sacked and burned, some 6000 people were killed, and
the head of the Pope's legate, tied to the tail of a dog, was
dragged through the city amid the strains of triumphal
hymns.

Still more disastrous was the influence of the Crusades.
In their original conception these expeditions were armies of
united Christendom sent against the common Moslim foe.
In 1095 the Emperor Alexius despatched an embassy to the
Pope to beg for help against the Turks; during the first
Crusade Pope Urban held a Council at Bari to examine the
questions at issue between the Churches: the union of
Christianity and the retreat of Mohammedanism seemed
imminent. Exactly the opposite happened. The dissensions
of the Churches were deepened and embittered, and the
standard of the Prophet advanced triumphantly between its
contending adversaries. Nor was this unnatural. The
Holy Army, at the end of their long journey to the terri-
tories of the Empire, seemed to the Greeks not very different
from the hordes of Turks or other barbarian nomads whom
they knew too well. The hungry knights, who had acquired
in their travels no Oriental languages, but a considerable
talent for helping themselves, had continual misunderstand-
ings with the natives, which won them a reputation for
violence and rapacity. The Christians of the Levant, then
as ever unable to resist any opportunity of making a profit,
laid themselves open to accusations of treachery and dis-
honesty. These natural animosities were aggravated by
definite ecclesiastical grievances. In the West the policy of
the Papacy was distinctly hostile to Constantinople; the
Pope meddled in the affairs both temporal and spiritual of
Transylvania, Croatia, Servia, and Bulgaria. In the EastTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 245

the Crusaders established, not only Latin states but Latin
Patriarchates, which made it more and more obvious that
Eastern and Western Christianity were, for all practical
purposes, different religions. The odium theologicum has
never been more virulent or more general than in the
Levant during the twelfth century; and it was apparently in
the heat of this contest that was first coined the graceful
expression of " infidel dog," now impartially applied by the
Turk to Greek and Latin alike.

Finally, in 1204, the knights of the fourth Crusade,
instead of attacking the Moslims, turned their arms against
Constantinople, and, after sacking the city with every horror
of war, set up a Latin empire, and named a Latin Patriarch
to the See of St. Chrysostom. We have seen elsewhere the
political consequences of this event, and it is easy to under-
stand how it embittered, not only the clergy, but the populace
of Byzantium against the Papacy. The antagonism, brought
to a climax by this onslaught of Western upon Eastern
Christianity, found subsequent expression in the saying of
Notaras that he would rather see the Sultans tiara in St.
Sofia than a Cardinal's hat, and in the ultimate realisation
of that wish.

It may be doubted how far the Pope was directly re-
sponsible for the attack on Constantinople. The best
authorities absolve him of complicity in the enterprise
before its execution. After its success, while maintaining
an attitude of decorous and perhaps sincere regret at the
internal struggles of Christianity, he proceeded to confirm
the doings of the Crusaders for the profit and glory of the
Church. In his letter of December 7, 1204, addressed to
the Latin prelates at Constantinople, he charged them to
place Latin priests " in the churches abandoned by the Greeks
to provide for the celebration of public worship and the
administration of the sacraments. In a subsequent letter he
blamed the election of Morosini as Patriarch, because the246	TURKEY IN EUROPE

electors had received no mandate from the Holy See; but
added that, under the circumstances, in virtue of his pon-
tifical authority, he confirmed their choice. The Latin
Patriarchate lasted at Constantinople as long as the Empire,
and was always conferred on Venetians. After the restora-
tion of the Greek Empire the Pope continued to appoint
titulars to the See, who still reside at Rome.

Regarded from an Eastern point of view nothing can be
more scandalous than the history of the fourth Crusade,
and, at the risk of being partial, it is well to be familiar
with that point of view. Innocent III. proved himself a
very fallible Pope when he expressed the opinion that the
Latin conquest of Constantinople had united the two
Churches. The Roman Church is still detested in the East
with a feeling akin to, but stronger than, the "No Popery"
sentiment in England, a feeling based in both cases on the
political transactions in which that Church has played a pro-
minent part. As might be expected, the Eastern Church,
having got the worst in the struggle, is far more bitter than
the Western. Rome considers the Orthodox Church as
merely schismatic—that is, disobedient—whereas the Ortho-
dox Church has often accused the Papacy of heresy. The
overtures of the Popes to reunion, however much dictated
by the lust of universal dominion, were still honest efforts
to reunite the Church; the overtures of the Greeks were
all obviously attempts to save the Empire from ruin by
an ecclesiastical alliance which their religious feelings dis-
approved.

The period from the re-establishment of the Greek Empire
to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1260-1453)
is characterised by an almost uninterrupted series of these
overtures. They were not inconsistent with the mortal hatred
felt on the Bosphorus for Western Christianity. Gibbon
remarked that " the friendly or hostile attitude of the Greek
emperors towards the Pope and the Latins may be observedTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 247

as the thermometer of their prosperity or distress/' He
might have added that the feelings of the populace of Con-
stantinople form another thermometer, for the virulence of
their hatred and outcry against the Latins varies directly as
the magnitude of the concessions which policy forced the
emperors to make to the Pope. Petrarch (Rer. Sen. L. 11,
Ep. 1) thus speaks of the feelings of the Greeks for those
fellow-Christians with whom they were so anxious to be
united: " I am not sure which is worst (for Christianity),
the loss of Jerusalem or such a possession of Byzantium.
In the one Christ is not recognised; in the other He is
insulted by such worship. The one (the Saracens) are
enemies; the others, schismatics, worse than enemies. . . .
There is no doubt that they consider us as dogs, and call
us dogs whenever they can speak freely. If one of us enters
their basilicas, they purify them with expiatory ceremonies
as if they were defiled by blood or some horrible crime.
This the Church of Rome has long known and endured.
Considering how easily the scandal might be removed, I
leave it to others to judge whether her attitude should be
called lethargy or patience." 1

Yet, in spite of this temper on both sides, unanswerable
logic forced the Palseologi to see that the friendship of
Rome was their only salvation from two dangers; and the
strength of their conviction led them to shrink from no
hypocrisy and duplicity, and to face dissension and indig-
nation at home. The first and most obvious danger was
the advance of the Turks. The second was the continual
threatening of a new Crusade. The unhappy Greeks had

1 "Nescio enim an pejus sit amisisse Hierusalem an ita Byzantium pos-
sidere. Ibi enim non agnoscitur Christus, hie lseditur dum sic colitur. Illi
hostes, hi schismatici pejores hostibus. . . . Constat quod nos canes judicant
et si loquendi libertas affuerit canes vocant. Basilicas suas si quis ex nobis
introierit quasi humano sanguine aut foedo facinore violatas reconciliant et
expurgant. Et hasc quidem Bomana ecclesia diu novit et passa est. Quod
an dici torpor aut patientia mereatur cum tarn facile dilui possit hoc dedecus
judicandum linquo aliis."248	TURKEY IN EUROPE

already learned what they might expect from an enterprise
directed nominally against the Moslim; they were now
scared by the disagreeable doctrine, constantly more or less
plainly advanced, that the first step towards turning the
infidels out of Jerusalem was to turn the schismatics out of
Constantinople. The fourteenth century witnessed a suc-
cession of Crusades and attempts at Crusade. The disturbed
state of Europe, and the strifes of Popes with anti-Popes,
and of both with Councils, precluded alike any effectual
attack on the Moslims, and any serious attempt to re-estab-
lish the Latin Empire; but Pope Clement V. (1316) pro-
claimed that those who took part in a Crusade against
Constantinople were entitled to the same indulgences as
those who fought for Christianity in Palestine.1 Such
language might well alarm a stronger power than the
Empire of the Palseologi, and we cannot be surprised at
the sorry spectacle of emperor after emperor endeavouring
to dispel the ever-recurring danger by promises which he
knew he could not fulfil, and overtures in the name of his
Church destined to be disowned at Constantinople if ac-
cepted at Rome.

Urban IV., who was elected Pope about the same time
that Michael Palseologus restored the Greek Empire, had
been Patriarch of Jerusalem, and Apostolic Legate in the
Crusading army. He therefore took an interest in the
affairs of the East, and not only used the most violent
language against the Greek Emperor, but wrote to Louis IX.
urging him to lead a Crusade (1262). Palseologus sent
legates to the Pope, who returned an ungracious reply,
laying on the Greeks the whole blame of the schism, and
saying they deserved all the disasters which had befallen
them. He also charged St. Thomas Aquinas to write a
treatise confuting their errors. But for the moment the

1 '' Illam concedimus veniam peccatorum quam haberetis si transfretaretis
in terrain sanctam subsidium " (Eaynald, 1306, 2).THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 249

danger of the Crusade passed by, and Palseologus conse-
quently paid less attention to the Pope. When, however,
in 1270, Louis IX. really started for the East, he felt that
the crisis had come, and again despatched legates to Rome,
who entered into serious negotiations, ending in the second
Council of Lyons in 1274. At this meeting the union was
proclaimed, and the Greeks approved the Filioque, though
they treated the question as non-essential, and did not
make, the addition in their own Creed. " Hadst thou but
seen, my son, the joy of that assemblywrote the enthu-
siastic Pope to Palseologus, giving him a glowing descrip-
tion of the edifying scenes witnessed at Lyons. What the
unfortunate Emperor really did see was the black looks of
his own subjects. It was in vain that he openly explained
that his only motive was the political necessity of having
the Pope on his side. His own officials fell at his feet, and
besought him not to endeavour to ward off a foreign war
by creating a far more dangerous civil war at home. But
the Emperor persisted in his policy. He deposed the
Patriarch Joseph, and appointed in his stead Beccus, who
shared the unionist views of the Court. On St. Peter's Day
High Mass was celebrated in St. Sofia, to mark the union of
the Churches. The Gospel was read in Latin and Greek,
and the Pope prayed for. The popular indignation at these
proceedings was so strong that it became the fashion not to
speak of Greeks and Latins, but of Christians and Latins.

This was not a very satisfactory state of things, but
worse was to follow. Two years later Pope Nicolas III.
sent further demands to Michael. He insisted that the
Filioque should not only be tacitly approved, but openly
recited in the Creed, and, further, that a legate should pro-
ceed to Constantinople to publicly absolve the Byzantine
clergy for their sins against the Holy See, and only then
confirm them in their offices. The Emperors position was
indeed difficult. The Pope was on intimate terms with250

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Charles of Anjou, who desired the destruction of the Byzan-
tine Power, and in Asia the Seljuks were uniting to attack
the Empire. But even under these circumstances it must
be admitted that the hypocrisy of Michael overstepped
all bounds of decency. He summoned the clergy, and
explained the position to them. He would not, he said,
abandon a jot of the faith, or really insert the Filioque in
the Creed, but he would give a soft answer to the legates,
and send them back with vague promises to their master.
This was done. The legates were overwhelmed with
honours and promises; they were taken round the prisons
to see the enemies of the union in chains, and were sent
back to the Pope with an evasive answer. It took some
time to go from Constantinople to Rome in those days, and
months were important. In 1281 Nicolas was succeeded
by Martin IV., also a friend of Charles, under whose influ-
ence he pronounced against Michael a frightful anathema,
calling upon all princes to have nothing to do with him,
and give him no help. No ingenuity could pretend that
the union still existed, and the name of the Pope was again
omitted from the diptychs. Next year Michael died—
excommunicated by the Pope and refused Christian burial
by his orthodox subjects.

His son, Andronicus II., was a slave to the most abject
superstitions, and naturally unwilling to provoke the resent-
ment of the ecclesiastics of Constantinople by any attempts
at union. Disastrous as was his reign, he was relieved of
one obstacle against which his father had to contend. The
massacre of the French in Sicily in 1282, commonly called
the " Sicilian Vespers," broke the power of Charles of Anjou,
and relieved the Eastern Empire of one anxiety. It must
be confessed that the internal discussions and dissensions
of the Byzantine Church thus left to herself are not less
ignominious than the hypocritical overtures of Michael.
The Church of St. Sofia, defiled by the presence of PapalTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 251

legates and the celebration of Latin rites, was solemnly
washed and purified. The anti-unionists imprisoned by
Michael were led in triumph from their prisons, and the
following year a Synod was held at Blachernae, at which
the unionist clergy were denounced, and handed over to
the populace, bound hand and foot. The Dowager Empress
had to make a profession of orthodoxy, and undertake to
never claim for the corpse of her husband a place in the
Imperial tombs.

Much commotion was caused about this time by the
quarrel between the Arsenists and Josephists. The former
were the adherents of Arsenius, the uncompromising
champion of orthodoxy who had excommunicated Michael
Palseologus at the beginning of his reign; while the latter
followed the comparatively mild Joseph, who, though re-
moved from the Patriarchate by Michael to make way for
Beccus, and restored by Andronicus, was held by the more
rigid anti-Romanists to be tainted with the pollution of the
union. The quarrel continued long after the death of both
these worthies, and the Arsenists made themselves ridicu-
lous by insisting with exaggerated emphasis on all the
most degraded aspects of saint and relic worship. The
difference was at last appeased at an assembly held at
Adramyttium, under the presidency of the Emperor, at
which the two parties agreed to submit to the judgment
of God, and to lay on a burning brazier two scrolls contain-
ing their respective confessions of faith, the one which
should remain unconsumed to be recognised as the truth.
The result was almost miraculous, inasmuch as it proved
the honesty with which the contest was conducted. To the
general surprise both scrolls were burned, and the dispu-
tants, abandoning their pretensions, agreed to recognise the
Patriarch.

A little later occurred the celebrated controversy of the
uncreated light of Mount Thabor. Some monks of Mount252	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Athos, influenced perhaps by Indian or other Oriental
ideas, imagined that by steadfastly contemplating their
navels they could see a supernatural light streaming from
that part of their person. For some strange reason this
phenomenon was identified with the light manifested on
Mount Thabor at the time of the Transfiguration, and
asserted to be eternal and uncreated. This doctrine was
ridiculed by the Calabrian monk Barlaam (employed by
Andronicus III. as an ambassador to Rome), but was
upheld by Palamas, Archbishop of Thessalonica, and by
John Cantacuzene. The quarrel between the Palamites
and Barlaamites, after distracting the Eastern Church, was
at last settled by a Synod in a sense favourable to the
former. This doctrine of the uncreated light of Mount
Thabor is, I believe, the solitary intellectual effort of the
Church of Constantinople in the realm of Christian
dogma, after the epoch of the (Ecumenical Councils.

This same monk Barlaam was sent by Andronicus III.
on a mission to Rome in 1339. Brusa, Nicomedia, and
Nicsea had then fallen before the victorious arms of the
Turks, who thus left the Empire nothing but Chalcedon
on the Asiatic shore. The only hope for Constantinople
lay in a return to the policy of Michael Palaeologus. Bar-
laam's proposals were ingenious. The schism was to be
attributed to the devil, thus avoiding the delicate question
of apportioning blame between East and West. The Or-
thodox Church, he said, was ready to hear and doubtless
to accept any scheme of union laid before a General Coun-
cil; but to make such a Council truly oecumenical the
presence of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and
Antioch was essential. But at the present moment the
Sees of those prelates were in the hands of the infidels,
and any discussion of the union must be preceded by a
Crusade against the Turks. The Pope saw through these
arguments with the perspicacity bred of conscious strength,THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 253

and brought the question back to the main point, namely,
that union with Rome must precede any material help from
the West. But though the Papal reply to Andronicus was
unsympathetic and hardly civil,1 the question of reunion
attracted at this period general attention. Treatises were
written on the subject by Nilus Cabasilas, Archbishop of
Thessalonica, and by the Dominican Humbert. The latter,
though in many ways strongly anti-Greek, sensibly remarked
that the difference of language was one of the greatest
obstacles to union, and that nothing could be done unless
prominent Greeks and Latins had opportunities of meeting
freely and ascertaining one another's real sentiments.

During the minority of John V. Palseologus, the Empire
was distracted by civil war in addition to its other dangers,
and the usurper Cantacuzene made overtures for the as-
sembling of a Council of reconciliation, which were favour-
ably received by Clement VI., but before anything definite
could be accomplished, the Pope died, and Cantacuzene was
deposed and banished to a monastery.

John Y. Palseologus went further in his advances to
the Pope than any of his predecessors, and actually visited
Rome in person. He was the son of Anne of Savoy, a
Catholic princess who had abjured, but never ceased to love,
the faith in which she was baptized, and who had imbued
her son with ideas favourable to the Latins. Early train-
ing thus disposed the Emperor to turn towards the Western
Church ; and the inclination was strengthened by the critical
state of the Empire, now grown so desperate that it is a
marvel how its fall was delayed for another hundred years.
In 13 5 5 he wrote a letter to the Pope entirely ackno wledging
his supremacy in return for a grant of material assistance;
and, when that assistance did not appear, paid a personal
visit to Urban Y. in 1369. The Pope had just returned

1 It was addressed " to the Moderator of the Greeks, and the persons who
style themselves the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church."254	TURKEY IN EUROPE

to Rome from Avignon, and welcomed the Emperor's visit as
an occasion for restoring the prestige of the Papacy. After
making public submission to the authority of the Pope, John
was treated with hospitality and honour, but found that,
though he had humbled himself more than his predecessors,
he was no more able than they to obtain from the stubborn
Church of St. Peter either theological concessions or military
aid. An attempt to engage an English adventurer, called
Hawkwood, for the defence of the Christian East fell through,
and the Imperial visit to Europe came to a singularly igno-
minious termination, as John was detained some time at
Venice from inability to pay his bills. His submission to
the Pope was purely personal, and seems to have had no
effect on the relations of the Churches.

It was reserved for his grandson and namesake to make
a last and more serious effort for union. Manuel, the son
of John V. Palseologus and the father of John VI., paid a
visit to the courts of Europe in quest of assistance (1400-
1402), but made no appeal to the Church, which was then
divided by the schism between Popes and anti-Popes.
Later in his reign he opened negotiations with the Papacy;
and in his old age explained to his son, John VI., his ecclesi-
astical policy, which was, briefly, that union being really
impossible, all serious attempts to establish it should be
avoided, as only likely to make plain to the Turk the
divisions of Christendom, but that feints of union and
alliance with the Latins should be made whenever politic,
not in the hope of producing any effect in the West, but
merely to alarm the Turks.

John VI., however, desired a more active policy. He
had strong reason to require support against the Ottomans,
and the Western Church was better disposed than usual
to accept, and even to make overtures, inasmuch as she was
herself divided by the quarrel between the Popes and the
Councils first of Constance and then of Bale. These latterTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 255

were indeed contending for one of the main principles of
the Orthodox Church, namely, that in the last resort the
appeal on all religious matters is not to the Pope, but to
an (Ecumenical Council, which is superior to a Pope; and
the fact that the Greeks ultimately applied to the Pope
and did not take the side of the Council, is but another
proof of the disregard for religion which characterised all
these attempts at union.

In 1435 Eugenius IV. sent to Constantinople as legate
Nicholas de Cusa, who arranged for the holding of a
Council in Italy to be attended by the Greek Church.
The Council of Bale in vain made rival overtures, the Pope
sent a fleet to convey the mission, and in 1437 some 700
Greeks, including the Emperor, the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople, delegates of the Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria,
and Jerusalem, and the Metropolitan Isidore, representing
the Russian Church, with a crowd of high ecclesiastical and
lay dignitaries, disembarked at Venice and proceeded to
Ferrara, where the proceedings of the Council opened (1438).
Little progress was made here, and in 1439, when the Pope
was, for various reasons, in a better position than hie had
been the year before, the Council was transferred to Florence.
There were discussed the ceremonial of the Eucharist, the
formula of consecration and the use of azymes, the
nature of Purgatory and of the Beatific Vision, the Filioque
clause, and the supremacy of the Pope. The Patriarch
Joseph, who expired during the proceedings, recommended
union and concession with his dying breath, and finally
the Greeks yielded to the Latins on almost every point.
Questions of ceremony were treated in a liberal spirit, but
the supremacy of the Pope was recognised, and the Filioque
clause admitted to be synonymous with the Greek formula
that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the
Son.

On July 6, 1439, the Act Union was signed and256	TURKEY IN EUROPE

sanctioned by the Pope in the Bull Laetentur Coeli. Only
Marc, the Bishop of Ephesus, refused to assent to the pro-
ceedings, and declined to accept a reconciliation purchased
at the price of such concessions. But this uncompromising
prelate, whose last wish was that no Latin might pray for
his soul, expressed the real feelings of the Eastern Church.
The mission on their return found themselves regarded as
little better than traitors and apostates, who had sold their
faith to the Azymites for a not very obvious advantage.
After vain attempts to induce more influential bishops to
accept the dignity, Metrophanes, the Bishop of Cyzicus, was
elected Patriarch; but the only result of his efforts to
enforce the union was that the Patriarchate and the Church
of St. Sofia were disowned, and practically treated as schis-
matic by the rest of the Constantinopolitan Church. In
1443 the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
who had been represented at Florence only by deputies,
held a Synod, in which they denounced the union and ab-
jured all communion with Rome. The Russian Church,
with even greater severity, condemned and imprisoned
the Metropolitan Isidore. In 1448 the Emperor John
himself was obliged to undo his own work and abandon
the union.

Eugenius IV. honestly did his best to defend the
interests of what he regarded as the Eastern part of his
Church. He could not rouse the great Powers of Europe
to a Crusade, but he at least sent Ladislas, King of Poland
and Hungary, against the Turks. But it was too late:
Ladislas fell in the disastrous battle of Yarna; in 1452
the Turks were at Roumeli Hissar on the Bosphorus.

The reader who has followed the history of the pre-
vious overtures to Rome, will not be surprised to hear
that, under these circumstances, the union of the Eastern
and Western Churches again came to the front. The
grotesque comedy was played for the last time, but inTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 257

its most extravagant form. The Greek nation presented
an extraordinary combination of unprincipled duplicity,
ready to sacrifice all religion for political interests, and wild
fanaticism, ready to doom the State to instant destruction
rather than admit the most trivial ceremonial changes, and
believing that Constantinople would be saved from the
Turks by the miraculous intervention of the heavenly host
if she only resisted the shaven Latin priests and their
offerings of unleavened bread. Constantine XI. first applied
to Nicolas Y. in 1451, and excused as best he could the
manner in which the engagements made at Florence had
been ignored in the East. He received a severe reply.
All Christendom except the Greeks, said the Pope, knew
of the union; only at Constantinople was it ignored. If
the Greeks were ready to execute the decrees of Florence,
the Church of Rome was ready to work for their defence;
if not, the Pope would be obliged to act as seemed best
for the salvation of the Greeks and his own honour.1

This letter and a much more disagreeable communica-
tion received from the Sultan Mohammed about the same
time were sufficient to send another deputation hurrying
from Constantinople to Rome, where they arrived about
January 1453. The Pope again found himself unable to
induce the Western Powers to undertake any sort of
Crusade, but pledged himself to send what small material
forces were at the immediate disposal of the Holy See,
provided the Greek clergy and the Patriarch of Constanti-
nople would abjure the schism, and formally acknowledge
the Papal primacy. The Greeks assented, and Cardinal
Isidore2 was sent as Special Legate to receive their sub-

1	"Siautem Unionisdecretum cum populo suscipere recusaveris, compelles
nos ad ea providenda quibus et saluti vestrae et honori nostro pariter consulatur."

2	This personage was a Greek ecclesiastic, who had migrated to Russia,
where he became Metropolitan of Moscow. He represented the Russian
Church at the Council of Florence, and agreed to the union ; but, on return-
ing, his action was disavowed and his person imprisoned. He succeeded,
however, in escaping to Rome, where he was made a cardinal.

R258	TURKEY IN EUROPE

mission. On December 12, he celebrated a solemn Te
Deum in St. Sofia, assisted by the Patriarch, and the
Pope was again prayed for in that fane which has heard
so many rival prelates and prophets recommended to the
divine mercy.

This ceremony produced an explosion of fanaticism
unusual even in Constantinople. The mob shouted they
would rather be Turks than Latins; the priests who had
taken part in the unionist ceremonies were not allowed
to administer baptism or perform any religious rites; the
Church of St. Sofia was almost deserted, and the lamps
before the ikons were allowed to go out. Foremost among
those who denounced the union was Gregorius Scholarius
(known also by the monastic name of Gennadius), who
had attended the Council of Florence, but subsequently
recanted, resigned his offices, and retired to the monastery
of Pancrator. He refused to appear to the excited crowd
which, on December 12, surrounded his retreat and de-
manded his counsel, but caused a terrible placard to be
placed on the door of the monastery warning them that,
as a reward for abandoning their faith, they would lose
their city.

" Down with the Azymites !" cried the mob as they read
the tablet. " We need no Latins. God and the Madonna
saved us formerly from Persians and Arabs, and will save
us now from Mohammed/'

On May 29, 1453, Mohammed took Constantinople.
The Greeks attributed the disaster to the Latins, and
particularly to the Pope; the Pope and his adherents
regarded it as the natural consequences of the schism.
In 1472 a Synod held at Constantinople formally de-
nounced and abolished the union of the Constantinopolitan
and Roman Churches.

Before we treat of the position of the Orthodox Church
under her Mohammedan masters, it will be well to brieflyTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 259

review the history of the Slavonic Churches of the Balkan
Peninsula up to 1453.

The conversion of the Slav nations—the most glorious
episode in the history of the Orthodox Church—was due
to the initiative of the brothers Cyril (or Constantine)1
and Methodius, natives of Salonica, who made it their
life-task to disseminate Christianity by reducing the Slav
languages to writing, and making translations of the Bible.
Their labours were crowned with success (though at first
they were confronted with the opposition of those who
maintained that the Almighty could be properly addressed
only in Greek, Hebrew, or Latin), and they converted to
Christianity, not only the Slav populations of the Balkan
Peninsula, but even the distant regions of Moravia and
Bohemia. In Bulgaria, King Boris, who had been fighting
with the Emperor, Michael III., was baptized. On the con-
clusion of peace, and after some opposition from a Pagan
party among the nobility, Christianity was established as
the State religion. The question of East and West—ortho-
doxy or Rome—which has never ceased to agitate the
Bulgarian Church, and which was brought into notice so
recently as 1896, in the case of another Boris, was at
once raised. Placed geographically between Byzantium
and Rome, the Churches of Bulgaria and Servia inclined
now to one, now to the other, of their powerful neighbours,
and at many periods of their history it is difficult to say
to what communion they belonged. The time of Boris's
conversion seems to show that it was due to Greek
influence, but the prince was a man of wide views, and
had no intention of blindly following the religion of
Constantinople. He at once sent a mission to the Pope,
to whom he propounded 106 questions on Christian life

1 He became a monk, and in so doing, according to custom, changed his
name. History knows him indifferently by his secular and religious designa-
tion.260	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and manners, some of them excessively curious, e.g. whether
Christians might wear trousers.1 Among these many naive
queries one was important: Was Bulgaria entitled to have
a Patriarch ? It must be remembered that at this period,
and for many centuries afterwards, a Patriarch was regarded
as the necessary complement of an emperor, and every
ambitious Slav who called himself Czar felt it indispen-
sable to have a spiritual counterpart. An older Christian
tjian Boris might have known that the Pope of Rome
was not to be got round so easily. In reply to his 106
questions, the promising convert received a great deal of
good advice, and a bishop.

The subsequent struggle over the Bulgarian Church
was carried on at Constantinople, as I have related in
describing the quarrel of Photius with Rome. The Patri-
archs of Constantinople considered Bulgaria as forming
part of the diocese of Prima Justiniana, and were always
reluctant to admit its ecclesiastical independence. Simeon,
however, the son of Boris, who established the first Bulga-
rian Empire, took the title of Czar (Csesar), and installed
a Patriarch at Preslav, his capital. The patriarchal See
was subsequently transferred to Sofia, Monastir, Vodena,
and Presba, and finally to Ochrida. The Roumanian Church
appears to have been connected with this Patriarchate.
When, shortly afterwards (1018), the ferocious Basil Bul-
garoctonos destroyed the Bulgarian Empire, he reduced the
Patriarchate of Ochrida to the rank of a simple archbishopric,
which rapidly fell into the hands of Greek prelates, who
completely hellenised it. Hence, when the second Bulgarian
Empire (1186-1398) was founded, a new national Patri-
archate was established at Trnovo. A few years later the
Czar Kaloyan made overtures to the Pope, and found his

1 This is a curious instance of how costumes, or the significance attached
to them, may change. The Bulgarians, like many Asiatics, wore baggy
trousers, whereas the Greeks wore flowing robes. Boris thought the latter
might be essential to Christianity.THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 261

religious inclinations towards Rome remarkably confirmed
by the Latin conquest of Constantinople. Unlike the
Greeks, who, in their hour of extremest need, could never
bring themselves to yield to the demands of Rome, Kaloyan
perceived that unqualified submission was the only practical
policy. As a reward, Innocent III. sent Cardinal Leo to
Trnovo with a royal crown, and a pallium for the Arch-
bishop Basil as Primate of Bulgaria. On November 7,
1204, Leo consecrated Basil, as well as two Metropolitans,
for Yelbuzhd and Preslav, and bishops for Viddin, Nish,
TJscub, and Branchievo, and on the following day crowned
Kaloyan. Innocent undoubtedly intended to consecrate by
these ceremonies a king and a primate, not an emperor
and a patriarch, though in his letter he stated with politic
inaccuracy that primates and patriarchs were much the
same thing. The astute Bulgarian availed himself of this
Papal statement that the two names were synonymous.
In his letter of thanks he signed himself Czar, and ex-
pressed his gratitude for the consecration of the Patriarch.

In 1237, when the Latin Empire at Constantinople was
weaker, Asen II. abolished the union with Rome, and re-
established the national Patriarchate of Trnovo, with the
consent, or at least without the opposition, of the Greeks.
The Pope excommunicated him, and called upon Bela, King
of Hungary, and upon the Latin Emperor, Baldwin II., to
undertake a Crusade against Bulgaria. But the political
circumstances of the moment were not favourable to such
an enterprise, and no harm came to Asen from the Pope's
threats. On the other hand, the Church of Constantinople
soon regretted the recognition of the Bulgarian Patriarchate
made in the hour of need, and refused to treat the Bishop
of Trnovo as the head of an independent Church. In 1355
the Patriarch Callixtus of Constantinople endeavoured to
insist on the mention of his name in the Bulgarian Liturgy
as a sign of the recognition of his authority, but the request262	TURKEY IN EUROPE

was not acceded to. The fall of Trnovo in 1393 involved
the destruction of the national Church, and placed the
ecclesiastical administration of the country in Greek hands.

Like Bulgaria, Servia was converted to Christianity by
Cyril and Methodius, who baptized the King Radoslav about
the middle of the ninth century. The early history of the
country, both secular and ecclesiastical, is inextricably mixed
up with that of Bulgaria, and, even when it becomes separ-
able, follows the same lines—alternate dependence on Rome
and Byzantium in troublous times, and the creation of an
independent Patriarchate whenever circumstances permitted.
About 1050, Michael Voislavich, actuated probably by fear of
the Normans, recognised the authority of the Pope, and re-
ceived from Gregory VII. the title of king and a consecrated
banner. It is not clear how long this union lasted, but it
had certainly ceased to exist in the reign of Stephen
Nemanya, about the middle of the next century. The
youngest son of Stephen Nemanya, St. Sava, was a monk of
Mount Athos, who became one of the greatest legendary and
religious heroes of his country, where his name is still re-
vered and his exploits repeated in the tales and songs of the
people. He was evidently a person of extreme prudence,
who knew how to make the best of other people's disputes.
He induced Theodore Lascaris and the Patriarch Germanus,
whom he visited at Nicaea, to declare the Servian Church
autocephalous; but the authority of the Pope was recognised
by the mission of a legate, who crowned Sava's brother
Stephen as king (Krai) of Servia, Dioclea, Terbunia, and
Dalmatia in 1217. In 1222, however, Sava crowned his
brother again with a diadem sent from Nicsea, and anointed
him with the rites of the Orthodox Church.

It will be observed that there is ar close analogy between
these proceedings and the policy of Kalojan and Asen during
the same period. Only, whereas the Bulgarian Church made
submission to Rome when the Latin Empire was strong, andTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 263

declared herself independent when that Empire was too weak
to object, the Servian Church contrived to be simultaneously
recognised by both parties, though she subsequently threw
in her lot with the East. St. Sava's See was Uzhitsa, but the
residence of the primate was transferred, at the beginning
of the fourteenth century, to Ipek, which long continued to
be the ecclesiastical centre of the country. In 1346, when
the Servian kingdom attained its greatest extent and glory,
Stephen Dushan styled himself Emperor of the Servians and
Greeks, and consequently required a Patriarch. A Synod of
Servian and Bulgarian clergy raised the Archbishop of Ipek
to this dignity, and the newly-elected prelate placed the
Imperial crown on Dushan's head at Uskiib. Henceforth
the Servian Church was long recognised as autocephalous,
and did not fall with the conquest of the kingdom by the
Turks or become Hellenised until a comparatively late
period. But what occurred at Constantinople was repeated
on a small scale in Servia. The Turkish conquest was to a
great extent due to the religious dissensions of the country,
and to the fear that, if they accepted the assistance which
the Hungarians were ready to offer, they might fall into the
hands of the Pope.

An important place in the religious history of the Balkan
Slavs is occupied by the heretics known as Bogomils, a
Manichsean sect of Asiatic origin. It is remarkable that
most of the heresies which agitated the Byzantine Church—
Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, and Bogomilism—were Asiatic,
and had certain features in common. The Bogomils appear
to have been an offshoot of the Paulicians, a sect of
Armenian dualists, whose teaching early found a congenial
soil among the Danubian Slavs. About 750 the Emperor
Constantine Copronymus, who, as an Iconoclast, was perhaps
not hostile to Paulician doctrines, transplanted a large body
of these heretics to Thrace, where their religion spread
rapidly, and was constantly reinforced by new colonies sent264	TURKEY IN EUROPE

from Asia, the largest transplantation taking place in the
tenth century under the Emperor John Zimisces. In spite
of persecution by Rome and Byzantium alike, the sect con-
tinued in full vigour up to the time of the Turkish conquest,
particularly in Bosnia, where it seems to have been almost
the national religion.

The tenets of the Bogomils, like those of the Iconoclasts,
are known almost exclusively from the statements of their
enemies. The best accounts are given by Presbyter Cosmas,
a Bulgarian priest, who wrote some ecclesiastical treatises in
the epoch of Czar Samuel, and by Euthymius Zygabenus (in
his " Panoplia "), a commissioner appointed by the Emperor
Alexius Comnenus to examine the heresiarch, Basil. It
would appear that there were two sects—one simple Dualists ;
the other believing that God had two sons, of whom the
elder, Satanael, created a very unsuccessful world, which the
younger, Christ, was sent to reform. They all agreed, however,
in condemning the worship of images or saints and mariola-
try; they objected to the sign of the Cross, and probably dis-
believed in the Crucifixion; they apparently observed cere-
monies analogous to baptism and the Eucharist, but did not
believe that the sacramental elements underwent any change.
Holding that matter was evil, they were naturally inclined
to asceticism, and objected to marriage and the use of wine
and meat. They were hence, like many similar sects, divided
into two classes—the simple believers who followed the way
of the world, and the adepts who led " the celestial life."
The latter practised severe fasting and abstinence; they slept
in the open air, took no thought for the morrow, lived on
alms, and continually mumbled prayers as they walked.
They appear to have attached great importance to prayer,
but are said to have objected to the use of any formula
except the Paternoster, which they repeated five times
a day and five times each night. It is also remarkable
that they held it lawful to conform externally to other reli-THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 265

gions. It is pretty clear from these characteristics that the
Bogomils were one of the many sects which arose from a
mixture of Dualistic and other pre-Christian religions with
Christian and, later, with Moslim ideas. The doctrines of
the Yezidis, Druses, Sabeans, Kizilbashes, and of many der-
vishes have probably been formed by similar processes; and
perhaps the strange sects still found in Russia—the Philip-
powtsy, the Dukhobortsy, the Skoptsy, and many others—
are closely allied to the Bogomils. The latter, however, have
a twofold historical importance not possessed by any of their
congeners. Firstly, their doctrines spread westward and
produced the Albigenses, Cathari, and other precursors of
modern Protestantism; secondly, they created a religious
quarrel in the Slavonic states, which not only facilitated the
Turkish conquest, but also prepared the way for the accept-
ance of Mohammedanism by large bodies of Slavs, especially
in Bulgaria and Bosnia.

In treating the Bogomil heresy, one must qualify the
praise usually bestowed on the Orthodox Church that she
never persecuted. On the contrary, the Bogomils were put
to death by thousands for their religious belief. Alexis
Comnenus burned the heresiarch, Basil, in the Hippodrome,
and Manuel, in 1143, again made the stake the punishment
of this heresy. This persecution took a curious form in the
bands of brigand monks who ranged over Macedonia and
Greece in the twelfth century, waging war against Pagans
and heretics. In the reigns of Alexis I. and II. constant
complaints were made of these, bands, who, a strange mix-
ture of fanatics and marauders, overran the country, and,
under pretence of suppressing heresy, defied the authority of
the Church, and behaved much as the modern Bashi-
Bozuks.

Let us now turn to the history of the Byzantine and
Balkan Churches after the Turkish conquest of Constanti-
nople.266	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Strange as it may seem, the immediate result of the
Mussulman domination was beneficial to the Church, in as
far as her prosperity can be separated from that of the
whole Christian population. The Turks were well aware of
the Greek plans for union with Rome and the formation of
a Christian alliance against Islam, and the conqueror saw
plainly that the bigotry of the Orthodox Church was the
chief obstacle to any such union. In the hour of extremest
danger fanatics had cried," Better Turks than Latins!" What-
ever the value of Latin help might have been (and the Turks,
who regarded the Pope as a sort of magician who bore
mysterious sway over the West, greatly exaggerated it),
Orthodoxy had deliberately rejected that help and pro-
claimed far and wide that the fall of Constantinople was the
result of the impious overtures made to Rome. Mohammed
was delighted to encourage this temper and to teach the
Byzantine Church to regard him as her benefactor and pro-
tector against the Pope. In pursuance of this policy he
named to the Patriarchate, which internal dissension had
left vacant for two years, Gennadius, the fanatical monk
whose ominous scrolls had so excited the populace during
the last attempt at union, gave him the rank of a Pasha of
three horse-tails, and solemnly invested him with his own
hands, in imitation of the ceremony performed by the Chris-
tian emperors.

But, as a Moslim, he was ready to . give much that his
orthodox predecessors had kept for themselves. The Em-
peror had always been head of the Church, and, in virtue of
his sacrosanct character, had interfered in and controlled
the course of ecclesiastical policy. A Mohammedan sove-
reign had no such ambitions. While reserving a full right
to hang or otherwise correct any troublesome priest, Mo-
hammed put the whole " Greek religion," as he phrased it,
under the control of the Patriarch, who thus acquired an
almost Papal authority, which he had never enjoyed inTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 267

Christian times. Further, the peculiarities of Mohamme-
danism tended to exalt the position of the Patriarch. Islam
has never clearly distinguished between the Church and the
State, between religion and law, between temporalities and
spiritualities. By tolerating the Christian religion the Con-
queror implied that Christians were allowed to preserve, not
only their religion in the strict sense of the word, but all
their observances, usages, and customs, provided they clearly
understood that they were, collectively and individually, the
inferiors of Moslims, and paid tribute in humble gratitude
for the privilege of being allowed to exist. The Patriarch
was the head, not only of the Church, but of this tributary
community, the representative of the Greek nation, the
recognised intermediary between them and the Ottoman
Government, a chief empowered to settle all disputes and
other business matters arising between Christians, provided
no Moslim was concerned. All questions respecting mar-
riage and inheritance were referred to the ecclesiastical
tribunals, and as the Greeks were unwilling to go before
Turkish courts, and the Turks cared little how Christians
settled matters among themselves, the authority and juris-
diction of the Patriarch gradually extended to all civil cases.
He was allowed to levy tithes and dues from his flock and
to keep Zapties in his service. In fact, the pressure of the
Turkish yoke was felt almost exclusively by the rural popu-
lation, among whom must be counted the parochial clergy.
The upper classes, lay as well as clerical, and the monks,
who formed at this time so large an element, suffered but
little. The higher clergy found themselves possessed of a
power and influence which were new to them, while the
peculiar inaptitude of the Turks for commerce and money-
making enabled the laity, especially in the capital, to amass
enormous fortunes. Subsequently, the Phanariots took a
large share in the administration of the Ottoman Empire as
middlemen, and their exactions and oppression became a268	TURKEY IN EUROPE

byword; but in the years which immediately followed the
conquest it was distinctly the Church which was favoured
by the Turks as a matter of deliberate policy, and which
prospered at the expense of the community. The clergy in
return did not hesitate to exhort the people to obedience,
and tacitly acquiesced in the levy of tribute children required
by the Ottoman Government to be educated as Janissaries
in the Mohammedan faith.

Such a position was false and unnatural. A Christian
Church could win no enduring prosperity by aiding a
Moslim ruler to oppress Christians. The first few Patri-
archs seem to have felt their disgrace, for one resigned and
one tried to commit suicide; but the demoralisation and
decay of all principle implied by this unholy alliance with
the Sultan reacted, as the politic Mohammed had doubtless
foreseen, on the Church herself, and bred universal corrup-
tion and consequent weakness. The apologists of the
Orthodox Church have often piously thanked God that she
showed little of that worldliness and statecraft with which
the Roman Church has been reproached. This is true
enough if it means that she never had the power or great-
ness necessary to commit Imperial sins; but the history of
the Patriarchs of Constantinople under Turkish rule is not
pleasant reading, and presents a melancholy record of cor-
ruption and crime of little interest and no grandeur.

Gennadius only held office for five years, and in 1458
resigned, and retired to a monastery near Serres. The dis-
order and corruption of the clergy, the incessant intrigues
and dissensions, of which the Patriarchate was the centre,
rendered his position intolerable. Besides, he was soon
taught that if the Turks were ready to exalt the Greek
clergy at the expense of the Greek nation, they were quite
determined to keep the Church in order, and make it plain
that whatever privileges she enjoyed were favours which
might be withdrawn as easily as they had been given.THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 269

Mohammed founded the school of the Phanar; but he also
turned the Patriarch out of his cathedral, the Church of the
Twelve Apostles, on the site of which a mosque was erected,
and forced him to live on the shore of the Golden Horn,
Joasaph, the successor of Gennadius, made desperate by the
intrigues and squabbles of his Synod and subordinates, tried
to commit suicide by throwing himself into a well, but was
fortunately rescued, and " the Greeks," as Finlay says, " were
spared the scandal of hearing that their Patriarch had volun-
tarily plunged into the pains of hell to escape the torment
of ruling the Orthodox Church on earth." He was, however,
banished by the Sultan for refusing to recognise an illegal
marriage between a Vizier and a Christian girl, and was
succeeded by Marcus, in whose primacy first appeared the
terrible evil of simony and open sale of the patriarchal
chair, which for some time formed so marked a feature of
the Constantinopolitan Church.

After the conquest of Trebizond in 1461, many noble
families migrated from that town to Constantinople, and
naturally aspired to the Patriarchate, as the most important
office open to them, thus producing another element of dis-
cord among the unhappy Greeks, who were now rent by the
factions of Trapezuntines and Constantinopolitans. The
former determined to oust Marcus; and, after vainly bringing
various charges against him, offered to pay to the Ottoman
treasury an annual tribute of 1000 ducats if their own can-
didate, a monk named, appropriately enough, Simeon, were
elected. It is said that the Sultan smiled when this arrange-
ment was submitted to him for the Imperial sanction, which
it promptly received. The next year, however, Dionysius,
Metropolitan of Philippopolis, offered an annual tribute of
2000 ducats, and Simeon went the way of Marcus, but
must have been consoled by the peculiarly ignominious fate
of his antagonist. Dionysius was accused of having carried
compliance so far as to submit to the initiatory ceremonies270	TURKEY IN EUROPE

of Islam, and actually had to convince a sceptical Synod, by
ocular demonstration, that the charge was unfounded. He
then resigned, after fulminating anathemas against those
who had insulted him. His successor, Rafael, was a Servian,
who purchased the Patriarchal dignity for an annual tribute
of 2000 ducats, as well as an entrance present of 500 more.
The Greek historians describe him as a confirmed drunkard,
who often appeared in church in a state of disgraceful
intoxication; but perhaps some allowance must be made for
anti-Slavonic bias.

After this the price of the Patriarchate increased by
leaps and bounds. For a short time the official valuation
was 3000 ducats a year, but when the great principle of
bakhshish had once been admitted it was not easy to limit
it. Viziers, eunuchs, favourites, and women all demanded
their share. In 1 583, an ignorant monk, whose brother was
a rich merchant, paid 12,000 ducats to various parties to be
elected in the place of Jeremias II. The Patriarch of Alex-
andria and other Greeks in vain protested that they could
not elect this incompetent man. They gained nothing,
except that they had to pay 3000 ducats themselves to
escape punishment for daring to oppose the Sultan's congd
d'dire. Arrangements were soon made for the deposition of
the monk, and Metrophanes of Philippopolis bought the See
for 24,000 ducats. There was, however, a strong party for
the re-election of Jeremias, who, finding that the Porte
refused to accept his candidature, offered 40,000 ducats if
his brother Nicephorus could be elected. Metrophanes, by
unheard-of efforts, collected a like sum and laid it at the
Sultans feet. "The man is worthy of his office," said his
Majesty; "let him alone." In 1620 the Grand Vizier
demanded from Timotheus 100,000 ducats, on the
ground that he had named 300 Metropolitans during his
ten years' tenure of office. Cyrillus Lucaris, the suc-
cessor of Timotheus, was deposed by the Jesuits andTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 271

their party for 40,000 ducats, and reinstated for 180,000
more.

Naturally, these enormous sums did not come from the
pockets of the Patriarch. As the Turks treated him, so he
treated his own subordinates. The tribute of the Patriarchate
was paid from the money received for consecrating bishops;
the bishop paid this money from the sums he received for
consecrating priests; who in their turn found the where-
withal by insisting on payment from their flocks for the
performance of the simplest religious rite. The visitations
of Metropolitans were dreaded almost as much as those of
Pashas, and the whole fabric of the Church seemed converted
into a vast mechanism for extorting money from the un-
happy Christians for the most shameful purposes. The
feeling with which the higher clergy regarded one another
is illustrated by the regulation according to which the Patri-
archal seal was split into four parts, each kept by a Metro-
politan, the Patriarch alone possessing a key necessary to
unite the four together, so that the presence of five persons
was required to authenticate any document.

The Church of Constantinople was at its greatest degra-
dation in the sixteenth and . seventeenth centuries. The
Turks soon learned that Christianity was not likely to
combine against them, and that the Pope was little more
than an Italian prince, who had his quarrels with Venice
and other neighbouring states like anybody else. The
union, which they had once feared because the last princes
of Byzantium had seemed to regard it as an infallible means
of saving the Empire, inspired them with no further anxiety.
They had, therefore, no further reason to conciliate the Church
of Constantinople, which they had at first regarded as a
source of danger, and treated it and all its belongings with
that contemptuous scorn which is so prominent an element
in the Osmanli character, and which was not unnaturally
excited by the spectacle of grovelling ecclesiastics outbidding272	TURKEY IN EUROPE

one another with the bribes they offered to their Moslim
masters. Selim I. and Ibrahim both formed projects of
exterminating all the Christians in the Empire, and were with
difficulty dissuaded by their Muftis, who refused to declare
that such a massacre was sanctioned by Moslim law. The
same Selim, and, later, Murad III., threatened to convert all
the churches of the capital into mosques, and were only
prevented by the deputations, headed by the Patriarch, who
enforced their appeals to the privileges granted by the con-
queror by enormous presents. It became the custom for
the Turks to subject the clergy to open insult and abuse;
the Grand Vizier did not scruple to call the newly-elected
Patriarch, Dionysius, a dog before all the Divan; Patriarchs
were deposed and changed as often as possible in order to
secure more frequent bribes, and at least three were hanged.
The troubles of the Orthodox Church were further increased
by the hostility of the Latins, and particularly of the Jesuits,
who, under the protection of the French, rapidly increased
in power, and usually sided with the Turks against the
Oriental Christians.

It is hardly surprising to find that this dark period was
characterised by the number of conversions to Islam. This
phenomenon is easily explained by the miserable condition
of the rayahs, the enormous taxes, the powerlessness of the
Church to defend, and the constant spectacle of a privileged
class, which could be entered by the repetition of a formula.
The wonder is that Christianity survived at all under such
circumstances; and the Turks themselves felt the movement
was dangerous, because if it was allowed to go too far there
would not be enough tributaries to make life easy to the
Moslims. In a similar spirit the Kurds have, in recent
times, more than once deprecated excessive massacres of
Armenians, on the ground that if too many of the latter
were killed they themselves might be forced to till the
ground and work. Hence, in 1691, the Grand VizierTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 273

tried to amend the condition of the rayahs, with a view
to making them content with their lot.

I must not forget to notice the Patriarch Cyril Lucaris,
for his career, melancholy and ineffectual as it was, affords
at least an example of a man who rose above the intrigues
and corruption of his time, and devoted himself to interests
worthy of a Christian bishop. A Candiote by birth, he was
educated in Germany, where he came under Protestant
influences. The German reformers had already made over-
tures to the Orthodox Church. Melanchthon sent a letter
to the Patriarch Joasaph in 1558, and a Lutheran embassy,
headed by the Tubingen divines, Jacob Andrese and Martin
Crusius, visited the Patriarch Jeremias in 1576-1581. These
steps led to no result, but Lucaris, when he returned to the
East imbued with Calvinistic doctrines, made serious efforts
to draw his co-religionists nearer to the Western reformers.
He was made Patriarch of Alexandria in 1602, and of
Constantinople in 1621, and was constantly engaged in
correspondence and negotiation with the English as well as
the Lutheran Church. He exchanged letters with Arch-
bishop Laud and presented Charles I. with the " Codex
Alexandrinus." In 1629 he published a "Confession of
Faith," of Calvinistic tendency, in which he admitted that
the Church was not infallible, and that the Scriptures,
without the interpretation of the Fathers, were the origin
and standard of orthodoxy. He met with bitter opposition,
not only from the Greeks, but from the Jesuits, who, in
1638, incited the Porte to close the printing-press opened
under his patronage by the monk Metaxa. He was five
times deposed and restored to the Patriarchate until, in
1638, he was thrown into the prison of the Seven Towers
and probably murdered. The Orthodox Church hastened
to disavow the most distinguished of her sons. In 1639
Cyrillus Contari, the successor of Lucaris, held a Synod
in Constantinople, in which both the confession and its

s274	TURKEY IN EUROPE

author were anathematised (t<S tolovtco irayKaKLSTw alperiKw
avaOejuLa). A second condemnation was pronounced by the
Synod of Jassy in 1642, and, thirty years later, Dositheus,
Patriarch of Jerusalem, in a Synod held at that city, pub-
lished a rival confession, still accepted by the orthodox, in
which he reasserted that fche Church is infallible, and her
authority equal to that of Scripture.1

The eighteenth century is marked by the rise of the
power of the Phanariots, or Greek aristocracy of the Phanar,
who had a practical monopoly of the two important offices
of Dragoman of the Porte and of the Fleet, as well as of
the Hospodarships of Moldavia and Wallachia. Their
object was to hellenise the Christian races of the Ottoman
Empire, which meant that those unfortunate populations
had to submit to a double yoke—Turkish and Greek. In
Roumania the whole administration was in Greek hands,
but in Bulgaria, Macedonia, and Servia, the Turkish func-
tionaries remained, and the Phanariot influence was confined
to ecclesiastical and educational matters.

In some ways the Church lost authority during the
-eighteenth century. The Patriarch was no longer the sole
head of the nation, and civil business naturally came to be
more and more transacted through the Dragomans of the
Porte and Fleet. But, on the whole, the clergy gained more
than they lost. The sufferers were the peasantry, particu-
larly the Slavs of the Balkans.

The old Slavonic autocephalous Churches of Ipek and
Ochrida were both destroyed by the Phanariots, with the
double object of extending Greek influence and filling the

1 He said that the Church is	s tv) Oe'tq. ypa<py adidTTTwros kolI aevvaov

jcvpos 2xoV(Ta>anc* that the episcopate is radically distinct from the other orders
of the clergy and infallible, because God is present with His Church through
the bishops, and does not allow them to fall into heresy (t6 vveCfxa oHk e£
■alpfoei viroireG&v rbv iwLaKoirov). This doctrine is not very logically defined, as
no clear distinction is drawn between the episcopate and individual bishops,
like Cyril Lucaris, who obviously can err.THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 275

exhausted treasury of the Constantinople Patriarchate with
additional tithes and revenues. Ipek retained its indepen-
dence after the Turkish conquest, but received a heavy-
blow in 1679, when the Emperor Leopold, fearing that the
bishop of the Servians might come to terms with the Turks
and establish a power independent of Austria, invited the
Patriarch Arsenius to emigrate from Ipek into his dominions.
Arsenius migrated with 37,000 families to Carlovitz, and
much of old Servia was occupied by Albanians. The
Patriarchate of Ipek was finally abolished in 1766 by
the Patriarch Samuel of Constantinople, who was equally
successful the next year in destroying the Bulgarian Church
of Ochrida. This See, as we have seen, had long been
hellenised, but it was still nominally autocephalous. In
1737 John Ypsilanti tried to persuade the Porte that
Ochrida was a centre of Austrian intrigue and ought to be
directly subordinated to Constantinople; but the Porte
thought this proposition was an intrigue and executed
Ypsilanti. In 1767, however, Arsenius, the Bulgarian
bishop of Ochrida, was obliged to retire, and was exiled to
Mount Athos, where he shortly had the satisfaction of
being joined by the Patriarch Samuel, for the Porte was
fond of reminding successful Greeks that they, too, were
Giaours and really no better than Slavs or Roumanians.

From an ecclesiastical and religious point of view little
can be said in praise of the Phanariots' rule, for it accen-
tuated all the worst abuses and corruptions of the Greek
Church. The Phanariot clergy in Bulgaria, Eastern Rou-
melia, and Macedonia were little more than a body of
rapacious and extortionate tax-gatherers sent to fleece the
Slavonic populations for the Patriarch of Constantinople.
They exacted payment for the performance of all religious
functions under various names. The tax paid for the
maintenance of the Patriarch was called /3o^deia; for the
consecration of priests, eju^pardKia; for saying prayers,276	TURKEY IN EUROPE

irapprjcrla; for prayers for the dead, -vjrv^ojuLeplSia ; for con-
secrating a church, ayiaV/xa ; and many more. Monasteries
were let to the highest bidder, who turned out the monks
or not as he chose. The Slavonic clergy had no education,
influence, or chance of promotion ; they were often kept by
their Greek superiors as domestic servants, and beaten in
church during divine service if they happened to anger
their masters. The morals of these latter were in harmony
with their corruption and tyranny. The road to their
favour generally lay through the mistresses whom they
openly kept, and their demands were a terror to the village
maidens or to those interested in the latter s chastity. The
dissemination of the Greek language and culture over the
Balkan Peninsula was, perhaps, a laudable object, but we
cannot help regretting the barbarous and wanton destruc-
tion of Slavonic manuscripts and monuments by which it
was accompanied. In some places the people ceased even
to know the Cyrillic alphabet, and, as late as 1825, the
Metropolitan Ilarion is said to have publicly burned all the
Slavonic books in the old library of the Trnovo Patriarchate.

One small Slavonic Church, however, that of Montenegro,
resisted Hellenism and the Phanar as successfully as the
Government withstood the Turks. When the last of the
house of Crnoievic left Montenegro, the Government was
entrusted to the Bishop Babylas; and from 1516 till 1851
the country was ruled by Yladikas, or prince - bishops.
They were at first elective, but after 1696 the office be-
came hereditary. Babylas established a printing-press at
Obod, where a number of devotional books were printed;
but it was destroyed a century later, and the little principal-
ity was too much occupied in defending itself against the
Turks to pay much attention to literature or theology.

There is little to be chronicled about the Church of
Constantinople in the eighteenth century. In 1722, a
Council was held in the Phanar in order to end the schismTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 277

between Orthodox and Melchites, which had divided the
Church of Antioch since 1 5 60. An encyclical letter, drawn
up by this Council, enumerated and anathematised the
errors of Rome, including the Popes damnable habit of
having a cross embroidered on his shoes.

The eighteenth century was characterised by the pre-
dominant influence of the Greeks under Turkish rule; the
nineteenth century by the revolt attempted or successful
against that rule of the Christian subjects of the Porte.
With the increasing weakness of the Ottoman Empire
such a movement was inevitable, and it was only natural
that the prominent and privileged position of the Greeks
should have ripened their aspirations before those of the
down-trodden and almost hopeless Slavs. But it was
equally natural that the Phanariot aristocracy and the
higher clergy should be opposed to such revolutionary
movements. They both of them owed their position en-
tirely to the Ottoman Government; and such literary
apostles of the liberation movement as Eugenius Bulgares
and Coraes recognised this alliance between the Turk and
Orthodoxy in their polemics against Orthodox bigotry,
and their efforts to secularise education and to regenerate
the Greek language, which, in its written form, was a
pedantic ecclesiastical jargon hardly intelligible to the
people. But no hostile and satirical critic could have
better defined the position of the Greek Church than did
the Patriarch Anthimus of Jerusalem in a work directed
against the doctrines of Eugenius. He explained that,
when the last Emperor of Constantinople embraced the
errors of the West, the mercy of the Almighty sent the
Ottomans to protect the Greeks against heresy, and thus
shut them off from the influences of Catholicism, Lutheran-
ism, Calvinism, and the other diabolical artifices by which
Satan had enslaved Europe.

The insurrection began first in Wallachia and Moldavia278	TURKEY IN EUROPE

(March 1821) and Gregory, the Patriarch of Constantinople,
and his colleague of Jerusalem, at once signed a Bull anathe-
matising the leaders of the insurgents. " Gratitude," began
the Patriarchal letter, " is the first of all virtues, and only
the most abandoned of mankind requites good with ingrati-
tude." In the name of these elevated principles the rebels
were adjured to lay down their arms and not revolt against
their benefactor, the Sublime Ottoman Porte. This docu-
ment was sent to the Metropolitan of Wallachia for publica-
tion, but it is not surprising to hear that when it was read
in the church at Bucharest the tumult was so great that it
was impossible to proceed. The Patriarch's anathemas re-
coiled on his own head. His brother, the Bishop of Tripolitza
in the Peloponnesus, placed himself at the head of the in-
surgents, and Gregory was hanged in the Phanar with six
other bishops on Easter Sunday. His body was given to
the Jews, who were ordered to cut it into bits and throw it
to the street dogs. They preferred, however, to sell it to the
Christians for 100,000 piastres, and it was solemnly interred
at Odessa two months afterwards. In Constantinople many
churches were destroyed, and several bishops were exe-
cuted in various parts of the Empire. Eugenius, somewhat
irregularly appointed Patriarch by the Sultan, published a
new encyclical, in which he again exhorted his flock not to
forget all the benefits of the Ottoman Government, and
called on them, in the name of the Holy Ghost, to
submit "to our most clement sovereign." But the in-
habitants of Greece proper, who were less under the
immediate influence of that gentle rule, replied by a
manifesto, signed by twenty-eight bishops and nearly one
thousand priests, proclaiming the freedom of Hellas. The
insurgents applied in vain for help and sympathy to the
Pope, Pius VII., and Anthimus, the successor 01 Eugenius,
sent them another exhortation to obedience in 1822; and
in 1828 the Patriarch Agathangelus made a last appeal toTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 279

all Greeks in whom "every spark of piety and good sense
was not extinct" to submit to the " world-renowned clem-
ency of the Ottoman Government." Capodistrias, the head
of the provisional government in Greece, received an em-
bassy from the Patriarch the same year, but replied that he
could not listen to any proposals for submission. He asked,
however, for his Holinesss blessing, and promised to recog-
nise him as the head of the Church. This, however, was
not done. In 1833, when the little Greek kingdom had
been established, a Synod met at Nauplia to regulate its
ecclesiastical affairs, declared (1) that the Hellenic Church
was autocephalous, and that no foreign authority had any
power over it; (2) That the supreme ecclesiastical power
should be a Holy Synod to be appointed by the king, after
the example of the Russian Church. This naturally widened
the breach already made with the Patriarchate, and it was
not till 1850 that the latter, acting to a great extent under
the influence of Russia, recognised the Hellenic Church as
independent.

The history of the modern Servian and Roumanian
Churches is somewhat similar to that of the Hellenic
Church. I have related how the Patriarchate of Ipek
was suppressed in 1766. After that period Servia (an
expression, it must be remembered, which denotes very
different areas at different dates) became merely an
ecclesiastical province of Constantinople. But in 1830
the Sultan issued a Hatt-i-Sherif allowing the Servians
to elect a Patriarch with the confirmation of Byzantium,
and in 1838 the seat of ecclesiastical government was
fixed at Belgrade. The head of the Servian Church is
styled merely Metropolitan, but has the authority of a
Patriarch, and, since Servia became independent, his Church
has been recognised as autocephalous.

The Roumanian Church also is autocephalous under a
Metropolitan. This country, which until 1812 included Bes-2 80	TURKEY IN EUROPE

sarabia, was subjected to an even stronger Hellenic influence
than Servia or Bulgaria, as not only the ecclesiastical, but
the civil government was administered by Greeks. Its
comparative security and prosperity led to the establishment
in it of a great number of philanthropic and educational
institutions as well as numerous monasteries, all of them
liberally endowed, and many possessing enormous estates.
The most important part of the income of the Patriarchate
of Constantinople was derived from ecclesiastical property in
Roumania. Until 1861 the Church was administered by
two Metropolitans residing at Belgrade and Jassy respec-
tively; but when the union of the Principalities under
Couza was proclaimed in December 1861, the Church
was declared autocephalous, and placed under the suprem-
acy of a Metropolitan residing at Bucharest with an Arch-
bishop at Jassy. The relations with the Patriarchate were
much embittered by the fact that the Government seques-
trated all the ecclesiastical property mentioned above, which
was regarded at Constantinople as being Greek. But the
Roumanian Church is now recognised by Constantinople and
the other Patriarchates as autocephalous.

The recent history of the Bulgarian Church is more
complicated, and politically of considerable importance. It
therefore merits a more detailed examination.

Bulgaria awoke to a dim consciousness of her existence
as a nation towards the end of the eighteenth century.
The first revolt was naturally against the Phanariot bondage,
for until the removal of the Greek ecclesiastical despotism
it was hardly possible for the Bulgarians to combine against
the Turks.

The pioneers of the Bulgarian religious movement were
the Archimandrite Neophit Bozveli and Ilarion Mikhailovsky,
who demanded the establishment of a national hierarchy.
Neophit founded a Bulgarian Church in Constantinople, and,
though the hostility and persecution of the Greeks, whoTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 281

secured his banishment to Mount Athos, prevented him
from accomplishing more during his life, the agitation
which he started continued after his death and attracted
the attention even of the Ottoman Government. In 1851
the Porte ordered the Patriarchate to name a Bulgarian
bishop, but though Ilarion was duly consecrated, the order
was nullified by his appointment to a See in partibus (Maca-
riopolis). At this period Odessa was the centre of Bulgarian
nationalist activity; a Committee was established there, and
great results were expected with the assistance of the Russian
Government. The Crimean war dashed these hopes to the
ground; but the Russian occupation of the Danubian pro-
vinces had at least the effect of familiarising the Russians
with the Southern Slavs, and for the next few years we
find them ready to assist the Bulgarians in building churches
and schools both in the present Principality and in Mace-
donia. In 1856 the Powers prevailed upon the Porte to
publish a Hatt-i-Humayun promising not only full religious
toleration but also various reforms, and in particular that
the various taxes paid by Christians to their bishops and
the Patriarchs should be replaced by a regular salary given
to those officials—stipulations which were perhaps more dis-
tasteful to the Greeks than to the Turks. In 1857 the
inhabitants of Widdin petitioned the Ottoman Government
for the grant of a regular salary to their Metropolitan, and
many similar requests followed from other towns, but all
were refused by the Patriarch Cyril. The next year the
Porte summoned an assembly (eQvocrvveXevcri?) to discuss the
question of religious reforms. It was attended by twenty-
eight delegates from the provinces, but by various devices
the Greek party reduced the Bulgarian representatives to
four, three of whom made a protest and retired, so that
only the deputy of Trnovo remained to support the Bul-
garian cause. It is not surprising that his efforts were in
vain, and that the assembly, which was closed in i860,282	TURKEY IN EUROPE

affirmed that the Church could take no account of distinc-
tions of race and nationality in the selection of bishops,
and even went so far as to deny the existence of the Bul-
garians as a separate people.

This refusal produced the outburst which had long
been prepared. As Ilarion, the titular Bishop of Macario-
polis, was saying Mass on Whitsunday 1860 in the Bulgarian
church at Constantinople, the congregation clamoured that
he should omit the Patriarch's name from the intercessory
prayer, an omission which we have already noticed as the
outward sign of schism in the earlier quarrels between
Rome and Byzantium. After a decent protest he complied;
the example was followed all over Bulgaria, and the agita-
tion became so considerable that the Grand Yizier visited
the province in person and arrested or dismissed a number
of bishops against whom there were serious complaints.
The Patriarch Cyril resigned, and Joachim was appointed in
his stead. He at once excommunicated Ilarion, and having
thus satisfied ecclesiastical etiquette, asked the Bulgarians
what they wanted. They replied by naming seven points,
which included ecclesiastical autonomy and a national hier-
archy under an elective archbishop, in return for which they
were ready to recognise the authority of the Patriarch and
pay him a fixed yearly sum. The Patriarch refused their
proposal, and offered instead fifteen promises, which included
the appointment of Bulgarian or at least Bulgarian-speaking
bishops to all Bulgarian districts. But these promises did
not inspire confidence, and were rejected. The Patriarch
was able to represent the Bulgarians as intractable, and
induced the Porte to banish Ilarion and other prelates to
Asia Minor.

We have seen that from her birth the Bulgarian Church
wavered between the East and the West, and it is not surpris-
ing to find that the struggle with the Constantinople Patri-
archate was accompanied by a movement in favour of unionTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 283

with Rome. A deputation proceeded thither in 1861, and
Joseph Sokolski, said to have been an ex-brigand, was con-
secrated Bishop of the Bulgarian Uniat Church. But the
movement was not successful. Sokolski was mysteriously
spirited off to a Russian monastery, and few Uniats now
remain except in the district of Philippopolis.

Meanwhile the dispute about the various points and
promises continued, and was complicated by a new proposal
of eight points, submitted to the Porte by delegates from
the Bulgarian dioceses, and including a Synod of six Greek
and six Bulgarian bishops, a mixed Council with six Bul-
garian lay delegates, and a Metropolitan to reside in Con-
stantinople. Troubles in Servia and the bombardment of
Belgrade led the Porte to think it prudent to humour the
Bulgarians. A Commission of Greeks and Bulgarians was
summoned to consider the eight points, the bitterly anti-
Bulgarian Patriarch Joachim was deposed, and his successor
Sophronios was recommended by the Porte to find a con-
ciliatory solution of the difficulty. But in vain; the Greeks
rejected all the eight points, and declared the expressions
" Bulgarian Church " or " Bulgarian bishop " to be uncanoni-
cal and opposed to the doctrine of the Universal Church.
As some compensation, the Porte allowed the banished
Bulgarian bishops to return to Ortakeui.

This was in 1864. Great excitement ensued in Bul-
garia and Macedonia. The Porte made considerable changes,
described as reforms, in the provincial administration, and
established the modern system of vilayets in the place of
the old pashaliks. Bulgaria was called the vilayet of the
Danube, and administered by Midhat Pasha. In 1869 the
Grand Yizier laid before the Patriarch another project of
ecclesiastical organisation, which, it was thought, would
satisfy both Greeks and Bulgarians, but the former refused
it. Then, on February 28, 1870, the Sultan issued a fir-
man constituting the Bulgarian Church. The sphere of284	TURKEY IN EUROPE

this Church was not merely the modern Principality of
Bulgaria, which did not then exist, but that area, plus the
vilayets of Adrianople, Salonica, Kossovo, and Monastir.
The head of the Church so created was styled the Bulgarian
Exarch. He was to reside at Constantinople,1 and had the
right to name bishops in Macedonia as far south as Fiorina,
though, as a matter of fact, none were appointed for several
years.

Great Britain, France, and Russia all used their influ-
ence to induce the Sultan to issue this firman. We have
always favoured Bulgarian aspirations; the French seem to
have thought it possible that the Bulgarian Church might
unite with Rome and strengthen Catholic interests in the
East; and the Russians were actuated by Panslavic ideas,
which were then beginning to become popular. But, quite
apart from external pressure, the Turkish Government had
good reasons for their action. It was a practical exemplifi-
cation of the maxim divide et impera. They had previously
regarded all Eastern Christians as being much the same, and
had lumped them together under the designation of Rum.
The very name of Bulgarian had almost dropped out of
usage. But now it appeared that there were different
kinds of Christians who quarrelled with one another.
It was clearly politic to accentuate the differences and
perpetuate the possibilities of quarrel. Experience has
proved the justice of these calculations. Nothing has
strengthened the Sultan's hold on Macedonia so much as
the dissensions between the Exarchate and the Patriarchal
Church.

It will be seen that the principle on which this Bulgarian
Church rested is essentially different from that which under-
lies the Churches of Greece, Roumania, and Servia. In the

1 At present the Bulgarian Church within the limits of the Principality is
governed by a Synod which sits at Sofia, but the Exarch, who still resides at
■Constantinople, is head of the whole body both in Bulgaria and Turkey.THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 285

case of these latter the lay and ecclesiastical administrations
of the country have been taken out of the sphere of the
Sultan and the Patriarch of Constantinople respectively. But
when the new Bulgarian Church was founded there was no
Bulgaria, and now its boundaries are not co-extensive with
those of the Principality. It is established in districts
where the Patriarch of Constantinople had representatives
before its creation, and it is for all practical purposes a
hostile and proselytising sect, claiming all persons belonging
to a certain race. The Patriarchate appealed to the un-
doubted principle of the Orthodox Church that there can be
only one bishop in one diocese, and stigmatised by the
name of Phyletism the doctrine that persons of a particular
race or language are entitled to a separate ecclesiastical
administration. No doubt the contention of the Patriarch
is supported by all the history and teaching of orthodoxy,,
but, on the other hand, the Phanar had only its own policy
to thank for the birth of a rival Church. That policy had
long ceased to have anything universal or oecumenical
about it—it was simply Greek ; it did not rise impartially
above distinctions of race and language, but by its attempts
to Hellenise all ecclesiastical institutions and to destroy all
non-Hellenic elements, it drove the latter into rebellion.

In 1872 the Patriarch held a local Synod at Constan-
tinople, which, in August of that year, pronounced the
Bulgarian Church schismatic. The Churches of Antioch,
Alexandria, and Athens confirmed the sentence of excommu-
nication. The Church of Jerusalem did so less definitely,
because they made a great deal of money out of Bulgarian
pilgrims. The Russian Church, followed by those of Servia
and Roumania, maintained an equivocal attitude. On the
one hand, Russia has never officially acknowledged the Bul-
garian Church for fear of offending the (Ecumenical Patri-
arch, and Bulgarian prelates have never been allowed to
officiate publicly in Russian churches. On the other hand,,286	TURKEY IN EUROPE

the Russian Synod has always refused to officially recognise
the Patriarch's anathema, and Russian ecclesiastics have
secretly supplied the Bulgarians with holy oil. Finally, the
Emperor of Russia became godfather to Prince Boris when
he was received into the Bulgarian Church. In these ques-
tions the Russians are actuated by two ideals or sentiments,
Panslavism and Panorthodoxy. The former is really linguis-
tic, and aims at extending Russian sympathy and support
to such races as the Bulgarians and Servians who speak
languages almost intelligible to Russians. But Panortho-
doxy, if I may use the word, tends to regard Russia as the
head, not only of the Slav races, but of all orthodox nations.
One manifestation of this tendency is the interest taken by
Russia in the Abyssinians and the Nestorians on the ground
that they are Orthodox, which, of course, they really are not.
Now, the only prelate who could have any pretensions to
represent the United Orthodox Church, is the (Ecumenical
Patriarch. As we have seen, his position is not so great as
his title implies, but it is recognised that he enjoys a certain
pre-eminence, and Russian Metropolitans kiss his hand when
they come to Constantinople. From this point of view
Russia must naturally wish to prevent a vigorous Slavonic
Church from being in direct opposition to the Patriarchate.

It may perhaps be well to give a list of the Orthodox
Churches in a tabular form. They are twelve or thirteen in
number, according as we reckon the Bulgarian Church or
not:—

1.	The Patriarchate of Constantinople, with eighty-two
Metropolitans.

2.	The Patriarchate of Alexandria, with only one Metro-
politan.

3.	The Patriarchate of Antioch, with fourteen Metro-
politans.

4.	The Patriarchate of Jerusalem, with one Metropoli-
tan, five Archbishops, and five Bishops.THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 287

5.	The Church of Cyprus, with one Archbishop and five
Bishops.

6.	The Church of Mount Sinai, with one Archbishop.

7.	The Hellenic Church, or Church of the Kingdom of
Greece.

8.	The Church of the Kingdom of Servia.

9.	The Church of the Kingdom of Roumania.

1 o. The Church of Montenegro.

11.	The Patriarchate of Carlovitz (south of the Danube
not far from Peterwardein), consisting of a Patriarch and
ten Bishops, who have jurisdiction over the Orthodox
Church in the Austrian dominions.

12.	The Russian Church.

13.	The Bulgarian Church.

The Russian Church is incontestably the most important
of the Orthodox Churches of the present day, but its history
has not been very eventful. It was in its origin an offshoot
of Constantinople, and for nearly 600 years remained nomi-
nally in the jurisdiction of the (Ecumenical Patriarch,
though its geographical position secured for it practical in-
dependence. The Metropolitan resided first at Kieff, then
at Vladimir, and after 1320 at Moscow. In 1582 the
Patriarch Jeremias appointed Job, the forty-sixth Metropo-
litan, to be Patriarch of Vladimir, Moscow, and all Russia.
Ivan the Terrible, overwhelmed with remorse for the
murder of his son, had made many costly offerings to the
See of Constantinople in order to secure absolution, and
Jeremias, much in need of funds to pay the Sublime Porte,
was happy to confer favours on the lavish penitent. Though
he rejected the Czar's invitation to fix his residence in
Russia and make her the centre of the Church, he gladly
visited Moscow, performed the ceremony of institution, and
oaused the Russian Patriarchate to be recognised by a general
Synod held at Constantinople.

This Patriarchate continued to exist until the time of288	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Peter the Great, and the most notable name connected with
it is that of Nikon. This energetic and ambitious prelate,
who occupied the Patriarchal throne in the middle of the
seventeenth century, provoked by his reforms the great
schism (or raskol) from which spring the various sects of
Old Believers, who still form no inconsiderable portion of
the population of Russia. The changes which occasioned
this disruption relate to absurdly trivial points, such as the
text and orthography of the liturgy and other sacred books,
which had been mangled by generations of ignorant copyists,
the shape of the Cross, and the number of fingers (two or
three) to be used in making that sacred sign. Naturally,
a quarrel respecting such details of ceremonial was only the
outward expression of more seriously divergent tendencies.
In the time of Nikon the Russian Empire, still almost in its
childhood, was the battlefield of a struggle between Polish
and Russian ideas and institutions. The Poles represented
Roman Catholicism and aristocracy, whereas the Russian
people have always had in their composition a strong vein
of anti-aristocratic and anti-sacerdotal sentiment. In spite
of the period of serfdom through which he has passed the
Russian Muzhik is not servile; he thinks of God and the
Czar in one category, and of the rest of the world as more
or less equal in another. However superstitious he may be,
he does not allow his priests to assume the position of direc-
tors or masters, and is very ready to exercise the right of
private judgment. Nikon evidently wished to introduce
into the Russian Church the aristocratic and hierarchical
principles of the West. He was wealthy, and surrounded
himself with ecclesiastical pomp, and apparently aimed at
securing for the See of Moscow a supremacy analogous to
that of Rome. In some ways his efforts were successful.
The State aided him in his reforms, and endeavoured to
coerce, though it could not suppress, the Old Believers with
the secular arm. But his arrogance and ambition alarmedTHE ORTHODOX CHURCH 289

the Czar, who had no desire to see established in Russia
an ecclesiastical power which might impair his autocracy,
and Nikon was deposed and banished. His fall was only
a preliminary step towards the abolition of the Russian
Patriarchate, which was completed by Peter the Great at
the beginning of the eighteenth century. Peter not only
suppressed the Patriarchate, but effectually prevented the
Russian Church from becoming a rival to the secular power
by giving her no primate or personal head distinct from the
emperor.

The ecclesiastical government was, and still is, vested
in the Holy Synod, consisting of five or six bishops and
of lay officials representing the sovereign. The Russian
hierarchy contains three Sees, which are considered to be of
the first class: Kieff, Old Novogorod and St. Petersburg
(united in the Metropolitan residing at the latter), and
Moscow, but none of these prelates have authority out of
their own dioceses. But the Holy Synod is held to possess
collectively authority equal to that of a Patriarch, and, as
representing the Church, ranks after the Patriarchates of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. This
peculiar constitution has produced in Russia an almost
Mohammedan confusion of Church and State, or at least
of religion and politics. The ancient Georgian Church,
which had been a dependency of Antioch and Constanti-
nople successively, was, in 1801, incorporated in the Russian
Church. Its Metropolitan, who bears the title of Georgian
Exarch, has a seat in the Holy Synod.

The ecclesiastical merits of the Orthodox Church are
obvious; she is clearly closer, not, perhaps, to Christ, but to
the Christianity of 400 A.D., than either Rome or Canter-
bury. But if we consider her practical influence, it is hard
to form a very favourable opinion. The noblest and most
dignified communion is, no doubt, that of Russia, which has
always combined Christianity and patriotism, and conse-

T290	TURKEY IN EUROPE

quently been able to lead the whole nation. In many-
instances individual Greek priests or monasteries have
fought against the Moslims in the same spirit, but, as a
whole, the Church of Constantinople divorced Christianity
and patriotism, and was content to make the best of the
Turks.

But in Russia and the Levant alike the power of the
Church seems to be ceremonial rather than moral. " By
their fruits ye shall know them/' and the fruits of the
Orthodox Church lack spirituality. She has quickened
neither the moral sense nor the intelligence of her fol-
lowers, and their undoubting faith in dogma, and punctili-
ous observance of ritual, will not be thought great qualities
by those who do not consider the dogma and ritual in
themselves important.

This moderate success in the practical sphere is largely
due to the character of the priesthood. Few distinguished
men are to be found even in the higher grades of the
hierarchy. All the lower clergy are simple peasants—
husbands of uncomely peasant women and fathers of many
urchins—in no way distinguished from their neighbours
except by trade. One man is a cobbler, and knows how
to make boots and shoes; another is a priest, and knows
how to read the Mass. The peasant of the Balkans regards
the two trades as on the same footing. He has no doubt
that it is as necessary to be prayed for as to wear boots.
But the ceremonies performed by the priest are for him
simply practical operations with a view to his comfort in
another world, and not intended to ennoble his life down
here. Though the contest between Christianity and Islam
is the most important feature of the East, though Turkish
institutions give such great prominence to ecclesiastical
matters, the Orthodox Church has failed to use her oppor-
tunities ; she has neither spread light nor infused energy.CHAPTER VII

THE GREEKS

Many travellers arrive at Constantinople under the impres-
sion that it is inhabited by Turks, or by Turks and Greeks.
After a while they begin to realise the astonishing com-
plexity of the population, talk glibly about Kurds and
Albanians, and flatter themselves that they can at once
detect an Armenian by his nose, or a Greek by his facial
angle. But in most sciences progress obliges us to reject
or qualify those crisp and distinct definitions which attract
and convince a beginner, and ethnology is no exception to
the rule. A few years' observation in Turkey shows that it
is impossible to draw hard and fast lines between the dif-
ferent races. One is assured that people who are apparently
Greeks are really Ylachs, or hears that a Greek village has
become Bulgarian, and perhaps by a second transformation
Servian. It will, therefore, be well to understand clearly at
the outset what is meant by the word race1 as applied to
the inhabitants of Turkey.

Human beings may be classified according to several
principles, and, consequently, most names applied to large
bodies of men have several meanings. One principle is
politico-geographical; the words Russian, German, and
Italian designate inhabitants of Russia, Germany, and
Italy, and subjects of the sovereigns of those countries.
But, except for political purposes, such a principle is easily

1 It may be said that the application of the word race to Greeks, Bul-
garians, Albanians, &c., is not scientific. But there is no other convenient
word. Nationality or community are misleading from their political asso-
ciations.

291292	TURKEY IN EUROPE

seen to be misleading. Large areas nearly always contain
more than one race: Tartars are not Russians, though
they live in Russia; and there is an obvious difference
between Englishmen and British subjects. Small areas, on
the other hand, do not as a rule contain the whole of a race.
There are clearly many Greeks outside Greece, and many
Finns outside Finland.

Another method of classification is by physical charac-
teristics, and it is commonly assumed that these, more
or less, coincide with national distinctions. People often
talk of a German or Russian type, and think that the two
races can be distinguished by their build and features, as if
they were two kinds of animals. But the external differ-
ences between Europeans of different nations depend mainly
on expression, manner, and costume, and not on any
physical characteristics which can be defined and regis-
tered. Every purely physical system of classification cuts
across all the usual national and linguistic divisions, and
unites in one group people who, according to other criteria,
have nothing to do with one another. Anthropologists
usually classify the human race by the shape of the skull.
The only objection to this system (provided it is certain
that time and climate do not change the shape of skulls)
is that it tells us so little. If we know something of the
language or religion of a people, we can probably find out
something of its history; or if, as is the case of the
Basques, the comparison with other languages gives no
result, it is clear that we have to do with an isolated and
ancient race. But physical characteristics have in Europe
no connection with either language or culture; neither the
Celtic-speaking peoples nor those who introduced the
Hallstadt culture can be identified with any physical type;
and statements about a dolichocephalic Mediterranean race
amount to little more than an assertion that the inhabitants
of the shores of that ocean have long heads. From aTHE GREEKS

293

purely zoological point of view this does not tell us very
much. The idea that the northern and southern shores of
the Mediterranean were originally peopled by one race is
interesting, but it derives its chief support, and all its
interest, from other than craniological considerations.

However, my object here is not to discuss the founda-
tions of anthropology, but to make it clear that the races
of Turkey must nob be regarded as so many physical types.
For instance, the Southern Serbs and Albanians have the
same physical characteristics, but they differ in language
and customs, and are, in one sense of the word, different
races. All existing races are mixed, for the different kinds
of mankind are merely varieties and not species. When
the mixture takes place between widely separate varieties,
especially if they differ in colour, such as negroes and
Englishmen, we recognise the fact and call the results half-
breeds; but we generally ignore it when it takes place
between white varieties. It would be amazing if the
people who are now called Greeks were of the same physical
type as what are styled Ancient Greeks, which generally
means the inhabitants of Athens and Sparta. The Greeks
have spread all round the iEgean and Black Seas, and
come into contact with the inhabitants of the littoral.
The Macedonian Empire must have had a large non-
Hellenic substratum. Constantinople and all continental
Greece were for centuries ruled and occupied by the
Romans, and during many subsequent centuries invaded
and colonised by Slavs. The Crusades and the Latin con-
quest brought a large influx of western Europeans, com-
monly called Franks; and, in later times, extensive
Albanian settlements were made in Greek districts. Clearly,
the modern Greek must be of very mixed blood.

Another curious case affecting the question of physical
types is afforded by the Hungarians. They are some of
the best-looking people of modern Europe; whereas allTURKEY IN EUROPE

contemporary records are agreed as to the extreme hideous-
ness of the Huns, who must have had pronounced Mon-
golian features. Therefore, either the Hungarians are not
descended from the Huns, in which case we have a trans-
ference of name and language, or else the physical appear-
ance of the race has completely changed. It must be
remembered that, in many cases, where no great barriers
exist, environment tends to assimilate physical types with-
out admixture of blood. This is seen even in such extreme
cases as the American negroes who speak English, and
enjoy the same rights as white men, nominally in the
Southern, and really in the Northern States. In full-
blooded Southern negroes the peculiarities of negro physi-
ognomy are not developed as strongly as in negroes born
and bred in Africa; and full-blooded negroes in the North,
though retaining the black skin and woolly hair, have
often lips and noses which are almost European. Among
European races, where there are no such peculiarities of
colour and hair, environment may obliterate physical dis-
tinctions more completely. It is easy to find Greeks,
Albanians, Bulgarians, and Ylachs who could not be taken
for anything else, but many districts tend to produce types
characteristic of a particular area. In Southern Albania,
Greeks, Albanians, and Ylachs look very much alike, and
a Southern Albanian and a Greek resemble one another
more than do a Southern and a Northern Albanian.
Similarly, in Central Macedonia, at such a town as Monastir,
there is a family likeness among the Christian inhabitants
whether they call themselves Greeks, Ylachs, or Slavs.
On the other hand, some local peculiarity in costume will
often create an impression that its wearers are a distinct
type. For instance, around Koritza the men wear a sort of
blue frock, which makes them look quite different from the
surrounding population, although they are, like their neigh-
bours, a mixture of Greeks, Ylachs, and Albanians.THE GREEKS	295

A third and very important method of classifying man-
kind is based upon their languages. There are, of course,
many and obvious exceptions to its accuracy: the negroes
in America speak English, the Jews of Salonica and Con-
stantinople Spanish, and the Bulgarians a Slavonic tongue.
But, making all allowances for such cases, similarity of
language always implies contact at some period, and
probably union in some kind of state or national organisa-
tion. If we knew nothing of the history of the Jews or
negroes, and had to draw conclusions from Judseo-Spanish
and Negro-English, we might safely infer (it is to be feared
we should really infer much more) that the speakers were
people who had a close connection with the English or
Spaniards, but were separated from them by some barrier,
local, or other, which imparted to their language a very
un-English or un-Spanish character. And this, though
vague, would be quite correct as far as it goes. Possibly
no inspection of Bulgarian would suggest that the Bul-
garians are anything but Slavs (though modern Bulgarian
shows remarkable peculiarities); but even in this case
language is not really misleading. The original Bulgarians,
no doubt, were quite different from the Slavs, but their
later history connects them with the Slavs far more closely
than with any Hunnish or Turkish tribe; and it must be
confessed that we get a better idea of them by thinking of
them as Slavs than by thinking of them as a sort of Huns
or Finns. The great danger of linguistic classification is
not that it brings together the wrong nations, for it always
brings together people who have something important in
common, but that it is liable to create imaginary races
corresponding to linguistic generalisations. The resem-
blances between Greek and Sanskrit make it certain that
the inhabitants of Northern India and Greece must at some
time have been in contact with one another, or each in
contact with a third body of men speaking a similar296

TURKEY IN EUROPE

language. But we have no right to conclude that the
present speakers of Aryan languages are descended from
a race called Aryans (or of any other name) any more than
we have to conclude that the speakers of Romance
languages are descended from the Romans.

Languages in Turkey form, on the whole, the best
criterion of race in the popular sense—that is to say, when
we talk of Greeks or Bulgarians we mean people who speak
Greek or Bulgarian. But some qualifications must be
made. Mohammedans, particularly of the upper classes,
who migrate from their homes in the provinces, generally
drop their original languages, and, in the second generation,
speak Turkish only. This is the case with many Albanians
in Constantinople and elsewhere. Of such, it would be
more correct to say that they were Albanians than that they
are Albanians. Many districts, too, are bilingual; but it may
always be assumed that Greek or Turkish is an acquired
language, and that the second one gives the speaker's real
race. A Greek does not learn Ylach or Albanian, but
Vlachs and Albanians find it advantageous to learn Greek,
which in a certain sphere is cosmopolitan. Of the Slavonic
dialects of Macedonia I shall speak later. They are very
fluctuating, and as a rule the establishment of the Servian
or Bulgarian school is sufficient to decide whether a village
will speak Servian or Bulgarian.

Lastly, mankind may be classified by their manners
and customs, the most important of which is religion.
Classification by religion is not very scientific, but it is the
Turkish principle, and therefore requires attention here.
The Turk divides the population of the Ottoman Empire
into Millets, or religious communities. They are Islam, or
Mohammedans, of whatever lineage and language: Rum,
or Greek, including all members of the Orthodox Church
who recognise the Patriarch of Constantinople; Bulgar, or
Bulgarians, those who recognise the spiritual authority ofTHE GREEKS

297

the Bulgarian Exarch; Katolik, or Catholics; Errneni, or
Gregorian Armenians; Musevi, or Jews; Prodesdan, or
Protestants.1 This system leads to the strangest results.
It divides the Armenians into two—for a Catholic Armenian
is, in Turkish estimation, not an Armenian, and not to be
killed, or, at least, not at the same time as his Gregorian
brother—and it combines many races under the comprehen-
sive names of Islam and Rum. Popular language follows
the same method. A Bulgarian means a member of the
Bulgarian Church, and if a Bulgarian-speaking village
recognises the Patriarch of Constantinople and not the
Exarch, its inhabitants are as often as not called Greeks.
Of late years there has been much dispute as to whether
certain parts of Macedonia are Servian or Bulgarian, and
many villages which were formerly reckoned as Bulgarian
have declared themselves Servian. But the Servians in
Turkey have no independent Church, and recognise the
Patriarchate. Hence Servians, as opposed to Bulgarians,
are called Greeks.

Another strange consequence of this system is that
race—or whatever we call the quality indicated by such
words as Greek, Servian, and Bulgarian—is regarded, not
as something natural and immutable, but as a matter of
conviction, which can be changed as easily as religion. In
the last century the population of the Balkan Peninsula
was considered to be Greek; no educated Christian would
have given himself any other name. Now the inhabitants
of the part which is still Turkish territory recognise that
they have affinities with the surrounding states of Greece,
Servia, Bulgaria, and Roumania, but are not always sure
with which. The politics of Macedonia are well described
by the word " Propaganda," which is in common use in
the country, and has passed into its various dialects. All
the non-Turkish races have a " national idea," or, to be

1 The Servians and Vlachs are not recognised as Millets.298	TURKEY IN EUROPE

more exact, a certain number of energetic politicians try
to force the idea into the heads of their fellows. As
meetings and all the ordinary forms of political agitation
are forbidden under the government of the Sublime Porte,
this Propaganda has only two directions open to it—
linguistic and ecclesiastical. Each race is desirous to
have its language taught in its schools and used in its
churches, if possible, under the superintendence of its own
bishops; and hence, although the clergy are too ignorant
and unorganised to exert over their flocks an influence like
that wielded by Roman Catholic priests in other countries,
ecclesiastical matters excite universal interest.

The Propaganda are, so to speak, missionary enter-
prises which, by means of schools and churches, try to
convert people to the Bulgarian or Servian faith. Had
the celebrated Captain in the Comic Opera, who " in spite
of all temptations to belong to other nations" remained an
Englishman, lived in Macedonia, there would have been
nothing comic in his assertion. It exactly represents the
attitude of many Macedonians. Many others do yield to
temptations, which often take a very material form. In
order to understand the Macedonian question, and, in
particular, Macedonian statistics, this peculiar system of
altering race-names must be borne in mind. A victory,
a defeat, some real or imagined change in the attitude of
Austria or Russia, will be sufficient to make hundreds,
perhaps thousands of people, pass from one party to
another. In one sense, a race in Macedonia is merely a
political party, but it may perhaps be better defined as
a body of people, with a common language and customs,
and generally1 with a common religion. It may be ob-
jected that though people can suddenly change their

1 The Albanians form an exception. I think even the Porte recognises
that an Arnaut is an Arnaut, whether he calls himself Catholic, Orthodox, or
Moslim.THE GREEKS

299

religion, they cannot so change their language. The ex-
planation is twofold. Either, as in the case of the Slavs,
they speak an uncultivated dialect of their own, but can
understand Servian and Bulgarian almost equally well, or
else they are bilingual. But many Slavs, though a de-
creasing number, the so-called BovXyapocpoovoi, belong to
the Patriarchal Church, but speak only a Slav language.
In this case it seems unreasonable to call them Greeks,
though whatever strength they have goes to support the
Greek cause.

The Turks call the Greeks who inhabit Ottoman terri-
tory Rum, the kingdom of Greece and its inhabitants being
distinguished as Yunanistan and Yunan. These latter
words are derived from loovla, and Rum is a corruption
of Pa>jua?o9. In the early centuries of the Byzantine
Empire the name "EWrjv was associated with paganism. The
Greek-speaking provincials were called EWaSiKol, and the
population of the capital Poojuaioi, or Romans. This name
became the general designation of the Byzantine Empire
and its inhabitants, so that even the Seljuk Sultanate
of Konia styled itself Rum, because it was conquered from
that Empire. At the present day popular Greek, as op-
posed to classical or learned Greek ('EXA^mxt), is still called
Pcojuaikd; but a Greek both in the kingdom of Greece
and in Turkey describes himself as 'EWrjv or 'EWyvag.

The Greeks are widely distributed through the Ottoman
Empire. They form the majority of the population in the
coast towns of the iEgean and Marmora, and much the
same may be said of the Turkish shores of the Black Sea.
Even in those Euxine ports which belong to Russia and
Roumania, they form a characteristic and powerful ele-
ment. In the interior of Asia Minor they are most
abundant in the vilayets of Trebizond and Aidin and the
district called Karamania, in which latter they use the
Turkish language, but write it in Greek letters. TheTURKEY IN EUROPE

population of the Archipelago, including Crete and Cyprus,
is almost wholly Greek, the Cretan Mussulmans being
Mohammedan Greeks, and not Turks. The islanders form
in many ways a distinct type. They have been exempt
from the invasions or influence of Slavs, Vlachs, and
Albanians,1 but have received a considerable admixture
of Frankish, and particularly of Venetian, blood. This,
and the pursuit of such active occupations as navigation
ajid fishing, have created a finer physique than is common
on the mainland, and also developed mental activity and
energy. Many eminent Greeks, whether Corsairs, Otto-
man functionaries, or patriots, were islanders. The typical
Greek is, however, a dweller in towns. In European
Turkey the only large masses of Greek peasantry are
found in the three-pronged peninsula north of the Gulf
of Salonica, and in the region behind Constantinople,
which is, however, sparsely populated. In the kingdom
of Greece a large part of the rural population was clearly
in its origin Albanian or Ylach. This urban character
of the Greeks is, like so many other peculiarities, not of
recent date, but goes back to Byzantine times. In the
seventh and eighth centuries the invasions of barbarians,
and the utter neglect shown by the Government for the
provinces, drove all the wealthiest and most intelligent
elements of the population into the towns. Doubtless
these elements were various in their origin, but they soon
became characterised by linguistic and religious homo-
geneity and a common aptitude for commercial and intel-
lectual rather than for military pursuits. After the
Ottoman conquest the Greeks were not a local population,
but a superior class of Christians, forming a counterpart
to the Turks.)) South-Eastern Europe was ruled by the
Turks; but until this century its religion, education, com-

1 The Albanians got as far as Hydra and Spezzia, which are, however,
actioally parts of the M.orea.THE GREEKS

3QI

merce, and finance were in the hands of Greeks. The
early conquests and colonies of the Slavs had no effect on
this pre-eminence. The empires of Simeon and Dushan
did not spread Bulgarian or Servian civilisation; they
simply imitated Byzantium. On the whole, the Greeks
have ^ shown extraordinary tenacity in preserving their
language and religion. There are exceptions, of course,
sucK~ asTEe Cretan Moslims; but, at least on the con-
tinent of Europe, there is no body of Greeks like the Beys
of Bosnia, the Bulgarian Pomaks, or the Mohammedan
Albanians. The servility of the Phanariots did not take
the form of adopting the Turkish language or the Moham-
medan religion; on the contrary, they were the uncom-
promisingapostIes~oT Hellenism. It is clear that one
reason for the faII™of~the Byzantine Empire was that the
Byzantines took far more interest in their Church than in
their government, and their descendants were animated by
the same spirit. The impulse towards political independ-
ence in 1823 did not come from Constantinople or Salonica.

After the conquest Mohammed II. strengthened the
Greek element m Constantinople, but weakened it in the
provinces. As many of the nobility as could fled to the
Christian states of Europe, and wars and misfortune had so
reduced the population of the capital that a third of the
space enclosed by the walls was uninhabited. To fill this
void, Mohammed forced 15,000 Greeks from the pro-
vinces to settle in Stamboul, and reorganised the Greek
Millet, or nation, under the Patriarch1 as head. After the

"V___I___. ,—---2-—______________■

conquest of Trebizond he removed two-thirds of the inhabi-
tants, and sent the upper classes to Stamboul, thinking
it dangerous to allow any powerful body of Greeks to exist
except under his immediate personal supervision. The rural

1 Some details respecting the history of the Patriarchate, which is for
some time the history of the Greeks, are given in the chapter on the Ortho-
dox Church.3°2

TURKEY IN EUROPE

districts were kept quiet by thgjevy of tribute children for
the Janissaries. The more potential patriots they produced,
the morelictual oppressors they raised up for themselves,
and their own strength fought against them. But the
capital was exempt from conscription, and for some time
the Greeks enjoyed there comparative freedom and pros-
perity. aa. Patriarch, ag^Jiead__o£_the_ Greek^Millet, had
the rank of Yezir, and superintended _the administration of
justice in cases affecting Christians only. All matters con-
cernrnglmarrlag^	as well as minor

offences, were dealt with by^ his tribunal^ He was sur-
rounded by a number of lay officers with high-sounding
titles, recalling the old Byzantine court, such as Grand
Logothete, Grand Treasurer, Chartophylax, and many others.
Under his presidency the Synod busied itself, not only with
ecclesiastical affairs, but also with the management of
schools and hospitals and the administration of the revenues
of the Millet. The rule of Mohammed was also advan-
tageous to Greek commerce; for the abolition of the privi-
leges accorded to. foreigners by the Byzantine emperors, and
the indifference of the Turks to mercantile pursuits, left the
Christian subjects of the Porte in a favourable position.
All Christians were, however, subjected to the Harach, \
or capitation tax, which Mohammedans did not have to
pay.

This favourable condition of the Greeks did not last
long. ISThe greater part of the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries was for them a period of obscurity ancl oppression,^
as may be seen from the almost total cessation of literature..
Several causes contributed to this result. The concessions
of Mohammed II. were partly prompted by fear. When
his successors knew the Greeks better, familiarity bred
contempt. The ferocious Selim I. contemplated a general
massacre of Christians, and was deterred, not by the danger
of the project, but by the honesty of his Mufti, who declinedTHE GREEKS

to give it the sanction of a fetva. Another enemy appeared
in the Jesuits and other Catholic orders, who began to
settle in Turkey and received the protection of France.
The old feud between the Churches broke out again, and
the Catholics did all they could to injure the educational
and ecclesiastical projects of the Greeks. But perhaps the
chief cause of this abasement was to be found in the
Greeks themselves. The shameless venality and corrup-
tion of priests and laymen alike justified the contempt of
the Turks, and prevented any sort of union or national
feeling. Still, even in this period the Greeks were the chief
Christian race. Little as we hear of them, we hear less of
the Servians and Bulgarians.

In the later half of the seventeenth century things
began to improve. The tribute of children for the Janis-
saries ceased to be taken, and the strength of the rural
provinces was no longer drained. The young Pallikars,
who had previously become the Sultan's soldier slaves, now
grew up in their own homes, and, being Christians, could
not fight under the banner of Islam. They found their
occupation, either as Klephts or Armatoles.1 The former
of these words, generally translated brigand, was applied
to open rebels against the Ottoman Government; the latter
to a force of Christian gendarmes, allowed to bear arms, and
charged with the duty of preserving order and keeping the
Klephts in check. The origin of both classes is obscure.
Brigandage was prevalent in Byzantine times, as it is likely
to be in every country where the communications are bad,
the population adventurous, and the Government weak. It
would be natural if the peaceful inhabitants had protected
themselves by forming a local gendarmerie, but there seems
to be no evidence for the existence of the institution before
the Turkish conquest. Both Klephts and Armatoles come

1 K\t(pT7)s, a thief; 'kpfxaruiKbs, a man-at-arms. By a curious error, com-
mitted even by Greeks, this last word is often written 'A^aprwX6s, a sinner.304	TURKEY IN EUROPE

into greater prominence with the abolition of the conscrip-
tion. They were especially numerous in the northern parts
of Thessaly and the mountains of Pindus, Olympus, and
Pelion. The Turks are said to have created fourteen Arma-
tol-liks; or police districts, and as there were few Ottoman
officials in the country, and the Upoeo-Tw, or head of the
local Greek municipality, had control over the armed gen-
darmerie, the Christian population enjoyed comparative inde-
, pendence. In judging the Klephts, we must remember that
the profession of brigand has always met with indulgence
and sympathy in the East. Such as still exist in Euro-
pean Turkey are mostly Moslims, whose exploits are fol-
lowed with a friendly interest as long as they only attack
Christians. With advancing years they retire, obtain a full
pardon, and are much respected. It is also significant that
at the present day Armenian revolutionaries are officially
called brigands (eshkiya) by the Porte. We may therefore
believe that the Klephts had a political character, and aimed
at throwing off the Turkish yoke.

Maya, (rod Xedo Sev jUL7ropco, tov$ T6vpkovg va SovXevco.

0a irapw to rovfpeKi /ulov va iraw va ylvco K\e<pTt]$.

" Mother, I tell you I cannot serve the Turks. I will take
my gun and go and become a Klepht." But the young
gentleman and his companions probably somewhat confused
a love of adventure with efforts after political independence.
At any rate, as long as the Turks left the Armatoles to deal
with the Klephts, there was no serious revolutionary move-
ment. The War of Independence was preceded by a
series of measures dictated by fear of the Armatoles, which
made them openly combine with the Klephts.

The Klephts passed the winter, when an outdoor life
was impossible, in hiding, often on the Ionian Islands; but
in summer they took to their haunts in the wooded moun-
tains. During the day they concealed themselves in gorgesTHE GREEKS

or caverns called Xtj/iepia,1 and at night they issued forth to
kill Agas and Albanians, or, for want of better booty, to levy
contributions from monasteries.

E^rjvT 'Aya$ai$ crKcoTdocra kgll e/caxjsa tu X^P1® tov$
K ocrovs 'a* top tottov a<peo"a Kai Tovp/cov$ kou 'ApfiaviTai?
l&lvai iroXkoi, ttovXclkl julov, icai netprj/ulov Sev e-^ovv.

" Sixty Agas I slew and burnt their villages, and as for the
Turks and Albanians that I left (dead) on the field, they
are many, my bird, and cannot be numbered," says the
brigand's head to the eagle in the ballad. They certainly
habitually and deliberately robbed and killed Turks and
Albanians merely because they were Turks and Albanians,
but in spite of such acts they appear to have maintained a
higher level of chivalry than the other side. Their exploits
were marked by blood-thirsty daring, but not by the atro-
cious cruelty and wanton outrages which stain the memory
of most Pashas whose names have been preserved. The
ballads which tell of the doings of the Klephts are one of
the most precious heirlooms of the Greek people, and out-
weigh all the pompous prose and stilted tragedies composed
in modern Greek in virtue of their natural language and
genuine feeling. One of the most celebrated and beautiful
is the dying speech of Demos, translated into German by
Goethe; but most of the pieces preserved in Fauriel's Col-
lection (Chants Populaires de la Grbce Moderne) repay perusal.

The condition of the Christian provinces was also2 amel-
iorated by the revised and juster system of taxation intro-
duced by the Grand-Vizier Kyopriilii-Zade-Mustafa. He
argued that excessive oppression of the Christians was like
killing the goose that laid the golden eggs. The maxim ex
nihilo nihil fit hardly applies to Turkish finance, for they

1	"0\r) Tifitpa, a place where one stays all day.

2	It may seem odd to treat the rise of the Klephts as an amelioration, but
the power of killing Turks is regarded by the Eastern Christian as the most
precious, as it is the rarest, privilege.

U306	TURKEY IN EUROPE

do seem to take money out of empty pockets. But clearly
more taxes can be taken out of full ones.

Still more striking was the improved position of the
Greeks in the capital which begins with this period. The
quarter called Phanar, on the Golden Horn, had become the
residence, not only of the Patriarch, but of a Greek aristo-
cracy. They were not the descendants of the old Byzantine
nobles, who all either emigrated or were slain, but of the
more prominent families, half clerics and half merchants,
who grew up round the Patriarchate. Also they contained
a strong Italian element; for side by side with such names
as Mavrocordato, Ypsilanti, and Karadja, we also find
Rosetti, Morousi, and Giuliani. The churches and buildings
of the Phanar are still remarkably unpretentious, and recall
the time when the residents thought it wise to have no
external sign of wealth and prosperity though the interior
of their houses was marked by profuse luxury. As the
military power of the Turks declined, they began to feel the
need of diplomacy and of treating and negotiating with other
nations, which, in their original arrogance, they had always
refused to do. They did not, however, on that account
show the slightest disposition to learn European languages
or adopt European ways, but merely employed a large
number of interpreters and go-betweens. At first Jews and
renegades were chiefly used; but about the middle of the
seventeenth century it seems to have occurred to the Porte
that the Phanariots would be admirable instruments for the
purpose. Years of oppression and insult had reduced them
to a satisfactory state of servility; they had no military
instincts, and they were very clever. To the subtlety bred
of theological disputes they added the shrewdness of mer-
chants, and were rarely prevented by any scruples from
getting the best of either an argument or a bargain. At
first they held very humble posts as clerks and translators,
but in 1669 the Grand Vizir Kyopriilii Ahmed created forTHE GREEKS

3°7

his secretary Panayoti,1 who had rendered him great ser-
vices in Crete, the office of Divan Terjumani, or Dragoman
of the Porte. Panayoti was succeeded by another distin-
guished Chiot, Alexander Mavrocordato, who signed the
Treaty of Carlovitz as Turkish plenipotentiary. With such
occupants the post of Dragoman of the Porte became that of
a Minister rather than of a mere interpreter, and the foreign
affairs of Turkey, at least as far as concerned details, were
in the hands of the Greeks. Mavrocordato was styled the
depositary of secrets, Mahrem-i-esrar, or, in Greek, e£ airop-
prjrwv, which corresponds to the Latin e secretis. The Drago-
man of the Porte proved so satisfactory that the Turks
proceeded to appoint a second official with the title of
Dragoman of the Fleet, or Tersane Terjumani. He was the
secretary of the Capitan Pasha, or Lord High Admiral, who,
in addition to his purely naval functions, was Governor of
the Archipelago. The Dragoman of the Fleet became his
intermediary in all dealings with the inhabitants and autho-
rities of the islands, and gradually acquired almost absolute
authority between the shores of the iEgean. It became the
custom for him to buy of the Capitan Pasha all the offices
in the latter's gift and then to resell them at a profit.

The Greek element and Greek influence had long been
strong in Wallachia and Moldavia, but after 1716 the Porte,
distrusting the national party in those principalities, reduced
to a system the practice which it had hitherto occasionally
followed of giving them foreign governors. From that date
until the Greek War of Independence, Phanariots, chiefly of
the families of Mavrocordato, Ghica, Soutzo, and Ypsilanti,
were regularly appointed as Hospodars of the two pro-
vinces, and maintained quasi-royal state at Bucharest and
Jassy. They brought with them a train of officials, priests,

1 He was a Chiot, and called t6 irpd<rivo &\oyo or o wpdaivos ttovtikSs, be-
cause, according to the proverb, sensible men are as rare in Chios as green
horses or green mice.|308	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and creditors, and altogether overwhelmed the Roumanian
element.

Though the Phanariots never held the same political
position in the Slavonic parts of the Balkan Peninsula as
on the northern bank of the Danube, they managed to secure
in them a preponderating influence by means of their Church.
They destroyed the ancient and independent Sees of Ipek
and Ochrida, and made the whole ecclesiastical organisation
of Macedonia, Servia, and Bulgaria dependent on the Patri-
archate of Constantinople. Their bishops made tax-col-
lecting tours like Turkish pashas, and the dues which they
extorted were remitted to the Phanar, and expended on
Hellenic objects. Monasteries and their estates passed into
Greek hands. Greek literature and Greek schools formed
the only available means of education, and educated Serbs
and Bulgarians called themselves Greeks.

Thus in the middle of the eighteenth century Christian
Turkey was in the hands of the Greeks. But there was
another side to the picture. The governors and bishops
who dealt so freely with Roumanians and Slavs had to be
careful how they punished a Turkish brigand, and might be
deposed or executed if they offended one of the Sultan's
eunuchs. The ballad of Kyritsos Michalis,1 a rich Greek of
Achelos, on the Black Sea, gives a vivid picture of this state
of insecurity, and its want of detail and explanation of
the disaster it records are more forcible than any elaborate
description could be :—

" There was a certain Greek called Kyritsos Michalis,
He had immense wealth and great power, and he sat
quietly at home, and his mind was easy. They read a
letter before the Divan, saying that he troubled the country
and was seeking after war. When the Sultan heard it, he
was very angry. He sent for the Kapuji Pasha, and hastily
addressed him. ' Haste to Achelos, to the house of Michalis;

1 Fauriel, vol. i. p. 211 ff.THE GREEKS

there see that thou hang him before his door; and see that
thou take his little son, and take care that thou lose not a
pin of all his possessions.' He weighed anchor at midnight;
he went to Achelos. He flew like a bird; he went like an
arrow. When Michal Bey saw him, he rose to meet him.
' Hail, my master, sit down and eat/ ' I have not come to
eat nor yet to drink, but to perform the bidding and the
will of the Sultan.' He cast the rope about his neck, and
straightway took him before his door and hanged him. And
he found his little son, and took him too, and put him into
the galley with all his father's wealth."

The Phanariots have fared ill at the hands of historians.
They are detested by all whose sympathies lie with Slavs
or Roumanians, and not overmuch loved by Philhellenes.
Their administration was no doubt bad. They were tyran-
nical by order of their masters, and tyrannical on their own
account, in order to show their independence when they
dared. They maintained their position so long because
they were in sympathy with no section of the provincial
population. As soon as the Turks suspected them of any
inclination towards Hellenic patriotism (in which cause
they were very lukewarm), the whole system came to an
end. The great vice of their rule was its venality. Hospo-
dars, dragomans, and patriarchs alike bought their offices for
enormous sums, which ultimately came out of the pockets
of the unfortunate peasantry in the various districts. The
Porte changed them all as often as possible, in order to
increase the number of sales, but left them a free hand in
the matter of filling their own pockets. The Hospodars kept
up an extraordinary pomp and luxury in their capitals; but
contemporary travellers speak of the poverty and depopula-
tion of Roumanian villages in terms which remind one of
those used of Armenia at the present day. Yet justice is
not always done to the activity of the Phanariots. They
revived and diffused the culture which led to the awakeningTURKEY IN EUROPE

of the Christian races of South-Eastern Europe. It was not
an unworthy, though it appears to be an unpractical, idea
to unite those races under one Church and one language; and
for such a purpose Greek was the only possible language.
It is regrettable that they should have destroyed Slavonic
books, but it does not appear that they drove out Slavonic
or Roumanian culture. They introduced Greek culture in
the place of no culture at all, and thereby aroused native
genius, and ultimately excited it to rivalry. The transition
from the period of the Phanariots to that inaugurated by
the Greek Revolution of 1821 was due to three causes, for
some of which they were clearly responsible: the spread of
education, the rise of commerce, and the distressed condition
of the Greek provinces.

The books of the Phanariots belong to that large class
of literature which adds nothing new to the art or science
of the human race, but is still of great importance to those
who write and read it, because they have access to nothing
better. The end of the sixteenth and beginning of the
seventeenth centuries were marked by the cessation of Greek
literature in Constantinople. Greek writers indeed there
were, but they were mostly either Cretans, like Cornaros
and Scleros, or else resided abroad like Allatios, who wrote
his " Hellad " in Italy. But with the middle of the seven-
teenth century a new era opens. The atmosphere of the
Phanar was not congenial to poetry or romance, but
theology flourished in it, as well as the safer forms of
science and history. The first two Dragomans of the
Porte were both literary characters. Panayoti translated
the Catechism of the Orthodox Church into the popular
language, and Alexander Mavrocordato wrote " Moral Essays,"
a " History of the Jews," and a "Treatise on the Circulation
of the Blood." Later, there was a considerable importation
of French books, many of which were translated into
Greek. The Greek spirit found its fullest developmentTHE GREEKS

in the border lands of Turkey, which were just out of
the reach of the Sultans arm. Greek colleges, theatres,
and newspapers sprang up at Vienna, Odessa, Bucharest,
Jassy, and Corfu, and there were Greek colonies and
printing-presses in Vienna, Moscow, and Leipzig. Even
in Turkey itself there were large educational establish-
ments—for instance, at Kuru Cheshme on the Bosphorus
and Cydonia1 (Aivali) on the coast of Asia north of
Smyrna. This latter place is an example of the privi-
leges granted to the Greeks in the times when the Turks
were not afraid of them. In 1740 the zeal of the monk
(Economus and the wealth of the banker, Saros Petraki,
obtained from the Sultan firmans ordering all Turks to
leave Aivali, and establishing there an independent Greek
municipality. The place was christened Cydonia, and for
half a century was a sort of Oriental Boston, famed for
its fine streets, public gardens, University, libraries, and
municipal buildings, for the wealth, culture, and refine-
ment of its inhabitants. It is now called Aivali once
more. On the outbreak of the Greek Revolution the
Turks burnt the town, and the cultured inhabitants
either fled or were killed.

Of the Greek writers, two had a definite political im-
portance, Rhigas (1753-1798) and Coraes (1748-1833).
Like contemporary Armenian patriots they both of them
lived abroad. Rhigas was the author of some popular and
spirited national songs,'of which the best known begins, " O9
7roVe, TlaWrjicapia, va j^cojixev V ra a-reva ; " " How long, heroes,
shall we live in the mountain passes ?" He also laid the
foundations of the society from which was developed the
celebrated Hetaireia, and he entered into negotiations with
Pasvan Oglu of Widdin,2 who seemed inclined to play a part
similar to that subsequently acted by Ali of Janina. But
Rhigas was betrayed by a comrade to the Austrian police,
1 Or Kydonies.	1 See page 75.312

TURKEY IN EUROPE

handed over by the Austrian Government to the Turks,
and executed at Belgrade. Coraes lived chiefly at Paris,
and published several political works, including the ener-
getic appeal to revolt known as the 2aA7n<r/xa iroXe^ia--
Tripiov. He also edited the " Hellenic Library " of ancient
Greek authors, and began a Greek-French Lexicon.

The commercial ability and activity which distinguished
the Greeks at all periods received a special encouragement
and development after the Treaty of Kainardji, concluded
between Russia and Turkey in 1774. An article of this
Treaty allowed the appointment in all seaports of consular
officers who, together with their assistants, dependents, and
servants, enjoyed certain privileges and immunity from
Ottoman jurisdiction. Not only were these officials gener-
ally Greeks, but the Porte allowed the Ambassadors to dis-
tribute a certain number of lerats, or letters conferring
these privileges and immunities, on any one they chose,
even on persons without official position. Finally Selim III.,
seeing how eagerly these lerats were sought, thought it
prudent to grant them himself in return for considerable
fees. Thus arose a class of privileged merchants, known as
Beratlis, who were exempt from the dangers and difficulties
which generally attend the acquisition and preservation of
wealth in Oriental countries. Armenians and Jews reaped
the advantages of this system as well as Greeks, but did not
become so prominent, because they had not the same mari-
time aptitudes as the latter. The carrying trade of the
Levant was soon almost entirely monopolised by vessels
owned and manned by Greeks, and the commerce of the
iEgean, Adriatic, and Black Seas was in their hands. Sea-
faring Greeks entered the mercantile marine instead of the
navy, and thus weakened the Ottoman fleet, and at the same
time strengthened the Greek nation. Wealthy Greek com-
mercial houses grew up, not only at Salonica and Smyrna,
but at Odessa and Taganrog, at Trieste and Venice, and evenTHE GREEKS

3J3

in London and Moscow. The effect of this rise of Greek
communities outside Turkey was very important. The
priests and functionaries of the Phanar knew that they only
ruled through the Turks and found no difficulty in believing
that, as they were the Vice-Regents of the Sultan, so the
Sultan was the Vice-Regent of God. But the Greeks in
Italy, Russia, and the more distant parts of Europe did not
depend on the Turks. The French Revolution familiarised
them with the idea of revolt; they were all of them ready
to aid the cause of freedom with their money, and quite a
respectable number ventured to return to the lion's den.
The patriotic society of Rhigas, which had apparently col-
lapsed with his death, was revived in 1814 at Vienna under
the title of QiXo/ulovctoi. Its nominal objects were educa-
tional and literary, but it was the parent, or at least the
affectionate brother, of a more celebrated political associa-
tion called <pi\ucr] 'Eraipela, '^Eraipela roov (piXuccov, or more
briefly the Hetaireia.

The Hetaireia was founded in 1815 by four obscure
Greek merchants of Moscow, three of them natives of the
Morea, and was somewhat like the Carbonari of Italy. Its
members adopted mysterious language and ceremonies, re-
sembling those of Freemasons, and described themselves as
the agents of an unknown power called the 'Ap^y, which
at the appointed hour would deliver Greece from the Otto-
man yoke. That it was suited to the needs of the time
is shown by the fact that in 1820 the number of its mem-
bers was estimated at 200,000. Even now the words
" Society " or " Committee " fill the Porte with unreasoning
terror, and Fellows of the Royal Society would doubtless be
arrested if they were rash enough to describe themselves as
such in Constantinople.

Thirdly, the War of Independence was brought about by
the bad state of the Greek provinces. If the Turk caresses
with one hand he slaps with the other, and the favour314	TURKEY IN EUROPE

shown to the Phanariots found its natural counterpart in
the curtailment of the liberty enjoyed by the rural popula-
tion. The pleasant family arrangement of Armatoles and
Klephts, who understood one another very well in spite of
skirmishes, was modified by the appointment of the Der-
vendji Pasha, charged with the supervision of the roads and
passes leading from Macedonia and Epirus into Thessaly and
Acarnania. After the middle of the eighteenth century
this office was generally conferred on Albanian chieftains,
who with their followers devoted themselves to the con-
genial task of harrying and oppressing the Greeks, with the
result that the distinction between Klephts and Armatoles
became obliterated, and both were in arms against the Turks.

Farther south other causes produced distress and dis-
content at the end of the eighteenth century. The fortunes
of the Morea had been more varying than those of any other
province of the Ottoman Empire on the European continent.
Mohammed II. subdued the greater part of it, but some
towns were left in the possession of Venice. In 1540
these were given up, and the Turks were in sole possession
until 1684, when the Venetians, taking advantage of the
weakness and embarrassments of their opponents, recon-
quered the Morea, which remained in their hands thirty
years, until it was taken back by the Turks in 1714, and
recognised as Ottoman territory by the Peace of Passarowitz
in 1718. The Greeks did not relish the Venetian rule,
which merely means that by giving them security of life
and property it left them leisure to complain of minor
grievances,1 but we can hardly doubt that this contact with
Western Europe was a stimulating influence which prevented
the Morea from falling into the same sloth as the more
northern regions.

1 Similarly, before the Armenian Massacres of 1895, the Russian Armenians
professed to prefer the government of Turkey to that of Russia, on the ground
that " the Turk takes the body, but the Russian takes the soul."THE GREEKS

3i5

All through the eighteenth century there was a certain
connection between Greece and Russia. From the time
of Peter the Great the Russians began to interfere in
Ottoman affairs, chiefly in Wallachia and Moldavia as being
nearest, but also in Mount Athos and Southern Greece.
In the reign of the Empress Anna, Marshal Munich at-
tempted to raise a revolt in the Morea, and though it came
to nothing, Russian pilgrims and adventurers continued to
tell the Greeks they must look to the Czar for assistance,
and many Greeks entered the Russian service. One of
these, a certain Papadopoulo or Papas Oglu,1 interested
Orlow, the favourite of Catherine, in a project of revolt
and the foundation of an independent Greece. The plan
seems to have had the direct approval of the Russian
Government. In April 1770 a Russian fleet appeared at
Yitylo, and the whole of the Peloponnesus rose in insurrec-
tion. The result was disastrous for the Greeks. It is true
that the Russians defeated the Turks, but they transferred
their operations to a more northern sphere, and the out-
come of the whole business was that they annexed the
Crimea, and left the Morea to its fate. The Greeks com-
plained that they were betrayed; the Russians accused
them of cowardice, and said they would not fight for their
own freedom. Both reproaches had some truth in them.
Most Oriental Christians (in spite of repeated experiences
to the contrary) expect the Powers to do everything for
them, and the Russians are not the only people who have
begun by interfering on behalf of oppressed Christians, and
ended by somewhat irrelevantly taking a piece of Turkish
territory.

About 50,000 Greeks were massacred. Albanian troops
poured in from the North, and after the war was over

1 Papadopoulo and Papas Oglu are Greek and Turkish respectively for
" priest's son." The individual in question is also called Papazolis, which must
be a G-recised form of Papas Oglu.316	TURKEY IN EUROPE

were allowed to remain in the country, which they pillaged
and ravaged so thoroughly that in a short time the
Christians had hardly any villages or property left. The
Albanians then began to attack the Mussulman population,
and Greece seemed at the mercy of a gang of bandits. It was
nine years before the Porte was able to reassert its authority,
but in 1779 Capitan Pasha succeeded in routing the
Albanians near Tripolitza and exterminated them. Never-
theless when war broke out again with Russia in 1787, the
Porte again sent bands of Albanians into the Morea. It
may be imagined what suffering all this anarchy entailed on
the unfortunate Greeks, and what desires of revolt it must
have inspired. A little later the creation of the United
Republic of the Seven Ionian Islands, inspired hopes as
well, for it showed that a sort of independence was not
impossible.1 In the North, also, things tended to increase
both the strength and the discontent of the Greeks. As
mentioned, after about 1740, the Porte charged Albanian
Pashas with the maintenance of order in the mountains.
Greek local independence and prosperity suffered severely
for a time, but the combination of Klephts and Armatoles
against the soldiers of the Dervendji Pasha, formed an
opposition of considerable military force.

At the end of the eighteenth century appeared the
celebrated Ali Pasha of Janina. He was no fHend of the
Greeks, and they endured much at his hands; but his real
object throughout his long life was to create for himself
an independent principality, and for this purpose he was

1 The history of the Seven Ionian Islands (Corfu, Paxo, Zante, Ithaca,
Cephalonia, Santa Maura, and Cerigo), is even more complicated than that of
the Morea. From the fifteenth century till 1797 they belonged to Venice, and
in the latter year were ceded to France, but in 1799 were made into a Re-
public guaranteed by Russia and Turkey. France acquired them again in
1807, but from 1809 to 1814 they were gradually taken by England. In 1815
they were formed into ''the United States of the Ionian Islands under the
protectorate of Great Britain," and in 1863 incorporated, with our consent,
in the kingdom of Greece.THE GREEKS

3i7

anxious to weaken Ottoman influence in his neighbourhood
by every means he dared employ. As his Albanians had
no desire to be anything but soldiers or bandits, this policy
caused the Greeks to come to the front as landowners and
officials, and, though Ali dealt severely with the Greek
armed bands, his natural love of tortuous diplomacy caused
him to often intrigue with them even in the earlier part of
his career. When the Sultan declared him a rebel in 1820,
he summoned a meeting of Greeks, and invited them to
join with him in fighting the Turks. He would have much
complicated the cause of Hellenic independence had he
lived, but he died in 1822 after doing the Greeks more
good than he ever intended.

The first outbreak of the insurrection was eminently
unsuccessful. The Hetaireia chose as their head Alexander
Ypsilanti, the son of a Hospodar and a Russian officer, who
proceeded to raise the standard of revolt in the Danubian
principalities in February 1821, with the complicity of
Michael Soutzo, Hospodar of Moldavia. But he met with
little sympathy from the Roumanians; a national insurrec-
tion in Wallachia merely embarrassed him; he was dis-
owned by the Russians, and crushed by the Turks in June
of the same year.

Meanwhile the movement which had failed in the
North began with greater vigour in the South. It appears
that the Dragoman of the Porte, John Callimachi, warned
Halet Effendi,1 the favourite of the Sultan, of the insur-
rection which was preparing in Roumania, accusing in
particular the Hospodar of Moldavia. This latter was a
creature of Halet's, who flew into a passion, and most
unreasonably banished Callimachi. When it was impossi-
ble to deny the fact of the insurrection, Halet accused all

1 He was officially only Nishanji, or Keeper of the Privy Seal, but he
enjoyed enormous influence, and made and unmade Grand-Viziers as he chose.
A few years ago Izzet Bey had a somewhat similar position.3i8	TURKEY IN EUROPE

manner of Greeks of complicity so as to attract less atten-
tion to the part played by Soutzo, and by himself in
screening him. A series of massacres and executions com-
menced; prominent Greeks were put to death without
regard to their innocence or guilt; a jihad was proclaimed,
and the fanatical populace burnt many Greek quarters.
Simultaneously an insurrection broke out in the Morea.
It was not apparently caused by events at Constantinople,
but it was certainly embittered by them, and there com-
menced a wholesale vendetta in which a massacre on one
side was answered by a massacre on the other. The first
rising in the Morea occurred at the end of March. On
Easter Day (April 22) the Patriarch of Constantinople was
hanged at the gate of his church. Many bishops and notable
persons were executed on the same day, and the fury
of the Moslim populace found expression in slaughter and
outrages all over Thrace and Macedonia. The insurgents
in the Morea replied by almost exterminating the Turkish
population, and the massacre of Moslims at Vrachori, Tri-
politza, Athens, St Spiridion, and elsewhere showed that
the Greeks had the same temper which prompted the
massacre of Chios and many other atrocities on the
Turkish side. I draw attention to this, not from a desire
to prove that Turks and Greeks are all much of a much-
ness, but because it is important to realise that the Turks
really have cause to fear Christians. Otherwise such events
as the recent Armenian massacres would be inexplicable.

At first, this southern insurrection was entirely success-
ful. The courage of the Greeks was maintained by the
accession to their ranks of numerous Philhellenes, and their
pockets were filled by two European loans. But in 1824,
the Sultan gave a new turn to the fortunes of war by
ordering his vassal Mehemet Ali of Egypt to invade the
Morea, and the latter despatched his son Ibrahim Pasha
to execute the task. The Greeks were unprepared. Dis-THE GREEKS

319

sension and fighting had broken out among their leaders;
their fortifications had fallen out of repair, and the Euro-
pean loans had been mysteriously squandered. Ibrahim
took Navarino and Tripolitza, and then commenced a syste-
matic massacre with the apparent object of exterminating
the Greek population. The capture of Athens and the
siege of Missolonghi in 1826 produced a deep impression in
Europe. Popular feeling in Russia called for an interven-
tion in favour of Orthodox Christianity, and the new Czar,
Nicholas I., was more disposed to act than his predecessor.
Russia, France, and England agreed that Ibrahim's devas-
tation of the Morea should be stopped, and Greece made
autonomous. A combined squadron made a demonstration
at Navarino with the object of bringing Ibrahim to reason.
They did not intend to engage him, but the obstinate
Pasha fired on an English boat, and in the battle which
ensued his fleet was annihilated. In 1830 Greece was
recognised as independent.

As I am treating of the populations of Turkey rather
than of European politics I will now leave the kingdom
of Greece and retire behind the Ottoman frontier. The
Turkish Empire gets so little praise that it is worth while
to pause a moment and reflect what a curious exhibition
of strength it afforded at this juncture. It was almost
simultaneously threatened by Ali Pasha, and by risings in
Roumania and Greece. It not only mastered them all,
but in the midst of the crisis deliberately exterminated
its own Janissaries, a proceeding which would have in
itself convulsed any ordinary state. It is true that Greece
was detached, but that was the result of the action of
Europe, without which probably no Greeks would have been
left. Nor did the Ottoman Empire emerge from the
struggle changed and chastened as might have been ex-
pected. Though it destroyed at one blow its army of
Janissaries and its civil service of Phanariots, it cannot320	TURKEY IN EUROPE

be said thereby to have altered its character. Without
Janissaries, and without Phanariots, it is still, in the last
decade of the nineteenth century, very much what it was
in the first.

The detachment of Greece was, however, followed by
an attempt to content the Greeks within the empire. It
is true that they were no longer allowed to hold high
office. There were no more Greek dragomans and hos-
podars, and the Phanariots fled, as the old Byzantine
nobility had fled after the conquest of Mohammed. A few
went to Greece, but the larger number settled in England,
France, Austria, or Russia, where they founded important
commercial houses. Most persons in Constantinople who
now bear Phanariot names are foreign subjects with the
nationality of the country where their grandparents settled.
But this exodus of the Phanariots, though it destroyed the
pre-eminence of Greek commerce in the Levant, did not
affect the mass of the population, who had derived little
material benefit from their regime. As at the end of the
seventeenth century the Kyopriiliis had thought it politic
to favour the Christians, so Sultans Mahmud and Abd-ul-
Mejid, assisted by such Ministers as Reshid, Ali and Ahmed
Vefik Pashas, who saw the danger arising from Russia
in the North and in the South from the kingdom of Greece
and the quasi-independent Mehemet Ali, did their best to
satisfy the Greek rayahs. They must clearly have suc-
ceeded to a certain extent, although most of their so-called
reforms prove illusory when examined, for the exodus into
the kingdom of Greece was smaller than might have been
expected; and on subsequent occasions when war has broken
out between Greece and Turkey there has been no revolt
within the Ottoman dominions, nor have we heard of Greek
atrocities or massacres of Greeks in the Balkan Peninsula.

But, though there is little to chronicle respecting the
Greek rayahs in the last three quarters of a century, theTHE GREEKS

321

period has been eventful, but not advantageous for the
MeyaX^ ISea, the great idea, as it is called—the idea, that is,
that Hellenic influence should be supreme in South-Eastern
Europe. The Greeks are, perhaps, still the most intelligent
and best educated of the Sultans subjects, but they are no
longer in any way predominant among the Christians. The
Bulgarians have a Church and Millet of their own, and the
Servians and Ylachs, though less definitely recognised by
the Turks, have separated themselves from the Greeks and
do not co-operate in the Hellenic cause. Thus, the Greeks,
instead of representing Christianity and education for all
Eastern Europe, have come to be one of many political
parties, and not even the strongest of them.

The most important incidents for Hellenism in this
century were the Greek War of Independence and the
Firman of 1870 constituting the Bulgarian Exarchate,
which may be said to have halved the number and in-
fluence of the Greeks in European Turkey. Between these
events come two other measures affecting the well-being of
the Orthodox community, which until 1870 is not dis-
tinguished from the Greeks. They are the Hatt-i-Sherif of
Giilhane (1839) and the Hatt-i-Humayun of 1856. The
only claim which these acts have on our attention is, that
it is important to realise that they were of hardly any im-
portance. When one reads definite imperial rescripts
abolishing certain institutions and establishing others in
their place, one is apt to believe that a new order of things
was really introduced. But the definite language of these
decrees had no counterpart in facts. At most, the change
was only made for a few years.

The Hatt-i-Sherif of Giilhane abolished the farming of
taxes, created a Council of State, a Penal Code, and a State
Bank, and informed the inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire
that the institutions which it established secured the life,
honour, and property of all the Sultan's subjects, without

x322

TURKEY IN EUROPE

distinction of religion. As a matter of fact the condition
of the Christians remained just the same after this Hatt as
it was before; but it is curious to notice that the opposition
to the abolition of tax-farming came chiefly from the
Christian Sarrafs, or money-changers, of Constantinople.
Two years later the old system was avowedly restored. The
second Charter of Reforms, the Hatt-i-Humayun of 1856,
was mainly the work of the Powers who fought with
Turkey during the Crimean War, and who felt that, as they
had prevented Russia from assuming a protectorate over
Ottoman Christians, they must do something to protect
them themselves. In the period before the Crimean war
Russia had helped the Turkish Greeks mainly by the ready
grant of Russian nationality to those who paid a brief visit
to Russian territory. This effective but highly irregular
form of protection was hotly contested by the Porte, but
continued more or less until the conclusion of the war
discredited Russian influence and brought about a change
of feeling. The allied Powers were anxious not to disinte-
grate the Turkish administration, but to ameliorate the
Central Government, and their efforts in this direction
called forth a plentiful crop of reforms. In 1855 a law
was made admitting Christians to the army, and the result
brings into relief the peculiar characteristics of Turkey.
Nothing could be more plausible than this law. It is one
of the first conditions for the unity and homogeneity of a
State that all classes of the population should have the
same right of bearing arms and defending their country.
Yet the measure was never executed, simply because all
sections of Ottoman subjects objected to it. The Moslims
said that their lives would be in danger if the Christians
were armed; and the Christians said that they could not
fight under the standard of the Prophet or against other
Christians.

Next year followed the Hatt-i-Humayun of 1856. ItTHE GREEKS	323

reaffirmed in a stronger form the principal provisions of
Giilhane; it abolished tax-farming and bribery; it again
proclaimed perfect toleration and the absolute equality
of all religions; and enumerated a whole catalogue of
reforms, administrative, financial, ecclesiastical, and judi-
cial. Many of these, however, came into collision with
Greek interests, notably the provisions which assigned fixed
stipends to the clergy instead of allowing them to take
what dues they could from their flocks. It is said that
when the Archbishop of Ismidt, after hearing the imperial
rescript read, saw it replaced in its silken envelope, he
ejaculated, " Pray God that it may stay there/' No super-
natural intervention was necessary to produce that result.
The Hatt-i-Humayun was communicated to the Powers,
who solemnly stated, in the Treaty of Paris, that they
recognised " the high value of this communication," but
no one else paid any attention to most of its provisions.
In one point, however, it did not prove a dead letter, but
led to further changes. The Porte, observing perhaps that
there existed in the different religious communities a
certain antagonism between the lay and ecclesiastical
elements—to which latter, Turkish regulations gave such
an exaggerated prominence—proceeded to reorganise them
in a manner which strengthened lay influence. In 1862,
the Greek Millet, which still included the Slavs, was given
a constitution, consisting of a Synod of twelve bishops,
a National Council of twelve laymen, and a General
Assembly. This arrangement led subsequently to con-
siderable friction between the conservative and liberal
elements. At present the reduced Greek Millet is ad-
ministered by a Synod and a mixed National Council of
twelve members, eight of whom are laymen.

As pointed out above, a race in Turkey depends chiefly
on community of language and religion. I have spoken
elsewhere at length of the Orthodox Church, and it remains324	TURKEY IN EUROPE

that I should say something of the Greek language.
Of the great tongues of the world it is perhaps the most
remarkable. It is widely spoken, for it is the chief
medium of commercial communication all over the Levant,
including the Black Sea and the Eastern shores of the
Adriatic, and it is even more widely studied. Young English-
men still devote many years to an attempt to master its
complexities, and the votaries of science, who scoff at a
classical education, enshrine their thoughts in a remark-
able dialect which seems to presuppose an acquaintance
with the vocabulary (though not always with the structure)
of Greek. The position held by Greek in European litera-
ture and education is unique. It cannot be compared to
that of Latin, for the diffusion of Latin is due, not to Cicero
or Yirgil, but to the fact that it was the language of the
Church and the bar. But the admiration and study of
Greek in the West seem to be due almost entirely to the
brilliancy or importance of a small portion of its literature,
which has affected the culture of all Europe and also had
a remarkable effect on the modern developments of the
language.

It is often said that ancient and modern Greek are
practically the same, and that, allowing for the difference of
the subjects treated of, there is little difference between the
language of Plutarch or St. Paul and the language of a
modern newspaper. As a bare statement of facts this is
no doubt true, but it is apt to mislead unless we realise
how artificial the language of the newspaper is. Finlay
observes that Arabic and Greek seem to be less changeable
than other languages, and the observation is very just with
the same limitation as to the character of this immutability.
If Arabic were written in an alphabet which represented the
popular pronunciation, and in a style which represented the
popular grammar and vocabulary, it would be seen that the
languages spoken in Morocco, Egypt, Syria, and ZanzibarTHE GREEKS

325

are as different as any four Romance languages from one
another. But the Arabic alphabet obliterates differences of
pronunciation. Colloquial words and forms are excluded by-
preconceived literary ideas, and the less cultivated a dialect
is the more classical does written composition affect to be.
Spoken Moorish is hardly intelligible to an Eastern Arab,
but written Moorish is almost Koranic in its purity.

The fact is that language is at the mercy of literature
all the world over. Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and perhaps
even Norwegian, are considered as separate languages be-
cause they have each of them a fairly old literature which
has cherished and developed their peculiarities. Little
Russian is hardly recognised as a language at all, because it
has not much literature, and every effort is made to tone
down its peculiarities and merge it in ordinary Russian.
Similarly, the real spoken modern Greek is as different from
the Greek of Plutarch as the Arabic of Tangier from the
Arabic of Mohammed, or as Italian from Latin, but it has never
had a votes sacer, or received the approval of literature. It
is said that Dante debated whether he should write his
great poem in Italian or Latin, and that by choosing the
former alternative he conferred on the spoken language a
dignity and authority which it did not before possess. If
this change had never been made, if people used Italian for
conversation or popular songs, but thought it too homely
for serious subjects, and took to mediaeval Latin whenever
they had occasion to write a leading article or a tragedy, the
Italians of the present day would be like the Greeks.

This condition of the Greek language is no doubt also
largely due to the fact that since Byzantine times it has been
subject to Oriental influences. Classical Greek took, or rather
inaugurated, the modern view of literature, namely, that it
should use the grammar and more or less the vocabulary of
ordinary life. Plato and Aristophanes write the same
language, just as modern French comedians and philoso-326

TURKEY IN EUROPE

phers write the same language. But this view, though it
seems to us obvious, is really rare out of Europe. The
Oriental regards literature as something sacred or official;
he does not read novels, comedies, satires, or any works
which are obliged to have recourse to ordinary language ;
he listens to popular stories and popular songs, but does not
write them down ; he expects a written chronicle or poem
to be full of hard words and decorously obscure. The
Byzantine Greeks had something of this habit of mind;
their literature was not popular and contemporary in the
same sense as the plays of Aristophanes or the speeches of
Demosthenes. It was ecclesiastical and learned, and though
they might treat of the present they had their eye on the
past. The Byzantine Churchmen wrote like the Fathers (on
the same principle that the Mollah writes like the Followers
of the Prophet), and the Byzantine historians wrote like
Plutarch. Such an artificial language seemed less unnatural,
because, even in ancient Greece, particular dialects had
been appropriated to particular styles of composition. In
Turkish times this tendency towards archaism became even
more accentuated. Phanariot literature reflecting the in-
fluence of the Greek Church and the Ottoman Court could
hardly be original or free from pedantry. The country
population, and especially the Klephts, were far from
pedantic; they had vigorous, emotional, eventful lives, but
they were not literary. Printing books was out of the
question, if any one had been disposed to write them, and it
is only from popular songs that we know that artistic feeling
and style were not entirely dead. Hence there were, at the
beginning of this century, two languages—one simple and
natural, following a development which was healthy and
normal, even if it showed traces of wounds and scars; the
other artificial, archaic, and retrograde.

It is to be observed that the difference between these
two languages is not merely one of style like that existingTHE GREEKS

327

between spoken and written Turkish. The most elaborate
Stambouli jargon, however overloaded it may be with Persian
and Arabic words, employs the grammatical forms of common
speech. But written and spoken Greek—which may for
convenience be distinguished as Hellenic and Romaic—differ
in their grammar, in the articles, pronouns, and inflections,
and any description of Romaic as " corrupt" and Hellenic
as " correct" overlooks the fact that the former is the result
of natural processes similar to those which have developed
the Romance languages. Thus, the use of 9 to form the
nominative plural is extended (copa, plural copai9 or copes) ; a
form resembling the stem takes the place of the classical
nominative (*7 ywaiica for rj yvvtj—cf. fiore, in Italian, for flos);
the dative vanishes; the personal pronouns have new and
mostly shorter forms, €/jle!$, fxa?, <rei$, era?, &c.; who is 1rofo'9,
which 7rov, that (conj.) 7rm, The verb has lost the infinitive
and uncompounded future, and exhibits a number of new
forms, such as e/caxjsa (= e/caucra), Xeh or Xe? (= \eyeig),
(pavracrTfiKa ( = icpaprda-Orjv), 1re? ( = eiVe). Most common
objects are known by unclassical names. Just as French
employs maison, cheval, and feu, and not derivatives from
domus, equus, and ignis, so Romaic employs <777777, a\oyo,
and (pcoria; water is vepo, bread \Jswfu', and wine Kpacri

This Romaic language does not commend itself to the
educated modern Greek ; and it is only with great diffidence
that a foreigner can express a contrary judgment, for native
opinion as to what sounds well or ill, what is possible or im-
possible in a language, is necessarily final. But why do the
modern Greeks so despise Romaic, and apply to their
Hellenic resuscitations words implying some moral super-
iority ? Hellenic vocables and constructions are constantly
recommended to a foreigner on the ground that they are
" higher " or " better." Why is it lower or worse to write
^09 tov to than donne-le-lui ? Was the brigand, who said of
the sixty Agas e/ca\fsa ra x^P1® T0V9 (Fauriel i., No. vii.),328	TURKEY IN EUROPE

grammatically inferior to his French translator, who says,
" J'ai bruU leurs villages ? " Illorum, villages would not be
an improvement. But modern Greek writers (at least in
Constantinople) are of a different opinion. They revel in
the dative case, and forms like vju.as, v/ulcop, vjuliv; and for
" I can stay at home," they write Suva/mai m jmelvoo /car
olkov, whereas no one would ever say anything but V to
<TiriTi. A foreigner can hardly criticise, but one cannot help
feeling that this is much as if an Italian thought he could
add dignity to his language by the use of words like nobis-
cum, or by saying he would remain ad domum. Nor is it
plain why the vocabulary of Romaic should be thought
vulgar. It is not, as often said, a jumble of Greek, Italian,
Turkish, and Slavonic. Considering the close relations
which have existed between the Greeks and Slavs, the
Slavonic words are surprisingly few, and the Turkish and
Italian elements, if we deduct words referring to Turkish
customs and nautical terms, are probably not so considerable
as the French element in German. There is no harm in
borrowed words unless their proportion to the native voca-
bulary is excessive. Why then does the modern Greek try
to persuade the inquiring foreigner that he calls an umbrella
aXe^jifipoypv, when he really calls it 'O/nrpeXa ? The
English are not ashamed of " umbrella," though it is not of
British origin. It is, indeed, a very beautiful word; and had
fate ordained (as might well have been the case) that it
should mean " a little shady bower " it would have been con-
sidered a remarkable instance of a poetical idea finding ex-
pression in harmonious sound. I cannot even see that
there is any objection to calling a gun rovcpeia. The Klephts
called it so, and they shot much better than the modern
purists. To insist in using no words but those of Greek
origin is surely as unreasonable as it would be for English-
men to refuse to talk of " lieutenants" or " khaki," and
invent Anglo-Saxon equivalents.THE GREEKS	329

The Romaic language is certainly somewhat chaotic;
it offers many alternative forms, and no one has ever
decided which shall be adopted. But if it has to be
rejected in toto, if the Greek people, instead of systema-
tising and developing their living language, feel that they
can make nothing of it, and must have recourse to a
lifeless language, it is a very remarkable phenomenon.
One is tempted to think it can only mean that growth,
vigour,, and creative power have come to an end, and that
the modern Greeks' only claim to attention is that they are
supposed to be the descendants of the ancient Hellenes.
I should feel some delicacy in putting forward this dis-
tressing idea if I thought it true, but I do not. The
people who fought in the War of Independence did not
live in the past, and their language was not pedantic.

*A.7T ra KOKKaXa /SyaXjULevt]

Twv 'EAA^woy ra tepa
Kai <rav irpooT avSpeioojUievfj
Xaip' <3 Xa^P 9 'EXeuOejoia

is not precisely classical Greek, but it is good enough for
poetry and politics. One thing is certain, namely, that
none of these artificial literary languages, whether Turkish,
Arabic, or Greek, produce anything of literary value.

It must be confessed that, though at the beginning
of this century the Greeks showed more energy than any
other Christian race, those who now remain in Turkey
(except the islanders) are not remarkable for physical
vigour or military capacity. This is, no doubt, partly due
to the fact that the people who revolted against Mahmud
were largely Hellenised Ylachs and Albanians, who, under
the modern system, would not be regarded as Greeks.
Now-a-days the robust agricultural population is rarely
Hellenic in its sympathies, for, as already mentioned, there
are comparatively few parts where it is really Greek. In33°	TURKEY IN EUROPE

the south, below the Slavonic region, the Greek element
is strong; but in Thessaly, as well as on the Turkish side,
much mixed with Albanians, Ylachs, and Turks. The
middle and north of Macedonia is mainly Slav, except
in the Albanian districts, and the only considerable masses
of Greek population are in the parts known to the Ancients
as Chalcidice and Thrace. There are few Greek country
gentlemen, but there are Greeks in every seaport as surely
as there are fish in the sea; and in the most remote and
un-Hellenic towns there are pretty sure to be Greek bankers
or traders. The Greek peasantry, though not particularly
good agriculturists, are infinitely more intelligent and enter-
prising than any other in Turkey. They are not adscripti
glebce like the Slavs, who, if left alone, die where they were
born, nor are they occupied in tribal quarrels like the
Albanians. Every Greek is endowed with a surprising
energy and versatility, and a readiness to adopt any career
which fate may open to him. The son of a farmer aspires,
not to succeed his father, but to go to Smyrna, Salonica,
and Constantinople, and make his way in the world. Three
professions are specially congenial to them—the law, medi-
cine, and banking. The Sultan employs a Greek as his
chief physician, and even in Asia Minor the provincial
lawyers are mostly Greeks.

Thus the Greeks represent to a large extent the intelli-
gence of Turkey. They are no longer recognised as the
upper layer of the Christian population, nor are they largely
employed by the Porte. A contemporary list of nearly six
hundred Ottoman officials contains only about thirty Greek
names, and the bearers mostly fill subordinate positions.
The Greeks are inclined to politics, public speaking, and
the press, all of which are hateful to the Ottoman Govern-
ment, and they, therefore, are not regarded with favour; but
in all the learned professions their intelligence and ambition
secure them pre-eminence, and in the most trying circum-THE GREEKS

33i

stances they manage to lead a busy life. In a convenient
corner at Therapia, there sat for many years (and perhaps
sits still) the head and body of what would have been a
very proper man, but for the accident that he had been
born without any legs. He did not whine or mumble as
many beggars do, but saluted the passers-by with a grace-
ful bow, and received with the dignity of a courteous tax-
collector the alms which his persuasive tongue never failed
to elicit. In this way he was said to have become exceed-
ingly rich, and to support eleven blind sisters who lived in
Mitylene. Every evening an attendant removed him to his
home, and when, on the approach of winter, the Ambassadors
left Therapia, he left too, took a first-class ticket to Mitylene,
and spent the cold season in the bosom of his family.

The term Levantine is for most purposes synonymous
with urban Greek. It is true that many Levantines are
Catholics and Franks, but clearly the characteristics which
mark the Christian communities of such towns in the Levant
as Constantinople, Smyrna, and Salonica are derived from
the Greek element. Levantine life generally strikes a
stranger as a curious mixture of Paris and the East. The
better families copy European fashions and speak French
extensively; but one feels that, according to Oriental custom,
their existence is really divided into the departments of
Selamlik and Harem, which means the difference, not only
between the men's and the women's part of the house, but
between formal and domestic life. A European when re-
ceived by a well-to-do Greek family notices few signs of
Oriental manners. Perhaps jam and water may be handed
him on a tray, and cause him some perplexity as to how
to dispose of them; perhaps the host may be fingering a
rosary, not to count his prayers, but as a mere pastime to
occupy his fingers. But the frock-coats of the men and
dresses of the ladies are probably of the most correct style,
and Eastern influence is not more marked than it would be332	TURKEY IN EUROPE

in an English house at Pera. One is, however, obscurely
conscious that the whole business is a ceremony and a show ;
and the impression is confirmed by those rare peeps into
domestic mysteries which fall to a foreigner's lot—passing
visions of inner rooms where there are more divans than
chairs, men in slippers and dressing-gowns, and numerous
elderly, black-robed female relatives who attend to the
household duties, and do not appear in society. In Smyrna
these family scenes sometimes present a very singular aspect
in consequence of the employment of the tandour, a kind of
stove under a quilt. The ladies of the family sit round the
stove and draw the quilt up to their chins, which makes
them look as if they were all in bed together.

One ancient art the modern Greek has certainly lost,
namely, architecture. This is largely due to Turkish influ-
ence. The Turks, retaining many of the migratory habits
of nomads, did not encourage the building of large or sub-
stantial houses, and prudence restrained the Greeks' natural
love for artistic display externally. With the exception of
some quite modern residences, Greek houses are generally
crooked, rickety tenements, mostly of wood, with steep, shaky
staircases and many windows. It requires the summer sun
and air to make them even picturesque; for a brief period
the bright-coloured walls and irregular outlines, overgrown
with vines or other leafy creepers, have a romantic charm;
but in winter the mud in the streets, and the cold and damp
within, combated but not conquered by a pan of burning
ashes called mangal, form a sad picture of inartistic dis-
comfort. Of all methods of warming the mangal is the
least satisfactory. You cannot add fuel and make it burn
up; it is simply a pile of hot ashes, which is bound to grow
colder and colder as you try to warm yourself.

Like most of the intelligent and money-making races of
the world, the Greeks are very conspicuous. Russian towns
where there are Jews seem to be inhabited exclusively byTHE GREEKS

333

Jews; and the same may be said of Turkish towns where
there are Greeks. Turks and Russians sit at home when
nothing calls them out; Jews and Greeks stand about in
the streets watching to see what will turn up. The Greek
women spend most of their time in sitting at the window,
and a house is valued in proportion to the facilities which it
offers for this amusement. On feast days, however, they
issue forth in their best clothes, and solemnly promenade
up and down some street which fashion has set apart for
this purpose. In each town the Greek community is kept
together by various scholastic and charitable institutions,
and often possesses a syllogos, or literary and philosophical
society, where the more educated members meet together.
The various districts usually have for centre a parish church,
to which are attached, besides the necessary priests, lay
officials, generally three in number, called ephors (e<popoi),
who are a sort of churchwardens, but more important, inas-
much as they are concerned with the proper registration of
the parish and the payment of taxes. The belief in the
power of ceremonies is great, and the threat of excommuni-
cation much feared. It is a common practice, when anything
is missed in a house, to take all the servants before a priest,
and make them swear to their innocence, and it is said that
the guilty will sometimes confess sooner than swear falsely.
The ceremonies of the Orthodox Church in Turkey are less
splendid and striking than in Russia, doubtless in order not
to excite Moslim fanaticism. The midnight mass on Easter
Eve iscomparatively rarely performed; and instead of the
gilt crowns which form such a picturesque feature in a
Russian marriage, garlands of flowers are placed on the heads
of the bride and bridegroom. Funerals are celebrated with
great pomp, and the top of the coffin is open, displaying the
face of the corpse. It is often said that this custom origi-
nated in the fact that the Turks once discovered that a
quantity of arms had been smuggled in closed coffins, and334

TURKEY IN EUROPE

ordered that coffins should be open for the future; but I doubt
if this explanation is true, for in Russia it is the custom in
country districts to carry the corpse to burial with the face
exposed, though, for sanitary reasons, it is forbidden in towns.
It is a strange and ghastly custom of the Greeks to exhume
the dead after three years, and if decomposition is complete,
to place the bones in a mortuary chapel. If the body is not
entirely decomposed, it is thought a very evil omen for the
fortunes of the soul in the next world, and the words," May
the earth not eat you," are considered a horrible curse.

It would be unfair to regard the Greeks as mere Levan-
tines, for there are other and more poetical aspects of the
race. The coasts and islands of the Archipelago have a
poetry and beauty of their own, which is certainly not
Turkish. We associate the Turk with the rich shady gar-
dens round Broussa, with its many-coloured minarets, its
mosques with unnumbered lamps and plashing fountains.
We associate the Armenian with the bare plateaux of Asia,
the castellated rocks, the half-burnt church, and the dark
underground houses, partly human dwellings and partly
stables. But when we think of the strangely exhilarating
and clear atmosphere which bathes the coasts and islands
of the iEgean; of the rocky promontories which take such
startling tints from the setting sun, or shine in the moon-
light with a distinctness unknown in other lands; of the oak
groves of Olympus, untrodden by Turkish foot; of the Vale
of Tempe, where the Peneus rushes under overhanging poplars
and vine-clad rocks—we feel that these landscapes have a
common charm, and that the charm is Hellenic. Perhaps
the most characteristic and attractive of Greek lands are the
districts on the south-eastern frontier, which runs so as to
leave Tempe to the kingdom of Greece and Olympus to
Turkey. On the southern bank of the Peneus, about 800 feet
above the river, is the large village of Ambelakia, surrounded
by the vineyards which give it its name, and commandingTHE GREEKS

335

a magnificent prospect of Mount Olympus, or Elymbos, as it
is now called. In the village are many large houses with
lower storeys of stone and superstructures of wood. They
date from the end of the last century, when Ambelakia was
a considerable commercial centre, and had direct mercantile
relations with Europe, in consequence of a special kind of
dyed thread manufactured by the inhabitants. Some curious
traces of this connection with the West still remain, among
others the existence in most of the older houses of libraries of
eighteenth-century French literature. The wooden walls of
the upper storeys are ornamented with pictures of Stamboul,
and still more imaginative representations of Paris. In so
large and wealthy a village, it is inevitable that some of the
unpoetical modernisms introduced by progress and prosperity
should be visible, but the elevation and inaccessibility of the
place (it can only be approached by a bridle-path) have pre-
served many old features. At the foot of the mountain,
before commencing the winding ascent, I was entertained
with a lunch of lamb cooked in the Klepht style—that is,
roasted whole in a trench dug in the earth for the purpose;
and on feast days national costumes and national dances may
still be witnessed.

One of the most interesting of Greek lands, which de-
serves some mention here, both on account of its intrinsic
importance and of its close connection with the politics of
South-Eastern Europe, is Crete. The history of this island
differs from that of most of the Levant, in that it was held
by the Saracens from 823 to 961, and subsequently, for more
than four and a half centuries (from the fourth Crusade to
1669), remained under Venetian rule. It was hence sub-
jected to a stronger and more continuous Frankish influence
than any other part of the Ottoman Empire. The popula-
tion has naturally a considerable admixture of Italian and
probably of Arab blood, but is not blended with Slavs,
Albanians, or Turks; for though the Turks have sent many336	TURKEY IN EUROPE

officials and troops to Crete, they have never attempted to
colonise the country. The Cretan Moslims are merely con-
verts to Islam, of the same race and language as the Chris-
tian population. It seems as if fate had ordained that
dissension and disunion should reign in every part of the
Ottoman Empire. On the continent of Europe the Chris-
tians quarrel with one another because they are of different
races; in Crete a homogeneous race plunges about once in
every ten years into internecine war because its members
are divided between two religions. It is a land of insurrec-
tions. Both in 1770 and 1821 the Cretans rose in sym-
pathy with the Greek cause; and on the latter occasion the
trouble which they occasioned to the Porte was so serious
that Mahmud ordered his Viceroy, Mehemet Ali of Egypt,
to occupy the island. This Egyptian occupation lasted from
1824 to 1841, when the Porte resumed direct administra-
tion. The failure of the Ottoman Government to practically
enforce in Crete the provisions of the Hatt-i-Humayun of
1856 led to a rising in 1857-1858. This movement was
followed by others in 1866-1868, 1877, 1889, and 1896.
The history of them all is the same. Each terminated in
some kind of firman or ordinance issued by the Sultan
under the pressure of the Powers, and assuring to the island
some form of constitutional government, and some financial
or other privileges. In each case the firman was never
really executed, and as each successive Constitution proved
illusory, the discontent broke out again. The most cele-
brated of these Constitutions was that known as the Halepa
Part of 1878, which established a sort of Parliamentary
government and a General Assembly. But the struggles
between the political parties thus created, the tendency of
the Turks to foment such dissensions, and the sympathetic
attitude of the kingdom of Greece, brought about another
outbreak in 1889, after which the numbers and powers of
the Assembly were somewhat curtailed.THE GREEKS

337

I visited Crete in the spring of 1895, when the last
insurrection had not yet broken out, and the maintenance
of peace and order seemed possible and even easy. The
ports of the island recall the coast of the Adriatic rather
than of the iEgean, and the lion of St. Mark may be seen
carved on old buildings. The population are bold and
stalwart, and one feels at once that the literary and
financial atmosphere which surrounds the continental
Greeks has no place here. Popular opinion, however,
agrees with St. Paul in considering that Epimenides un-
flattering criticism of his countrymen is true; and the
Cretans are not in the least ashamed of it, holding, like
many old families, that antiquity imparts dignity to any
peculiarity. The interior of Crete possessed in 1895 no
carriage roads at all, the only communication being narrow
bridle-paths kept in not over good repair. A wider, road
was considered dangerous, because the Turks might have
been able to drag cannon over it. Every village seemed a
collection of forts. The houses are built of solid, almost
cyclopean, masonry, and their massive walls often show
signs of having withstood fire and bullets. As there are
no hotels, the traveller has generally to depend on the
hospitality of monasteries, which is always freely given.
The Cretan monk has little in common with the gentle,
contemplative, but incurably lazy denizens of Mount Athos.
Once when riding up to the monastery of Arcadi by a road
overhung with cherry-trees in full blossom, I met a com-
pany of unusually fine-looking labourers dressed in high
boots and leather aprons, who, bill-hook in hand, were
occupied in hedging and ditching. Their chief advanced,
handling his bill-hook in a somewhat martial manner, and
having made sure that I was not a Turk, invited me to the
monastery. He proved to be an Archimandrite, but even
in their robes neither he nor his subordinates entirely lost

their air of yeomen. This monastery is celebrated for the

y338	TURKEY IN EUROPE

siege which it underwent in 1867 at the hands of the
Turks, who managed to drag cannon up to the surrounding
hills. According to the tradition, the Hegumen Gabriel
rather than yield blew up the powder magazine of the
convent, killing all the Christians who had taken refuge in
it as well as two hundred Turks.

The population of Crete is said to be two-thirds Chris-
tian and one-third Moslim, but the general character of the
island is certainly non-Mohammedan. According to statis-
tics there are 150 mosques against 3000 Greek churches
and 50 large monasteries, and, as in Bosnia and other
countries where the Moslims are of European race, the
precepts of the Prophet meet with scant observance. Wine
is freely drunk by the adherents of both religions, the
bottle in common use being a double-magnum. The per-
petual quarrel between Christians and Mohammedans, which
forms the chief feature of Cretan politics, is not due to
fanaticism, but is really a sort of vendetta, somewhat simi-
lar to the Albanian blood-feuds, and is accepted by all
Christians as part of the natural order of things when it
does not assume too serious proportions. In ordinary
peaceful times perhaps half-a-dozen were killed on either
side every year; but clearly a strong hand and an adequate
police force were required to prevent this national habit
from developing into civil war. Had such simple requi-
sites for the maintenance of order been forthcoming, Crete
would probably have been happy under any government,
Turkish, Greek, or other. But they have never been forth-
coming. The Porte have always persisted in regarding
every little disorder as a rising of Christians, and in em-
ploying troops to crush it. The result has always been
doubly unfortunate. The troops irritated the population,
and created that disaffection which they were intended to
suppress; and the civil authorities were weakened, because
the administration of the island was periodically taken outTHE GREEKS

339

of their hands, and entrusted to a military governor. Also
the finances were in confusion; there was no money to pay
the very inefficient police force which existed, and all the
evils which arise from this peculiarly Turkish habit of
employing unpaid soldiers and gendarmerie became ram-
pant.

At the end of 1895, the Mussulmans in Crete, as in
other parts of the Ottoman Empire, became somewhat
excited, and on the Christian side there was formed the
body called Epitropi.1 This band could have been easily
suppressed at first, and was of no importance; but gradually
it became more definitely political, and the Christians,
seeing that all the moderate proposals made by the Assem-
bly for a better gendarmerie and financial reform received
no attention, became more and more disaffected. Serious
disorders in the summer of 1896 brought about the inter-
vention of Europe, and on 27 th August of that year an
international arrangement made at Constantinople, which
was satisfactory to the Christians of Crete, received the sanc-
tion of the Sultan. It had exactly the same fate as the five
or six similar schemes of reform which had preceded it. It
was never put into execution, and the massacre of Armenians
at Constantinople distracted the attention of the Powers.
As has often happened, the Porte baffled the attempts of
those who wished to interfere in its affairs by the multitude
of the problems it offered them. Crete was neglected, and
went on from bad to worse, until serious fighting and
slaughter occurred in January 1897. The sympathy of
Greece became uncontrollable, and in the middle of Febru-
ary Colonel Vassos landed Greek troops in Crete. The
Powers interfered, and the island was occupied by inter-
national forces, which could, however, do nothing except in
the coast towns. The excitement of the Greeks became
more and more intense. In defiance of all reason and the

1 '^EtTTLTpOITTJ.34°	TURKEY IN EUROPE

advice of Europe, they insisted on provoking Turkey to
war, and whatever little prudence the Government wished
to exercise was neutralised by the bands of the patriotic
society called Ethnike Hetaireia. As a result of the disas-
trous war which ensued, Greece agreed to evacuate Crete
and place her interests in the hands of the Powers, who
proceeded to negotiate the terms of peace on her
behalf with Turkey. Their labours terminated in a
Treaty (November 1897) which included a strategical
rectification of the northern frontier of Thessaly to the
advantage of Turkey, and the payment of an indemnity
by Greece.

Meanwhile Crete, the cause of all the trouble, had been
somewhat forgotten. It was nominally governed by the
admirals of the Powers, representing the " Concert of
Europe." The results of this famous Concert were some-
what negative, and afforded abundant material to scoffers
and caricaturists, who were a little apt to forget that any
machinery, however clumsy, which restrains the great
nations of Europe from going to war on issues which are
not vital must be of immense value to humanity. Early
in 1898 Ge/many and Austria withdrew from the Concert
as far as Crete was concerned, but the other four Powers
continued their joint action. In September a bloody out-
break at Candia hastened the solution of the question.
By the middle of November the Turkish troops were forced
to evacuate the island, and though the suzerainty of the
Sultan was expressly recognised, a National Government was
installed, and Prince George of Greece named as High
Commissioner on behalf of the Powers, though a few
months before the Porte had scouted the idea of entrust-
ing the administration of the island to him.

Nothing throws a more illustrative light on the modern
Ottoman Empire than these events in Crete, and the Turco-
Greek war. Firstly, all the trouble in Crete was unnecessaryTHE GREEKS

34i

and might have been easily avoided. Under any ordinary
administration the island would have given Europe no more
trouble than Corsica. It was not needful to make a new
Constitution or introduce elaborate reforms, but merely to
put into practice any one of the numerous statutes, instru-
ments, and firmans defining the government of the island—
merely, in fact, to have a proper police force and regular
finances. One would have imagined that, when all Asiatic
Turkey was convulsed with the quarrel between Moslims
and Armenians, the Porte would have thought it peculiarly
desirable to keep the rest of the Empire quiet. There was
no possible advantage in allowing disorders to occur in
Crete, and there was imminent danger of losing the island
or seeing it become practically autonomous like Samos. Yet
the Ottoman Government acted against all their own inte-
rests, and not once only, but at every stage of the question
stubbornly refused to take any of the simple steps required
to ensure peace and contentment. Haunted by the idea of
a Christian rising, they alarmed the Cretan Mussulmans, and
their whole policy tended, not to unite and pacify the popu-
lation, but to divide it into two hostile camps. In Crete
the maxim, divide et impera, has not proved successful.
Secondly, the attitude of the Greeks, both in the kingdom
of Greece and on Ottoman soil, was very remarkable. The
former could not expect to fight the Ottoman Empire with
any prospect of success; in such a conflict they could only
be saved from annihilation by the interference of Europe;
and all experience taught them the same lesson—not to
put their trust in such interference. Nevertheless,
they flew at the Turks, as if the bird of Athene should
fly at an eagle. A nation which can be carried away by
an idea and is at the mercy of its imagination, is not to
be despised. Of such stuff are heroic peoples made.
But when the Turkish legions inundated Thessaly, the
Greeks appeared to be inspired, not by the spirit of342	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Leonidas or Tyrtseus, but by that of the prudent poet who
sang that—

" He who fights and runs away,

Will live to fight another day."

They have been severely criticised; but the judgment of
events, from which there is no appeal, declares that their
calculations were not entirely wrong. The kingdom of
Greece has not been annihilated, and Crete is practically
detached from the Ottoman Empire under the rule of a
Greek prince.

If, as we have so often heard from so many different
sources, all Macedonia groans under the Turkish yoke, it is
strange that the Christian inhabitants of that province did
not rise to assist the Greeks. Had Hellenes and Slavs
combined against the Turks, the latter would have been in
a very difficult position. But no such combination took
place. The animosity of the Christian populations against
one another proved, as it always has proved, stronger than
their common animosity against the Turks. After the war
the Christian Vlachs of Thessaly petitioned the Powers that
their district might be made a Turkish province. Even the
Greek communities of the Ottoman Empire made no sign of
sympathy. The enormous Greek populations of Salonica
and Constantinople remained perfectly quiet; and when
Hellenic troops landed on the coast of Macedonia, north of
Salonica, in order to cut the railway communication with
Constantinople, the peasants bade them retire. "We will
welcome you when you come as conquerors/' they said, " but
we do not wish to pay after you have been defeated for the
damage you have done."

The attitude of the Powers is also remarkable, and shows
the highest development of the principle that the affairs of
the Ottoman Empire are of international concern. They
behaved like the managers of a prize-fight. They held theTHE GREEKS

343

stakes—Crete—en dfydt, and laid down rules for the game—
for instance, tliat the aggressor would not be allowed to
obtain any advantage from the conflict, whatever the result
might be. The Turks entered the ring somewhat with the
air of a champion whose conduct in the past is not above
criticism, and who is anxious to wipe out any ugly stories
by ostentatious fair-play and scrupulous obedience to the
ruling of the umpires. The Turkish soldiers were ordered
not to. molest or pillage the Greek villages in Thessaly, and
wherever the inhabitants remained this order was executed
to the letter. But the places abandoned by the Greeks were
burned and pillaged.CHAPTER VIII

the bulgarians and serbs

Nowadays most people would admit that, excluding the
Albanians, the population of Eastern Europe south of the
Danube and Drave and north of the latitude of Salonica is
mainly Slavonic. I include in this name the Bulgarians,
for though not originally Slavs they have been completely
Slavised, and all the ties arising from language, religion,
and politics connect them with the Slavs and not with
Turkey or even Hungary. Such a general description of
the inhabitants of an extensive area is, of course, subject to
many qualifications. Not only is there a large Greek popu-
lation in such districts as Seres and Drama, north of Salonica,
asnd in the country between Adrianople and Constantinople,
but there are considerable Greek enclaves among the Bul-
garian population, e.g. at Dimotiko on the Maritsa and near
Philippopoli, as well as many scattered settlements of Vlachs
and Turks. Every ethnographic map of the Balkan Penin-
sula gives a different view of the arrangement of the popula-
tions, varying according to the date, and often according to
the political opinions of the author, and a traveller may
often find that the statements of the latest authorities have
ceased to be correct. I myself imagined there could be no
doubt that the northern littoral of the iEgean is Greek, but
a few years ago the Greek Archbishop of Giimiirjina com-
plained to me that his flock were all turning Bulgarian and
speaking that language.

The history of the last fifty years in South-Eastern
Europe is to a great extent the history of the disentangle-

344THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 345

ment of the Slavonic races from Turks and Greeks, and
to this is now succeeding the disentanglement of the
Slavonic races from one another. In the early part
of this century all Christians in Ottoman Europe were
called Greeks, as we have seen in the last chapter, and
as late as 1878 the accurate and talented authoress of
" The People of Turkey,"1 no doubt faithfully reflecting
local opinion, considers that the inhabitants of Veria,
Doiran, Vodena, and Strumnitsa are Greek rather than
Slavonic. Ten years later, the progress made by Bulgarian
schools and the Bulgarian Church persuaded most people
who were interested in the question without being preju-
diced that the whole of the Ottoman part of the Balkan
Peninsula west of Prishtina, and of Ochrida, was for prac-
tical purposes Bulgarian. This view had hardly time to
become a commonplace before politicians put forward
another idea, not without the support of scientific men,
namely, that the districts in question are indeed Slav, but
Servian and not Bulgarian. Those who knew Macedonia
were astonished to hear that Servian Consuls were appointed
at Vodena and Seres to protect the interests of the Servian
communities in those parts. Associations in Sofia and
Belgrade did all that arguments and subscription lists could
do to prove that the whole of Macedonia belonged to the
nation which they represented; and the result of the
Turco-Greek war of 1897 discredited still further the
already weak Hellenic cause, and disposed those Slavs, who
were officially called Greeks, because they belonged to the
Patriarchal Church of Constantinople, to call themselves
Servians.

In a previous chapter I have traced the history of
the Slav settlements and kingdoms south of the Danube.
We saw there how these regions were invaded from the
north-west by Slavonic tribes, apparently closely akin to

1 By a Consul's daughter and wife.346	TURKEY IN EUROPE

those who occupied the centre of Europe, and from the
north-east by the Bulgarians, a race probably allied to the
Finns, but who soon lost their original language and customs,
and became completely Slavised. They were more ener-
getic in temper, and less fragmentary in their political
ideas than the pure Slavs, and twice became the dominant
power in the Balkan Peninsula: firstly, during the Empire
of Simeon in the tenth century; and secondly, during the
Vlacho-Bulgarian or Asenid Empire, which was contempo-
rary with the Latin domination in Constantinople, and
which was broken up by the increasing strength of Servia.
The Servian people had been from their first appearance
split up into independent tribes, and experienced much
difficulty in attaining any political union; but in the
middle of the fourteenth century, under Stephen Dushan,
they burst forth in a brief blaze of glory, and conquered
nearly all South-Eastern Europe, except Constantinople
itself. But all these States, whether Bulgarian or Servian,
were, though considerable, ephemeral, and both Bulgaria
and Servia succumbed to the Turks, more on account of
their own inherent weakness and disintegration, than on
account of the energy of the Ottoman armies. It is re-
markable how long the earlier Sultans temporised with
them, how often they recognised their provisional inde-
pendence, and contracted marriages with Slavonic princesses.
One is tempted to compare the conduct of the Turks to
a cat playing with a mouse, but a juster simile would
probably be a near-sighted man stumbling along in an
unknown country and suspecting obstacles where there is
really a level road. They feared, not unnaturally, that
Christendom would unite against them, in which case
their position would have been perilous; but that union
never took place, and as far as we can tell they might
safely have advanced with greater boldness than they
displayed.THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 347

Before the conquests of Mohammed II. the Turks had
already established their capital at Adrianople, and hence
the district where their influence was strongest, and where
independence was most completely obliterated, was the
country north-west of Constantinople—that is, Bulgaria.
The disappearance and resurrection of Bulgaria are pro-
bably without parallel in history. For more than three
hundred years the national life was suspended. We know
that education, religion, and culture were in the hands of
Greek ecclesiastics, and that there were bands called Hai-
dud and Momcheta, who corresponded to the Klephts and
Armatoles of Northern Greece. Beyond that there is
hardly anything to record. In 1834 Kinglake proceeded
from Belgrade to Constantinople, and must have passed
straight across Bulgaria. Yet, in the well-known descrip-
tion of his travels, " Eothen," he makes no allusion to that
country or its inhabitants. Even forty years ago the
name Bulgarian was almost unknown, and every educated
person coming from that country called himself a Greek
as a matter of course.

In 1762, Paysi, a monk of Mount Athos, wrote a work
called " The History of Bulgaria," and somewhat later
Yenelin, a Russian who had travelled in the Balkan
Peninsula, published his " Old and New Bulgaria." To
such a pass had Bulgaria come, that we must reckon as
important events in the national history obscure works
which recognised her existence! Venelins book brought
about the foundation in 1835 of a school at Gabrovo,
where a certain Aprilov taught in Bulgarian, and dissemi-
nated the novel idea that education was not necessarily
an exclusively Greek product. This educational move-
ment was the real precursor and cause of the national
awakening; for, though political combinations often ap-
peared likely to enfranchise Bulgaria, they always failed
to do so, doubtless because the country seemed to be348

TURKEY IN EUROPE

an integral part of the Ottoman Empire, and not detach-
able like Greece or the Danubian Principalities. We
hear that at Tilsit Napoleon contemplated a partition of
Turkey by which Bulgaria was assigned to Russia, and
that Russia occupied the country in 1810 and 1827.
But no immediate consequences ensued from these occu-
pations.

The first practical step in the direction of Bulgarian in-
dependence had nothing romantic or heroic about it, being
merely an ecclesiastical quarrel. Revolt from the Phanariot
clergy was a necessary preliminary to revolt from the Turks,
and a long struggle (which I have sketched in Chapter V.)
culminated in the recognition by the Sultan of a Bulgarian
Church, independent of the Phanar. By a Firman, dated
February 28, 1870, the head of this Church, who received
the title of Exarch, was allowed to appoint bishops and sub-
ordinate clergy in any district of the Empire as far south as
Fiorina, in which there might be a majority of Bulgarians,
and those who joined this Church were constituted a Millet,
or community, enjoying the same privileges as the Greeks
and Armenians. That is to say, the Bulgarians were allowed
to manage their own ecclesiastical and educational institu-
tions, and to a certain extent to settle legal disputes among
themselves. This measure was not in any way restricted to
the modern Principality of Bulgaria, which did not then
exist, but embraced all Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire
who might choose to avail themselves of it.

The Sublime Porte had been glad enough to encourage
the Bulgarians in their quarrel with the Greeks, and thus
divide its Christian subjects; but it had no desire to create
a strong organisation of Slavs within its territory, and there-
fore, with characteristic dilatoriness, executed the Firman only
in a partial manner. The Exarch was indeed appointed, but
no bishops were named in Macedonia. Still the Bulgarians
were now clearly distinguished from the Greeks. TheyTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 349

knew themselves, and were known to Europe, as the inhabi-
tants of certain territories with certain national ideals. Such
a condition could not remain stationary. The blood of the
people had been stirred, and wanted something more than
priests and schools. An insurrection, which broke out first
in Herzegovina in 1874, gradually involved all the Slavonic
peoples of Turkey. In 1875 the phrase " Bulgarian atro-
cities " gained a terrible notoriety in Europe. The massacres
so designated were provoked by the plots of a revolutionary
committee somewhat similar to the Greek Hetaireia, the
members of which matured their plans in Odessa, Bucharest,
and other border-lands of Turkey, and occasionally visited
Bulgaria for the purpose of inciting to insurrection. No
doubt the Bulgarians perpetrated many outrages on indivi-
dual Turks, but the wholesale cruelty with which the local
Ottoman authorities suppressed the movement was out of all
proportion to the provocation, and defeated its own object.
According to the story, when the Turkish High Commis-
sioner surveyed the ruins and corpses of Batak, he said to
the officer who was responsible for the destruction, " How
much did the Russians pay you for this piece of work ?"
The Russo-Turkish war did not, however, follow immediately.
A domestic crisis occurred in Constantinople. First Sultan
Abd-ul-Aziz, and then a few months later his successor,
Murad, were deposed. Servia and Montenegro declared
war on the Porte, but, though they were defeated, Europe
interfered, and, recognising that the condition of several
Turkish provinces was a European scandal which called for
reform, summoned a Conference of the Powers at Constanti-
nople. But the Ottoman Government absolutely refused to
execute the recommendations of the Conference, and Russia
declared war. The first outcome of this conflict was the
Treaty of San Stefano, made directly between the Porte and
Russia, which provided for the creation of what may be
conveniently termed Greater Bulgaria, which took in a large35°

TURKEY IN EUROPE

part of Macedonia, and extended to the coast of the JEgean.
But this Treaty was revised in 1878 at the Congress of
Berlin. The Macedonian and JEgean provinces were left
under direct Turkish rule, with a promise of the introduc-
tion of reforms. North of the Balkans was constituted an
autonomous Principality under the suzerainty of the Sultan
called Bulgaria, and south of them a province called Eastern
Rouinelia, which was granted " administrative autonomy,"
but was a direct dependency of the Ottoman Government.
But this complicated arrangement was brought to an end
in 1885, when Prince Alexander cut the Gordian knot and
proclaimed himself "Prince of the Two Bulgarias of the
North and South."

Recent as is their independence, the Bulgarians have
certainly done their best to make up for the mute inglorious
period through which they previously passed. Probably no
country of the same size ever attracted so much attention
and did so many startling things in twenty years. Bulgaria
has usually maintained a position in the first page or even the
first column of telegrams of the Times (a truly British test
of importance), while virtuous States, like Switzerland and
Denmark, have languished in obscure paragraphs. These
twenty years are filled with a long catalogue of stirring events
of a mediaeval flavour, contrasting strangely with the respect-
able nineteenth-century Constitution and liberal institutions
which Europe presented to the young Principality. It would
hardly be convenient to examine in detail this interesting
series of elections, ejections, wars, unions, ruptures, execu-
tions, assassinations, and reconciliations. They are too recent
for impartial judgment, but it is clear that much of the
peculiar character of this period was due to the eminent
statesman Stambulov, who for many years disposed of the
destinies of his country. For all the world the Russian Em-
pire is a phenomenon of importance, but for the little Chris-
tian States of the Balkans the attitude they shall adopt towardsTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 351

it is more than the half of politics. On the one hand that
Empire is the most powerful of protectors; on the other she
has in past history sometimes shown a disposition to incor-
porate rather than protect. Stambulov's policy was shaped
by the fear of some such danger. At all hazards he was
determined that Russia should not exert excessive influence
in his country, and he did not even shrink from bringing
about a suspension of relations with his overwhelmingly
powerful neighbour. For years Russia and Bulgaria did
not know one another, to use the language of social life,
and the Czar, though he did not interfere in the government
of the country, refused to recognise the existence of the
Prince. Perhaps it was essential in the infancy of Bulgaria
to take such strong measures to preserve her independence,
but the time has now come when every impartial person
must admit that the estrangement so created was unnatural
and could not endure. The mass of the Bulgarian people
could never forget what they owed to Russia, and however
much we may deplore Stambulov's tragic end, we must
admit that his policy could not have been continued inde-
finitely, and that the country is more tranquil now that
normal relations are restored.

It must not be supposed from what I have said of the
exuberant political activity of Bulgaria that the country has
not made solid progress in other directions. On the con-
trary, the Bulgarians are the most industrious and laborious
of the populations of South-Eastern Europe. In agriculture,
manufactures, commerce, education, literature,1 and military
matters alike, they have made enormous strides. It is only
necessary to go westward from Turkey and cross the frontier
to see what twenty years of autonomy have done. In that
brief space one seems to advance, not twenty, but two
hundred years. No one who knows Bulgaria would have

1 The novels of Vazov have real literary merit, and are probably superior
to anything published in modern Greek or Servian.352	TURKEY IN EUROPE

any doubts as to her brilliant future did not the political
quarrels of the present ominously resemble those of the
past. One is tempted to believe that wherever there are
three Bulgarians, two will combine against the third, and
the third call in foreign assistance.

But the Principality of Bulgaria is not co-extensive
with the Bulgarian race, and is practically not part
of Turkey, though technically it is under the suzerainty
of the Sultan. It is rather to the other division of the
Bulgarians, those who are still under the immediate
government of the Sublime Ottoman Porte, that I here
invite attention.

The Firman of 1870 and the Treaty of San Stefano had
made the unity of the Bulgarian-speaking race a familiar
idea, but the arrangements sanctioned by the Treaty of
Berlin were not entirely favourable to the inhabitants of
Macedonia. They had no share in the politics of the Prin-
cipality ; and though they were nominally a community
like the Greek and Armenian rayahs, they were really less
well represented, for they had no mixed or lay National
Council, and their only corporate organisation was ecclesi-
astical. But in the fifteen years which followed the Treaty
of Berlin they quietly and unostentatiously made the best
use of the institutions and opportunities at their disposal.
Bulgarian churches and schools were opened in all the
Slavonic districts, including the town of Salonica; and the
Turkish authorities, always jealous of the Greeks, and
rendered exceptionally suspicious by the events of 1886,
favoured the Bulgarians as long as they did not become
too strong. They were allowed to have bishops in Ochrida
and Uskiib; in 1894 tw0 more were appointed in Yeles
and Nevrokop, and in 1898 three more, at Monastir, Dibre^
and Strumitza. The Church of the Exarchate was really
occupied in creating Bulgarians. It offered to the Slavonic
population services and schools, conducted in a languageTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 353

which they understood, and showed a genuine interest in
their education. It is perhaps somewhat surprising that
the Bulgarians did not join their National Church en
masse, but two causes made it less popular than might have
been expected among the ignorant and thrifty peasantry.
Firstly, its language was the Bulgarian of Sofia and not the
local dialect; and though it was understood by the Mace-
donians much better than Greek, those who had not been
educated in the new schools were often puzzled by it.
Secondly, the Exarchate followed the same plan as the
Patriarchal Church of taking fees for the performance of
religious ceremonies, and it seems that the dues which it
exacted were higher than those required by its rival. Also,
the Greek priests were unwearied in their denunciations of
the Exarchate; they argued that it was the creation of a
Mohammedan power, that its baptisms and marriages were
not really valid, that the dead whom it buried turned to
vampires. Such arguments had a certain weight, particu-
larly among the women, and partly account for the fact
that a large number of Bulgarians continued their allegiance
to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I visited Macedonia first in the autumn of 1894, arriv-
ing by the Vranja-Uskiib railway. Bulgaria and Servia are
not the most civilised countries in the world, but when
one passes through them to Turkey, one feels that the line
which divides Europe into two categories is the Ottoman
frontier. There is something awe-inspiring about any fron-
tier ; at an unseen arbitrary line men and manners suddenly
change, and the traveller is subjected to the tortures of the
custom-house, and perhaps of the quarantine. But the
Turkish frontier is peculiarly terrible, and I never cross
it without a spasm of alarm. How many people have I
seen there overtaken by mysterious visitations of fate—
some turned back, some sent on under arrest, some re-
quested to wait a few days, inquiring spirits deprived of

zTURKEY IN EUROPE

their guide-books and dictionaries (on the ground that such
literature is seditious), and sportsmen robbed of the guns
with which they had thought to shoot big game. Nor is
the appearance of Turkish territory reassuring. Whether
one goes through Adrianople to Constantinople, or through
Uskiib to Salonica, the sides of the railway look desolate
and lifeless; hills overgrown with dwarf oak alternate with
plains whose bareness is half covered with scrubby grass.
There are few signs of cultivation, and fewer of human habi-
tations. Oriental railways have a way of only skirting the
edge of cities, and stations are sometimes several miles from
the places whose names they bear. The deserted appear-
ance of the land is intensified by the Turkish habit of
constructing towns (such as Kumanovo and Chatalja) in
depressions of the undulating plains, where they are in-
visible at a short distance.

Uskiib, the first considerable town on the railway, is
admitted by all authorities to be a place of very mixed popu-
lation. The vilayet of Kossovo, of which it is the chief city,
may be described as a prolongation of Bulgaria, Servia, and
Albania; and all these elements are represented in the capital,
while in the country round are a goodly sprinkling of Turk-
ish country gentlemen. Servian influence has been active
here almost as long as Bulgarian, and it is one of the few
places where the enemies of the Servian party have to admit
that it is substantially represented and has not been arti-
ficially created. There are few real Greeks in the town, and
those mostly bankers or substantial tradesmen; but, as I have
mentioned, some confusion arises from Servians being styled
Greeks because they take the side of the Patriarchal Church
against the Bulgarians. In 1894 the Turks were inclined
to discourage the latter element, because it had grown too
strong. After the privileges granted to Bulgarians in the
spring their bishop at Uskiib grew bold and tried to open
new schools and churches, but the Vali summoned him andTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS . 355

said, " 0 Bulgarian, sit upon the eggs you have, and do not
burst your belly by trying to lay more."

I found Bulgarian influence even stronger at Veles, also
called Kyopriilii (or Bridgetown), a picturesque city built on
the sides of a valley, through which flows the Yardar. The
Christians, who form two-thirds of the inhabitants, are almost
entirely Bulgarians, though much of the wealth of the town
is in the hands of the minute Greek colony. I stayed in
the house of one of its members, and, out of deference
to his feelings, called on the Greek bishop. The episcopal
residence was old, battered, and dirty, as was also its occu-
pant, who had practically no flock to tend, and looked the
incarnation of a decaying cause. What a contrast to this
was the Bulgarian bishop, who had only been appointed that
spring! He was surrounded with all the pomp of cavasses,
dragomans, and secretaries. He himself was a vigorous
middle-aged man, who had been educated in Russia, and
looked a worthy representative of the Church militant.

Leaving the railway at Gratzko, a few stations south of
Yeles, I proceeded by road to Ochrida, through Monastir,
across the centre of Slavonic Macedonia. Railways are
generally supposed to stimulate and develop industry, but
in Turkey, though they may have this effect on the larger
centres, they have the special property of destroying roads
in their vicinity and hence producing greater stagnation in
remote districts. Formerly the road between Gratzko and
Monastir was a great highway for traffic and one of the
finest chaussdes in the country, but after the construction of
the Salonica-Monastir railway it only served local needs and
was allowed to fall into disrepair, and has in many places
become almost impassable. The landscapes of Central
Macedonia, though more picturesque than the scenery at
the sides of the railway, are almost equally monotonous, and
the same description will serve for half-a-dozen localities—
a wide, dreary plain surrounded by wooded mountains and356	TURKEY IN EUROPE

showing little trace of life except a few peasants struggling
to till the soil with very primitive instruments. On the
lowest slopes of the mountains straggle a few Bulgarian and
Turkish hamlets, the latter easily distinguishable by their
minarets. High up are one or two apparently inaccessible
Ylach villages, and in some kind of gorge opening into the
plain lies almost invariably the principal town of the
district.

Though the Bulgarians have become completely Slavised
and can with difficulty be distinguished as a body from the
Servians, yet the faces of the Macedonian peasantry have a
look which is not European, and recalls the Finns of the
Volga or the hordes of the Steppes. Lives of sullen obsti-
nate labour and minds occupied ceaselessly with petty
questions of household thrift, unillumined by any ideal
or romance, have rendered the features of men and women
alike flat, rigid, and stony. The Turkish peasant shares
this capacity for continuous animal toil and indifference to
distractions; but the conviction that he is naturally the
superior of all Christians gives him the dignity which
arises from a privileged position, whereas the Bulgarians
after centuries of ignominy have only just succeeded in
asserting their independent existence as Christians. Yet
that labor improbus which specially characterises the race
might no doubt produce as remarkable results in Macedonia
as in Bulgaria.

Leaving Gratzko early in the morning, I arrived about
i o A.M. at a lonely and dilapidated inn, which had evidently
seen better days in the times when there was no railway.
The landlord was a Greek, inn-keeping being one of the
characteristic Hellenic professions, and spoke a curious form
of literary French. On my inquiring where he had picked
up this dialect, he replied that he had spent' nine years in
prison at Rhodes, and had beguiled the tedium of his
sentence with study. This frank confession emboldenedTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 357

me to ask into what particular misfortunes he had fallen.
He said with some hesitation that he had been suspected
of acting in collusion with a band of brigands who had
formerly flourished in the neighbourhood. Trusting that
prison discipline and liberal studies had made him see the
error of his ways, I hurried on somewhat rapidly to Mon-
astic for the mountain passes of Macedonia are very lonely,
and it is better to meditate on stories of brigandage in
comfortable towns than on foggy hilltops.

Monastir is one of the strongholds of Greek influence.
Perhaps the percentage of real Greeks is not much greater
than in Uskiib and Veles, but in 1894 the Bulgarians had
no bishop, and had not been able to unite and organise
themselves as in those towns. Both the Servians and
Roumanians are energetic in prosecuting their respective
Propagandas, but there is still a large colony of Greek-
speaking Ylachs, who are hardly distinguishable from true
Greeks except by their descent. Many of them are very
rich and enterprising, and have business in Cairo or even
in Manchester. About half of the town population is
Mohammedan, for in Europe at any rate the Turks prefer
to keep together, and, except in a few special districts, show
little disposition to spread over the country. The awaken-
ing of the Christian population is generally accompanied by
a movement from the villages into the towns. This was
very marked in Monastir. The influence of the Greeks
and the weakness of the Bulgarians naturally made the
Ottoman authorities indulgent to the latter, and the out-
skirts of the town were full of little wooden houses occupied
by peasants, who thought they could better their condition
by leaving the villages and taking to the humbler forms of
trade. Thus, as in the case of the railways, the progress
of the Christians often reacts unfavourably on the country
districts. They collect in towns, engage in politics, and
being more or less under the observation of the foreign358

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Consuls, are spared many troubles. But the villages be-
come depopulated, isolated, and neglected, and more and
more at the mercy of tax-gatherers, brigands, and other
birds of prey.

The financial administration of Monastir was a byword,
or rather a pleasant jest, for the criticisms passed on the
feats performed by the local budget-makers contained no
indignation, and the narrators seemed moved by a certain
sympathetic admiration as they described how Commission
after Commission of Inquiry had come to curse, and gone
back with pockets full of money and reports full of blessings.
On the present occasion it was officially stated that the
roads were in a bad state owing to the recent heavy rain,
and it was curious to see how experienced persons spoke of
the chances of getting through. On the one hand it was
highly probable that the roads were in a disgraceful con-
dition, but on the other was it not equally probable that
the local authorities were proposing to spend money on
roads which needed no repairs ? They would take two-
thirds of the money and the contractors would receive one-
third for doing nothing. As far as Ochrida at any rate the
road was fairly good, with the exception of a large hole in
the side of a precipice down which the post had fallen the
day before. After narrowly escaping the same fate, I de-
scended the mountains to the shores of the lake. Here
the Zapties who accompanied me began to tell alarming
stories of the exploits of a brigand called Karabajak (" black
legs") who infests that part of the country. This was of
course done with a view of proving that they were affording
necessary and effective protection and deserved commensur-
ate bakhshish; but it appeared that the individual in ques-
tion had really killed two soldiers a few days previously and
disappeared owing to a fog. He was also said to be a pirate
and to attack boats on the lake.

The recollection of Ochrida makes me retract muchTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 359

that I have said about Macedonian scenery. Probably few
except travellers have heard of the Lakes of Ochrida and
Presba, yet they are some of the most beautiful in Europe.
One would not wish to see Macedonia overrun with tourists
or converted into an Oriental Switzerland, but as long as
people rush to India, Egypt, and America, and remain igno-
rant of such excellent things as these lakes, the waters of
Yodena, the forests of Mount Olympus, the apples of Kal-
kandelen, and the fish of Ochrida, Europe must be admitted
to have a great reserve of pleasure and beauty which is
seldom drawn upon. No sportsman, as far as I am aware,
has tried his hand at the huge lake trout of Ochrida. I am
not a sportsman myself, and cannot conceive why anybody
should try to catch a big fish with a rod when he can pay
a fisherman to catch him with a net. The latter method is
in vogue at Ochrida, but if any one tries the former, he
would probably taste to the full all the peculiar pleasures
which it affords, and by whatever mode the fish are cap-
tured they are certainly most excellent eating. Not less
remarkable than the fish which throng the depths of the
lake are the boats which move slowly over its surface.
They are of a strange and primitive construction, and cer-
tainly could not escape from Karabajak should he attempt
a piratical expedition, for they move at the rate of about
two miles an hour. Indeed they are platforms rather than
boats, for they are flat-bottomed, and logs of wood project
at the sides to make them steadier. In the forepart are
three rowers, who stand on steps one above the other, but
all on the same side. The result of their labour is naturally
to make the boat turn round in a circle, and movement in
a straight line is rendered possible only by the counteracting
force of an old man who sits in the stern and steers with an
oar. It is one of the most perfect contrivances for wasting
labour and obtaining a minimum of result from a maximum
of exertion ever invented.360	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Ochrida itself is situated at the northern end of the
lake, where white cliffs frequented by noisy waterfowl rise
straight from the waves. The town is in two parts, the
lower or Mohammedan and the upper or Christian. The
inhabitants of the latter are almost exclusively Bulgarian,
for though Ochrida forms the western outpost of the race—
Albania beginning immediately beyond—it is in some ways
its focus. Here was the capital of Samuel, here are the
remains of his castle and cathedral, and here is still an
active Bulgarian bishop doing his best to revive the glories
of the ancient Metropolitan See. Just before my visit the
work of Bulgarian education had been peculiarly active, and
the Ottoman authorities co-operated with the Greek arch-
bishop in trying to suppress it. A rule was suddenly made
that Bulgarian schools must be registered in the name, not
of the community, but of a' special person. This does not
sound very terrible, but in the East one must distrust in-
novations and look below the surface. Had the rule been
allowed to stand steps would no doubt have been taken to
gradually remove the persons in whose names the schools
were entered, and then to prove that the schools were non-
existent. These machinations were, however, defeated, and
the schools are now registered in the name of the bishop as
an official, not of the particular bishop for the time being.
There were but two Christians on the Town Council, though
the Mohammedans are only a third of the whole population,
and there were many complaints of heavy taxation, grapes
and fish—the chief local products—having to pay more
than twenty per cent, of their value.

As not infrequently happens in Turkey, I was enter-
tained by a Bulgarian gentleman who spoke excellent
English. This is the result of the education given at
Robert College on the Bosphorus, which is much frequented
by Bulgarians, many of whom after leaving rise to pro-
minent positions. Among the higher officials at SofiaTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 361

English is spoken more commonly than French. European
manners penetrate more slowly, and though the outward
sign of education is the wearing of a frock-coat at all
times and seasons, the peasantry, at least in Macedonia,
show no signs of changing their dress or customs. Dress
in the East is a matter determined by rank or race, and
is not affected by such trifles as climate or temperature.
Some people think it proper to go about almost naked,
others bury themselves under a mountain of clothes; but
all would scorn the idea of putting on an overcoat because
it was cold, or leaving off a fur-lined robe because the
thermometer was at 90° in the shade. Bulgarians belong
to the class of heavy dressers; men and women alike
swathe their persons in as many layers of thick padded
garments, sheepskins, and furs as it is physically possible
to get into. On festival days the women put on a gala
costume, the lowest visible stratum of which is generally
a white linen gown, with elaborate woollen embroidery on
the skirt and sleeves. Over this come various sleeveless
garments cut so as to show the aforesaid embroidery, and
finally a thick quilted jacket and voluminous sash. On
the head is worn a cap, from which hang behind long
strings of gold braid. Such a costume does not seem
convenient for dancing; but on feast days the Bulgarian
maidens so attired will spend the whole of a hot summer
afternoon in pounding through the hora> a monotonous
and interminable dance, which apparently consists in form-
ing a circle, and moving round and round to the sound
of the bagpipes. These latter are the national instrument,
and are thought by the Turks to be specially characteristic
of Bulgarians, as the following story will show. The ser-
vants who wait at the Porte on the Grand Vizier are still
mutes, though not, as formerly, persons specially mutilated,
but children born deaf and dumb. They use a language
of signs, and have some special gesture to describe the362	TURKEY IN EUROPE

representative of each nation. When they want to indi-
cate the Bulgarian Agent they imitate a man playing on a
bagpipe.

Another Bulgarian pastime is the recitation of popular
songs. These are not quite so elaborate as the national
epics of the Servians, but are often of considerable length.
When at Ochrida I heard a schoolboy recite a poem which
occupied an hour and a quarter. In spite of its dimensions,
the plot was remarkably simple, and, I fear, very probable.
The Pasha of Sofia summoned before him a Bulgarian hero
to whom he was under obligations, and said that, to his
great regret, he was obliged to execute him immediately.
The hero wanted to know why. The Pasha replied that
he did not know, but that he had received orders from
Constantinople. Executed the hero was, but after much
more arguing than ordinary Pashas would stand. These
poems are written in short verses of eight or six syllables,
sometimes with rough, irregular rhymes. Many of them
deal with the exploits of the Haiduds or Bulgarian Klephts,
but others are love songs. The Bulgarian peasant regards
his daughters primarily as workwomen, and is unwilling to
part with them. Hence girls are married much later than
is the general custom in the East, and the opposition of
parents to their love affairs forms the theme of many poems.

The salient characteristic of the Bulgarians is, as I have
already mentioned, their industry. Macedonia is far from
standing on the same economic level as the Principality,
nevertheless if one goes northwards from the Albanian to
the Slavonic districts, say from Koritza to Monastir, one
cannot help noticing the change which marks the frontier
of the Bulgarian race. The fortress-like castles built in
the hillsides disappear, and with them disappear the fine
manners and lavish hospitality with which the Albanians
treat a stranger when they have made up their minds
not to kill him. In their stead we find villages of un-THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 363

picturesque houses, surrounded by fields of maize, and
gardens rich in such unromantic vegetables as the pump-
kin. The chief man of a Bulgarian village is generally-
known as the Chorbaji, or " soup-maker," and is often a per-
son of considerable wealth. With the exception of a certain
amount of pasture land belonging to the village as a com-
munity, the land belongs to individuals who can dispose of it
by will or otherwise, the communal system of tenure which
prevails in some Slavonic countries being unknown. Estates,
or Chiftliks, belonging to country gentlemen, or Beys, are
common. As a rule, the Bey does not pay wages to his
workpeople, but supplies the peasants who dwell on his
estates with seeds and agricultural implements, and after
the Government have taken the tithe in kind, divides the
remainder of the product equally between the villagers and
himself. The former have thus almost the same incentive
to industry as if they owned the lands.

The country between Seres and Philippopoli is inhabited
by people called Pomaks, who are commonly described as
Mohammedan Bulgarians. This district is really as un-
known as if it were in the centre of Africa, and I can add
nothing to our knowledge of it from personal observation.
The best information appears to agree in holding that the
inhabitants speak a Slavonic language, and are nominal but
very lax Mohammedans who have adopted Islam as a pro-
tection, but hardly observe its precepts unless they are
among Turks. They are said to be exceedingly wild and
ignorant, but whether they are merely ordinary Bulgarians
who have changed their religion and been cut off from the
national life, or whether there is any reason to think that
they are descendants of the Pechenegs or Kumans I do
not know. The problem is complicated by the fact that in
this district there are also settlements of real Turks.

The Pavlikans form another small but curious section of
the Bulgarian population. They are apparently the de-364

TURKEY IN EUROPE

scendants of the ancient Asiatic heretics called Paulicians,1
colonies of whom were established in Thrace by more than
one Byzantine emperor, notably by John Zimesces. But if so
they show no traces to-day of their Asiatic origin, and are
all Catholics. In the time of the Emperor Alexius they
were subjected to severe persecution, partly religious and
partly political, for they were said to be on good terms with
the Pechenegs and to incite them to invade the Empire.
It is probable that this persecution made them detest the
Orthodox Church, and that at some unknown epoch when
they abandoned their own religion they accepted Rome out
of enmity to Byzantium. At present they are found chiefly
in and around Philippopoli, but also near Sistovo. It is
persistently asserted by their Orthodox neighbours, though
it may be only a popular calumny, that they eat carrion.

The Servians have long asserted that Uskiib and the
north-western districts of Turkey are inhabited by Servians,
but about the year 1896 circumstances led them to put
forward more extensive claims and to take a greater interest
in Macedonia. The summer of 1895 was marked by the
assassination of Stambulov and a strong Macedonian agita-
tion in Bulgaria. There is always a large Macedonian
element both there and in Servia, for the more intelligent
classes tend to leave Ottoman territory whenever they can.
Unlike the Greek, the Slav has in Turkey no career before
him. As long as he is a rayah he does not become an
official, financier, or merchant, but he expands and flourishes
under a Christian government. The Macedonian immigrants
in Bulgaria are bolder, cleverer, and more ambitious than
the natives of the Principality, and could not be easily con-
trolled by the Government, if it wished to do so. Macedonia
is also the question of international politics which is of
greatest importance for Bulgaria, and the immigrants find
no lack of sympathy and encouragement. In these circum-
1 Vide Chapter VI. p. 263.THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 365

stances it is easy to understand that the Macedonian society,
though nominally a mere private enterprise, became pos-
sessed, not only of great influence, but of material power.
Unlike such earlier associations as the Hetaireia it did not
observe any secrecy, but adopted the most modern procedure
of mass meetings and public ventilation of grievances. Side
by side with this more Oriental methods were employed,
based on the unhappy theory, responsible for so much
bloodshed, that the best way of attracting the attention of
the Christian Powers is to provoke the Turks to commit
atrocities. Several bands of the well-known type—half-
robbers, half-patriots—crossed into Turkey, and one of them
burnt the Moslim village of Dospat. They entirely failed
to produce the uproar which they desired; but they did
attract the attention of Servia and of other more important
Powers to the fact that Slavonic Macedonia was becoming a
sort of Bulgaria irredenta. There followed the reconciliation
of Russia and Bulgaria, the official recognition of Prince
Ferdinand, and the reception into the Orthodox Church of
the infant heir-apparent. There was talk about reforms in
Macedonia, and numerous propositions and promises. There
was also talk of a reconciliation between the Patriarchal
Church and the Exarchate. This put the Bulgarians in a
difficult position. No professing Christian could do other-
wise than deplore the existence of the schism, and the
moment the Patriarch was disposed to heal it Christian
feeling and ecclesiastical logic demanded a friendly recep-
tion of his overtures. On the other hand, the separation of
the Churches was the mainstay of Bulgarian influence in
Turkey, and their union would have meant its collapse.
Naturally, therefore, the Bulgarians preferred to remain
under the Patriarchal ban.

The Servian cause profited by all this. The Porte was
delighted to find that it could foment a Servo-Bulgarian
quarrel, just as it had fomented a Greco-Bulgarian quarrel a366

TURKEY IN EUROPE

quarter of a century before. When the Servians, alarmed
at Bulgarian pretensions in Macedonia, demanded that their
interests should also be respected, they obtained a ready
hearing. They did not get what they wanted—the peti-
tioners of the Sublime Porte rarely do. But they were used
as pieces in the game and humoured for the moment.
Servian Consulates were established at such places as Seres,
where the name of Servian was almost unknown, and a
general permission was granted to open Servian schools in
the vilayets of Monastir and Salonica. The Servians peti-
tioned to be made a Millet like the Greeks and Bulgarians.
This request was not granted, but the Porte utilised it to
prove that the Bulgarian suggestions for Macedonian reforms
were " not in harmony with the needs of the local popula-
tion." Foreign Powers also suspected Bulgaria of wishing
to " precipitate events" in Macedonia and approved of her
influence being counterbalanced, and the (Ecumenical Patri-
arch reasoned in much the same way. After much hesi-
tation (for Bulgarian and Servian prelates were equally
distasteful to the Phanar) a Servian locum tenens was ap-
pointed to the See of Uskiib. As soon as the Servian
Propaganda had made some way in its new sphere the
Porte increased the quantity of inflammable matter by
appointing three new Bulgarian bishops of Dibre, Monastir,
and Strumnitsa (January 1898). The result of all this was
that there was established in Eastern Macedonia, not perhaps
a strong Servian party, but at least an energetic faction
ready to declaim and riot on the least provocation, and
maintaining that the Servian race extends from Belgrade
to the iEgean.

Before attempting to decide whether certain districts of
Turkey are Servian or Bulgarian it will be well to inquire
what is meant by those words. It is easy to select people
who bear the two national names and are clearly distinct
from one another in physique, language, and customs; butTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 367

there is also a large population winch is not so obviously
differentiated. We can hardly be wrong in considering that
the original Bulgarian type is preserved in the somewhat
Mongolian figure and features which are common in the
eastern part of the Balkans, and are found as far west as
Ochrida—heavy frames with broad, flat, stolid faces, small
eyes, and straight, black hair. As the Servian type may be
taken the tall, broad-headed men who are found in South
Servia, Bosnia, and Montenegro. But these two types by
no means coincide with the people who call themselves
Servians and Bulgarians. The Bulgarian type is found all
over Northern Servia as far as Belgrade; and the Alban-
ians, though so clearly separated from the surrounding
Slavs in language and customs, are physically undistinguish-
able from them. The tall, broad-headed men form an
anthropological but not a political or linguistic unit.
Neither does history, though often invoked by politicians at
Sofia and Belgrade, enable us to say whether Macedonia
should be called Bulgarian or Servian. Both countries have
at different epochs possessed almost the whole of the
Balkan Peninsula; but instead of talking of the Empires of
Simeon, Asen, and Dushan, it would be better to speak of
their reigns, for each of these larger States was created by
the enterprise of a single monarch and collapsed with his
death, without permanently influencing the conquered popu-
lations. The Bulgarians have no more claim to all the
countries conquered by Simeon than the French to the
countries conquered by Napoleon, and the fact that Dushan
was crowned at Uskiib has about the same importance as
that William I. was proclaimed Emperor of Germany at
Versailles.

The evidence of language may justly be held to be more
important. It would appear that in the ninth century one
Slavonic language was spoken from the iEgean to the Ad-
riatic, since the preaching of Saints Cyril and Methodius368	TURKEY IN EUROPE

and their translation of the Bible were intelligible to the
whole Balkan Peninsula. This language, which is commonly
called old Bulgarian, though we are hardly warranted in
assuming that it was peculiar to the Bulgarians, is a pure
Slavonic tongue, highly inflectional and clearly related to
what is generally known as Church Slavonic, the ecclesiasti-
cal language of the Orthodox Slavs, which, though dead, is
still to a large extent intelligible to the peasantry in Russia
and elsewhere. Modern Bulgarian is very different from
this old Bulgarian, and owing to the black darkness which
falls on Bulgarian history after the time of the Asenids, we
know nothing of its origin or development. In its present
form it is characterised by a number of peculiarities which
distinguish it from all other Slavonic languages.1

The most remarkable of them is the total loss of
nominal inflection and of the infinitive, which suggests
the explanation, confirmed by history, that Bulgarian is a
Slavonic language mangled by a non-Slavonic race. But
this view presents difficulties of detail. What was the dis-
torting influence ? It can hardly have been the original
tongue of the un-Slavised Bulgarians, for though we know

1 It possesses a definite article which is suffixed to substantives and ad-
jectives—e.g. valh, a wolf ; valkat, the wolf; valcite, the wolves. This is a less
distinctive phenomenon than is generally supposed. It exists in the adjectival
declension of Servian and Russian. The former has a definite and indefinite
declension of the adjective, the difference between which can often, but not
always, be expressed by our articles "a" and "the"—rnlad lovjek, a young
man; mladi tovjelc, the young man. A suffix with much the same meaning
as our article is found in such different languages as Armenian, Persian (in-
definite), Roumanian, Danish, and Albanian. Bulgarian has also lost all case
inflections, except in the pronouns. The nominative and accusative are
identical, and the genitive and dative are indicated by the preposition na.
Sestra, sister, is, according to the grammar of other Slavonic languages, a
nominative ; but the Bulgarian says, az imam edna sestra, I have a sister, and
kniga-ta na sestra-ta, the book of the sister. In the verb the infinitive has
entirely disappeared, and, as in modern Greek, can only be expressed by
a somewhat clumsy periphrasis, az moga da Zakam, I can wait (lit. I am able
that I should wait). Phonetically, Bulgarian is characterised by the frequent
occurrence of a dull sound similar to the u in but, and generally rendered
by a.THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 369

nothing of it, all the probabilities are in favour of its having
been an agglutinative language, similar to Turkish, Finnish,
and Hungarian, with no article and many cases. Also it
had probably no distinction of gender, whereas the modern
Bulgarian faithfully preserves the triple genders of Slavonic.
Nor will the imitation of modern Greek, which might well
have occurred in Phanariot times, explain all the phenomena.
Modern Greek has no infinitive, but it has not lost the
accusative, much less the genitive cases. Perhaps the pecu-
liarities of Bulgarian may be attributed to Vlach or Rou-
manian influence. We know that in the tenth century there
was a close connection between the north and south banks
of the Danube; the Empire of Asen is generally styled
Vlacho-Bulgarian, and at the present day there are large
settlements of Ylachs not only in Macedonia but in the
Principality of Bulgaria. The Roumanian language has a
highly-developed suffixed article; but apart from the in-
flection of this suffixed article, it has almost entirely lost
its case forms, and though the Latin infinitive (facer e) still
exists, it alternates with a periphrastic form (a face)}

For practical purposes literary Bulgarian has a great
resemblance to Russian—so much so that a person well
acquainted with the latter language can generally read the
leading articles in a Bulgarian newspaper. But this similar-
ity is superficial; it is the result of imitation not of common
origin, and lies more in vocabulary than grammar. Bul-
garian literature, as well as Bulgarian freedom, began under
Russian auspices, and the whole terminology of politics and
the abstract sciences was borrowed in toto. As these bor-
rowed expressions are formed from Slavonic roots their

1 But it must be admitted that the inflected Roumanian article keeps up
a semblance of nominal inflection which Bulgarian has lost. Compare caselor
and the Bulgarian na Tcashti~tey both meaning " of the houses." The latter is
clearly a greater advance towards our analytical mode of expression. Exactly
similar to the Roumanian forms are dialectical Bulgarian forms, in which the
article is declined : ot gyaula-ta-go, Giaulu-tu-mu (Ofeicoff, La Macidoine,
p. 290).

2 ATURKEY IN EUROPE

foreign origin is not obvious, and it is easy to imagine
that they are native products. But the simpler a Bul-
garian sentence is, the less apparent is the resemblance
to Russian. Probably no Russian would understand such
a phrase as Az go obilam po mnogo ot sebe si (I love him more
than myself), though every word of it is Slavonic. Also
the verbal forms of Bulgarian resemble Servian rather than
Russian.

Servian is a pure Slavonic language little affected by
extraneous influences except that it has borrowed a number
of Turkish words. It includes Bosnian, Montenegrin, and
Croatian,1 which only differ in slight dialectic peculiarities,
and in the country south of the Drav and western Danube
it is incontestably one of the most important forms of
European speech. In contrast to Bulgarian it is highly in-
flectional, possessing seven cases, and a double adjectival
declension. As in most Slavonic languages the tenses are
somewhat scanty, and the uncompounded forms do little
more than distinguish past and present time; but an infini-
tive is in use as well as several participial forms.2

1	Croatian looks different from Servian because it iswritten in a modifica-
tion of the Latin alphabet invented by Louis G-aj in 1831, whereas Servians
use a variety of the Cyrillic alphabet invented by Vuk Karajich at the begin-
ning of this century. This alphabet rejects the hard and soft signs of Bul-
garian and Russian, and represents the y sound by the Roman letter j which
does not harmonise very well with the Cyrillic characters. There are special
signs for ly and ny. There is some reason to think that Saints Cyril and
Methodius invented, not the alphabet which bears their names and which on
this hypothesis is a later simplication, but the older G-lagolithic or Glagolitsa
still used for ecclesiastical books in some parts of Dalmatia.

2	The phonetic system offers many peculiarities : I is often suppressed or
vocalised—e.g. vuk, wolf, for vulk ; Beograd for Belgrad, the national capital.
I have noticed, however, that the difference in pronunciation between such
words as the Servian Znao and the Russian Znal is less than the orthography
suggests. The so-called hard I is certainly very different from our consonant.

There is a system of so-called accents, which is, I believe, unique in
Europe and approaches the tones found in the monosyllabic languages of
South-Eastern Asia. Servian grammarians distinguish four accents, found
on the first syllable of the four following words : r'iba, vdda, Mdja, vino. I
must confess that, after studying Servian for two months with a native, I
could never distinguish these accents. The language has not a marked tonicTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 371

Literary Servian and Bulgarian are thus clearly dis-
tinguished, yet it is not always easy to say which of them
is spoken in a particular district of Macedonia. One of
the most remarkable features of the Slavonic languages is
their close resemblance to one another,1 and the compara-
tive absence of dialectic variation; there is no linguistic
area in Europe which can be compared in size to that
occupied by Russian. This characteristic is probably con-
nected with another, namely, that the Slavonic-speaking
nations are mostly dwellers on plains, which facilitate in-
tercourse and uniformity. We should therefore expect to
find much greater variety in the mountainous districts of
the Balkan Peninsula, and this is, as a matter of fact, the
case. The identity of the language of Montenegro with
that of Servia is easily explained, for the Black Mountain
was the refuge of the Servian aristocracy after the Turkish
conquest; but with this exception most of the mountain
regions present linguistic peculiarities, which sometimes
recall Bulgarian or Servian, but sometimes differ from
both.2 It is no doubt true that the Slav inhabitants of
Old Servia speak Servian, and those of the districts im-

accent like English, Russian, and modern Greek. People sometimes ask
whether one should say Serajevo or Serajevo, Herzegdvina or Herzegovina. One
should say neither. The accent is distributed over the whole word, and is
perhaps strongest on the first syllable. Further, Servian has an aversion
to nasals and a preference for the vowel cfc, and it possesses a multiplicity
of palatals represented by 6, c, dj, and d%.

1	This resemblance seems to me to be emphasised by the fact that they
are all written in reasonable phonetic alphabets. If the Romance languages
adopted the same system their close relationship would be more apparent.

2	They possess nasalised vowels and many forms of the suffixed definite
article, the Bulgarian forms (t, ta, to, te), being supplemented by similar
forms with the initial consonants s, n, and v. Not only the third person
plural but the third person singular sometimes ends in t, which is an un-
doubtedly primitive trait. In Russian and Macedonian we find such forms as
znajet,he knows; znajut, they know; in Bulgarian,znae and znajat; but in Servian
the t is lost in both numbers, zna and znaju. If the more or less sporadic
appearance of case forms recalls Servian rather than Bulgarian, still the pre-
servation of I (pisal and valk, not pisao and vuJc), the formation of the future
by prefixing shte, 6e, or Tee, the periphrastic infinitive with da, and the genlrae
phonology show analogies with the latter language.372

TURKEY IN IEUROPE

mediately south of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia, Bulgarian.
But of the dialects of Central Macedonia one can only say
that, if any one of them had received a separate literary
development, it might have become a separate language.
A Macedonian at the present day can more or less under-
stand either Servian or Bulgarian, but Servians and
Bulgarians can understand one another—when they choose.

Another argument which is often invoked by the
Servians is the existence in Macedonia of certain customs
alleged to be distinctively Servian and not Bulgarian. The
most remarkable of these is the Slava, or festival of the
family saint.1 It is the practice in the Orthodox Church
for each individual to be named after a saint, who is re-
garded as his or her patron, and the festival of this patron
(or name-day) is kept with more ceremony than a birthday.
But in Servia each family has a patron saint, supposed to
have been selected at the time of its conversion to Christi-
anity, whose feast-day is celebrated by a banquet at which
bread is broken ceremonially and religious toasts are drunk.
But though the Slava is of more importance in Servia than
elsewhere, it also exists in Bulgaria and Roumania, and is
said to be observed even in the neighbourhood of Sofia.

The result of this investigation, then, is that it is not easy
to distinguish Servians and Bulgarians beyond the boun-
daries of their respective countries. We have in reality three
categories: pure Slavs, Slavised Bulgarians (the original
un-Slavised Bulgarians having long ago disappeared), and
pure Slavs who have been influenced by Slavised Bulgarians.
All three categories have been subjected to a strong and
often continuous Greek influence, to say nothing of the
Turks and the inconspicuous but ubiquitous Vlachs, who
are probably responsible for many peculiarities. Among
people who have thus acted and reacted on one another, it

1 Villages and other communities also celebrate Slavas in honour of
patron saints.THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 373

is rash to make sharp divisions, or to say that certain cus-
toms or linguistic peculiarities distinguish a certain race,
and perhaps it is not safe to go beyond the following: The
Slavonic population of the villayet of Kossovo, north-west
of Uskiib, is homogeneous with that on the other side of the
Servian, Montenegrin, and Bosnian frontiers, the moun-
taineers of South Servia being very unlike the tradesmen
and farmers of the north. The Slavonic population east of
the Struma, and much of that between the Struma and
Yardar, is mixed, but homogeneous with the population of
Bulgaria, which is also mixed. It would appear that the
original dividing line of language and customs between
Servia and Bulgaria passed near Nish, and that before
1876 the people of that town, which is now thoroughly
Servian, called themselves Bulgarians. Of the remaining
Macedonian Slavs, an impartial observer can only say that
they are intermediate between the Serbs and Bulgarians;
but I think that traces of Mongolian—that is, Bulgarian
—physiognomy can be seen as far west as Ochrida.

The practical conclusion is that neither Greeks, Servians,
nor Bulgarians have a right to claim Central Macedonia,
The fact that they all do so shows how weak each claim
must be.

A natural incapacity to combine in large political units,
and a tendency to break up into small groups, have obscured
the numerical importance of the Serbs, so that few people
realise the extent of the area inhabited by a Servian-speak-
ing population. It comprises not only the kingdom of
Servia, Old Servia with the Sanjak of Novi Bazar, Mon-
tenegro, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, but also the Austrian
provinces of Dalmatia, Istria, Slavonia, and the southern
part of the Banat or country north of the Danube between
Belgrade and Orsova. There is an enmity between the Ser-
vians and Croatians, and some authorities consider that the
latter were not originally Slavs. But at the present day374	TURKEY IN EUROPE

their language is indubitably Servian, though they use the
Roman and not the Cyrillic alphabet.

The population of Northern Servia, which is naturally
that most seen by travellers, is not a good or characteristic
specimen of the race. After the loss of the national in-
dependence, all the most distinguished and valiant Serbs
retreated to the mountainous districts of Bosnia and Mon-
tenegro or became Mohammedans, with the result that the
plains or northern portion of the present kingdom of Servia
contain the descendants of the least vigorous and enter-
prising portion of the nation. Servia deserves better than
Bulgaria the title of the Peasant State which has been
applied to the latter, for the Chorbajis formed a sort of
upper class between the peasants and the Turks, whereas in
Servia the most absolute social equality prevails. Poverty
is almost unknown, and nearly everybody is comfortably
off. Some of the well-to-do peasants are considerable landed
proprietors, and possess incomes of ^iooo; but as a rule
they make no attempt to imitate European ways or abandon
their simple, homely, but rather slipshod life. The only
outward sign of wealth which they exhibit is a brougham,
in which they proceed to town on market-days. One char-
acteristic of this part of Servia which strikes a traveller
coming from Turkey or even from Bulgaria is the extent of
cultivation. There is no waste land. Every inch is private
property, and used for the cultivation of corn and maize, for
pasturage, gardens, and orchards, in the latter of which grow
the plum-trees that produce the national drink of slivovitz,
or plum-brandy. But equally striking are the simplicity of
the methods of cultivation, and the amount of weeds, not
humble tares, but enormous thistles and creeping plants,
which strangle the crops, run riot in the gardens, and invade
the highroads. In this, as in other matters, the Servian has
no eye for neatness or finish. Unlike the Bulgarian, he is
not naturally laborious, and as soon as he has performed theTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 375

simple operations necessary to secure the existence (but not
the perfection) of his maize, his plums, and his pigs, he sits
down in the village wine-shop, not so much to get drunk as
to engage in endless and resultless political discussion. This
universal comfort has, of course, its good side; it is better
than being fleeced by Janissaries, but it does not conduce
to progress in any direction. The absence of large fortunes
makes it difficult to execute any works requiring capital or
enterprise. Mines cannot be worked; roads are few, because
the expense of constructing and maintaining them falls on
the villages through which they pass, and which are too self-
centred and self-satisfied to make any sacrifices; and no form
of trade seems to flourish except the export of raw products.
The Servian breeds pigs, but he cannot export ham.

Far more interesting and picturesque are the moun-
taineers, who are found, not only on both sides of the Turkish
frontier, but also about the valley of the Drina, which sepa-
rates Servia from Bosnia. In these districts upland pastures
coloured by alpine plants alternate with forests of gigantic
pines, and the river-courses flow through deep gorges, of
which a well-known example may be seen from the train
after leaving Nish for the East. In the west of Servia,
about a day from Uzhitsa, I have passed through another
ravine, which was even narrower and deeper, in so much
that it was almost dark except at mid-day. It appeared to
have no name, for the immediate vicinity was uninhabited,
and the peasants were quite ignorant of the country ten or
fifteen miles from their homes. They have a martial air,
and resemble the Montenegrins in their dress and habits, but
have in some ways better preserved the original Slav customs,
as they still retain the old system of Zadruga, or communal
village based upon the family. In its most ancient form,
which now survives in only a very few localities, the Zadruga
consists not merely of one family but of one house, a vast,
shapeless building, to which a new room is added whenever376	TURKEY IN EUROPE

a male of the family marries. In most cases, however, the
plan of a communal house has been abandoned, and the
Zadruga is composed of a number of huts close together,
each occupied by a married couple. The property of the
Zadruga is held in common, and the entire community, often
as many as sixty or seventy persons, is ruled by the oldest
man, whose authority is despotic, and without whose permis-
sion no member can emigrate or marry. As a rule, this
patriarch is the eldest of several brothers, and on his death
his authority passes to the one next in age ; but should his
widow survive him, she is treated with great respect, and no
important step is taken without consulting her. Marriages
are a constant source of dispute in Zadrugas; for even more
than among the Bulgarians women are regarded as workers,
and as a woman passes into her husband's Zadruga, each
family is anxious to marry its sons but to retain its daughters
as long as possible. The result of this system is that elope-
ment is the ordinary preliminary to wedlock.

Even in large villages and small towns in Southern and
Western Servia the remains of the Zadruga system may be
observed, each quarter being usually inhabited by a par-
ticular family, from which it takes its name. But except
in these districts the communal system exists no longer.
The Servian Government guarantees to every taxpayer two
and a half hectares of land, which cannot be seized for
debt. This regulation is said to have in some ways an
unfortunate effect, as the peasant is unable to borrow
money in order to improve his estate. He cannot mort-
gage his land, and has usually nothing else on which to
raise a loan.

Owing to the rarity of towns and large settlements in
Southern Servia, the inhabitants are accustomed to meet
periodically at some central point where a temporary village
of booths is constructed, and a fair held for the sale of
cattle and other produce. Oxen are roasted whole, andTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 377

when the day's business is over a banquet follows with
national songs and dances. It is on such occasions that
one hears recited the popular epics, which are sung in a
monotonous chant to the accompaniment of a single-
stringed guitar, but with such genuine feeling and expres-
sion that the whole effect is not unpleasing. As in most
Oriental countries the professional minstrels are often
blind men, but in the remote districts the peasants are
proud of their powers of recitation.

All the races of Turkey—Greeks, Slavs, Roumanians, and
Albanians alike—are fond of narrative ballads, which are
indeed the characteristic literary product of the Balkan
lands. They are generally anonymous pieces, composed in
short lines of from eight to ten syllables (though Greek
affects longer metres), and recounting either love stories or
some incident in the unending struggle of the Christians
against the Turks. Among the other races these poems
are of moderate length, and often very short, but among
the Serbs they have grown to the proportions of a national
epic, which may almost be compared to the Kalevala. The
date of their composition is unknown, but they were col-
lected and arranged by Karajich about fifty years ago, and
published by him. The historical ballads are written in a
ten-syllabled metre, with occasional variations, and fall into
three chief cycles, those which describe the glories of
Dushan's reign, those which lament the battle of Kossovo,
and those which recount the exploits of Marko Kralyevich
and his wondrous steed Sharats. As I have elsewhere
pointed out, this personage is less important for history
than for romance, but he has secured a place in popular
imagination and popular poetry which has been denied to
worthier heroes. High praise must be given to the sim-
plicity, vividness, and deep feeling of these ballads.
Modern Servian literature is perhaps not so good as Bul-
garian, but the emotional and poetic, if somewhat undisci-378

TURKEY IN EUROPE

plined, character of the Slav finds adequate expression in
the less formal styles of composition.

During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries quite a
school of Servian writers—particularly poets—flourished at
Ragusa, and wrote many epics and dramas which show
signs of Italian models. In the inland districts, however,
literature decayed, and, as in the case of Greek, an arti-
ficial language founded on the ecclesiastical Slavonic was
used for the few books which were published. The emi-
nent writer and patriot Yuk Karajich (1787—1864) was
successful in producing a linguistic revolution, and in
making his countrymen adopt the spoken language for
literary purposes. He reformed the orthography, rescued
the popular songs from oblivion, translated the New Testa-
ment into the popular language, and, in a word, destroyed
the Oriental idea that literature is not meant to be under-
stood.

During one of my journeys I was the guest of the
Archimandrite of a large monastery near the Drina. The
Church seems less influential in Servia than in the rest of
the Balkans, for its services are little frequented; and the
power of the clergy has been diminished by a law forbidding
them to become deputies, on the ground that they are
servants of the Crown and eligible for pension. Nor are
the monasteries, as religious institutions, in a flourishing
condition. Eastern monasticism has never developed the
virtues of practical charity or literary culture which adorn
the orders of the Roman Church. Its followers are either,
as on Mount Athos, absorbed in the practice of a selfish
and somewhat superstitious piety, or, as is commonly the
case in the interior, take to the healthier pursuits of
country gentlemen. My host on the present occasion was
of the latter sort. His monastery was large, but there was
only one other monk, who acted as his chaplain and occa-
sionally read prayers. In the chapel was preserved aTHE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 379

sword with which one of his predecessors had slain many
Turks. Ecclesiastical architecture and frescoes in this dis-
trict are curious as being Italian rather than Byzantine in
character, and it is clear that Roman influence must have
been dominant here in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
Patriotic historians have even conjectured that the Renais-
sance originated in Servia, and spread to Italy. The
Archimandrite occupied himself with the management of
his estate, which was considerable in extent and apparently
well managed. In the morning he did accounts, in the
afternoon he rode over the property and inspected crops
and trees, and in the evening he dispensed a copious
hospitality to his guests. He was however, I heard, un-
popular in the neighbourhood, and involved in perpetual
quarrels with the peasantry, because he refused to allow
them to cut wood in certain forests where they claimed
that custom gave them the right. These secularised
monasteries are not uncommon in Macedonia. A notable
instance is that of St. Naum at the southern end of the
lake of Ochrida, which is used as a meeting-place of mer-
chants and tradesmen, and for the holding of fairs. One
of the most important of Servian monasteries is that of
Chilendar (" thousand lions") on Mount Athos, built by
Stephen Nemanya, and inhabited by Slavonic monks. Of
late years it has been a bone of contention between the
Servians and Bulgarians, the former contending, contrary
to the analogy of other institutions, that since it was
founded by a Servian sovereign it must belong to the
Servian Government.

West and south-west of Servia lie Bosnia and the Herze-
govina,1 which are theoretically Turkish provinces " ad-
ministered" by Austria under the Treaty of Berlin. The
population consists of Mohammedan Beys, being Servians
who adopted Islam to acquire or preserve a privileged

1 "The Duchy," from the German Herzog.380	TURKEY IN EUROPE

position, and a Christian peasantry, almost exclusively
Orthodox in Bosnia, but partly Catholic in the Herzego-
vina. Sometimes a family divided itself between Chris-
tianity and Islam so as to have friends on the right side
whatever happened. In such cases the members of the
family recognise each other as relatives, but generally use
different names for the two branches conveying the same
meaning in Slavonic and Turkish respectively—e.g. Raikovich
and Jenetich (Rai and Jennet meaning " paradise "), Sokolich
and Shahinagich (Sokol and Shahin both meaning " falcon ").1
As in the case of most European races who have embraced
Mohammedanism, the acceptance of the new faith seems
to have been only superficial, and it is said that pictures
representing vines and drinking scenes may be found even
in Bosnian mosques.

The Austrians have done their best to conciliate the
Mohammedans and Catholics, and though they met with a
desperate resistance when they took over the provinces,
they have been on the whole very successful. The Ortho-
dox population express less satisfaction, but it may be
doubted if their complaints represent any serious under-
current of revolutionary feeling. Panslavist agitation is
much talked of in the Austrian Empire, but it is rather a
means of extorting concessions from the Government than
a serious project of disruption. The Bosnians, Bohemians,
and Poles would probably be very unwilling to be really
detached and made independent unprotected States. The
dissatisfaction of the Bosnian Christians is no doubt due to

1 It is often curious to observe the genesis of family names among the
Southern Slavs. Most of them are very recent. Thus in one case the grand-
father kept a tavern, and was known by the Turks simply as Sharabji, " the
wine man." The son thought that the rising fortunes of the house required a
family name, and by adding a Slavonic affix to the Turkish designation
became Sharabjieff or Sarabdziev. The grandson, who lived in days when
Turkish words were considered barbaric and unpatriotic, substituted for
Sharabji the Bulgarian equivalent Vinar, and became Vinarov. In many
parts of Bulgaria a man and his wife still use different family names.THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 381

the fact that Christian communities who have been under
the sway of the Sultan, as soon as they have forgotten the
material insecurity which prevailed under that rule, regret
the easy-going tolerance of the Turk. The Porte does not
like being reformed, but at least it does not try to reform
other people, and as we have seen allows the laity as well
as the clergy a considerable measure of autonomy in matters
relating to schools, parochial discipline, and quasi-religious
institutions. A European Government is obliged to exercise
more supervision, which, among other results, causes the
State to interfere with the disposal of sums which were
formerly administered by irresponsible persons somewhat
to their own advantage, and it is not unnatural that this
diversion of public funds from private pockets should be
regarded as an encroachment on religious liberty.

The Mohammedan population do not regret Turkey.
A large number of those who emigrated after the first
occupation subsequently returned, saying that they found
things worse on the other side of the frontier; and when, in
the spring of 1897, Mollahs and other fanatics attempted to
enlist Bosnians to fight for Turkey against Greece, only
about a hundred responded to the appeal. This is remark-
able, for there is a continual exodus of Moslims both from
Bulgaria and the Caucasus into Turkey. The difference no
doubt depends upon race. It is difficult to disentangle the
various European races, but there is clearly a great gulf
fixed between Europeans and Asiatics in the broad and
popular sense of the words. It is in vain that you offer
the Asiatic liberty, security, and good government. He
will accept and even thank, remembering the proverb, " Kiss
the hands that you cannot cut off"; but he would in his
heart prefer to be fleeced and tyrannised over by some
Sultan, Khedive, or Amir, and, if he gets the chance, will
remove to some country " where the Mussulmans still are
men/' But the Mussulman Bosnians have quite different382	TURKEY IN EUROPE

feelings. They embraced Islam out of policy, their ideas
are not essentially different from those of other Servians,
and they are quite capable of appreciating the material
prosperity of their country under the Austrian rule.

But though no impartial critic can deny that Serajevo
and Mostar offer a brilliant contrast to such towns as
Monastir and Uskiib, it must be admitted that the problem
so successfully solved by Austria is not the real crux of the
Eastern question. She administers a country inhabited by
Christian and Moslim Serbs, but what European Power or
what European method could deal satisfactorily with a
country inhabited by Turks, Albanians, Greeks, Ylachs,
Bulgarians, and Servians, all ready to cut one another's
throats ? The Turks are at their worst when governing
a single Christian race, as the Bulgarians twenty-five years
ago or the Armenians to-day, but they display great ability
and a very fair sense of justice in managing five or six
aspiring nationalities. However irksome the regulations of
the Porte may be, it is the only Government which gives its
Christian subjects full liberty to fight their quarrels out—
and that is the only form of independence which they really
appreciate.

Neither can it be denied that the Ottoman Government
is capable on occasion of showing great patience and mode-
ration. In 1895, when Northern Macedonia was invaded
by Bulgarian bands who desired to provoke a disturbance,
it is well authenticated that the Turkish troops who were
sent to repel them were instructed not to harm a single
Christian of the country; and that in places where the
inhabitants were afraid to go out into the fields for fear of
meeting either the bands or the Ottoman soldiers, the latter
cut their corn for them lest it should spoil by standing too
long, and presented the full amount to the head-men of the
villages.

Conterminous with the Herzegovina is the little inde-THE BULGARIANS AND SERBS 383

pendent Principality of Montenegro, divided from Servia by
the Sanjak of Novi Bazar, which is jointly occupied by
Austria and Turkey. The approach to Montenegro by the
Bocche di Cattaro is one of the most remarkable sights in
Europe. Above that strange landlocked harbour towers a
mountain mass, on the sides of which is seen, as if engraved,
a zigzag path leading straight up into the clouds. Sturdy
horses drag the traveller up this steep and narrow way
beyond the clouds to the heights of the Black Mountain,1
whose frontiers do not come down to the sea at this point.
The boundary is passed unnoticed, for alone among Euro-
pean States Montenegro has no custom-house, at any rate
not here. The land beyond the clouds is composed of
blocks of stone — grey, hard, repellent, intolerant of the
scanty vegetable life which tries to squeeze itself out
between them. On dry days one is blinded by the flying
dust, on wet ones the clouds seem to dissolve in a sheet of
water and to inundate the mountain tops. The inhabitants
of this strange country are the very opposite of the Ser-
vians. Instead of being all peasants they are all chiefs and
princes, and have that air of well - built, well - mannered
aristocracy which is so rare in the plains. A series of
brilliant marriages attests that the royal houses of Europe
consider the blood of the Princes of Montenegro as good as
their own. All this part of the Adriatic coast, whether it
is called Montenegro or Albania, is really independent. The
geography of the country has always prevented any effective
conquest by the Turks ; in both Montenegro and Albania
" a small army is defeated and a large one starves." But
the Albanians, though practically independent, have never
been united by any religious or political idea. They have
served the Porte and to a large extent become Mohamme-
dans. The Montenegrins, on the other hand, united by the
double bonds of Orthodox Christianity and feudalism, have

1 Montenegro is the Venetian translation of Crna Gora, "black mountain."384	TURKEY IN EUROPE

been loyal to one another, and have opposed to the Turks a
continuous and successful resistance.

Montenegro is heard of first as the residence of the
princely family of Balsha, and in early times had to struggle
against Turkey, Venice, and Servia, all of which were
anxious to annex it. After the fall of Servia, Bosnia, and
Herzegovina, it received a notable addition of popula-
tion from the Slav nobility, who preferred to take refuge
in the mountains to becoming Moslims. Such a population
had natural aptitudes for keeping the Turks at bay, but they
were also apt to quarrel with one another, and the relative
freedom of Montenegro from such disputes is to be ex-
plained by the singular form of polity adopted. P£°m
1389-1516 the country was ruled by a dynasty known as
the Black Princes, but after the latter date the Govern-
ment was exercised by a Vladika, or Prince Bishop, whose
holy office raised him somewhat above political jealousies,
just as his celibacy protected him from the family feuds
which had been the bane of most Slav dynasties. At first
the office of Vladika was elective, but from 1696-1851, it
was hereditary in the family of Petrovich, the nephew
succeeding to the uncle. In 1851 Danilo II. assumed the
power as a mere civil ruler, abandoning the ecclesiastical
part of the office. He was assassinated in i860, and
succeeded by the present prince, Nicholas.CHAPTER IX

the albanians and vlachs

Some maps mark the port of San Giovanni di Medua on
the Eastern coast of the Adriatic and some do not. When
the traveller is dropped there by the Lloyd's steamer, he
wonders which are right. Certainly the locality is the
landing-place for Scutari in Albania, it figures on Lloyd's
time-tables, and is the terminus of a projected railway.
On the other hand there is little to distinguish it from the
rest of the coast; a rotten pier, some sheds, an inn, and ten
Turkish soldiers constitute its claims to be called a town.
Having realised that it would not be wise to stop long at
Medua, you are confronted with the problem of how to
leave it. The railway has really terminated in somebody's
pocket, and has never been heard of on the spot. You
cannot drive—because, firstly, there are no carriages, and,
secondly, there is no road. It is therefore necessary to
hire some lean and sullen nags, and a native with a sense
of direction, and plunge into the country hoping to some
time reach the town and lake of Scutari.

Turkey is not remarkable for luxuriantly fertile land-
scapes, but Northern Albania is more desolate, uncultivated,
and uninviting than any other district. With the excep-
tion of a passing view of Lesh or Allesio, one sees nothing
between the sea and Scutari which can be called a town,
and hardly any villages. The few khans on the way are
mere shelters and can hardly be dignified by the style of
inns, for not even a crust of bread can be found in them.
Shortly before Scutari is a wooden bridge over a river,

385	2 b386	TURKEY IN EUROPE

where the traveller has to dismount and negotiate with the
Turkish custom-house. This establishment is marvellously
polite to the armed natives who swagger across the bridge
bristling with rifles and daggers and smoking contraband
tobacco, but asserts its authority by ransacking the baggage
of harmless tourists. On entering the town we pass by the
Konak and barracks. They are spacious buildings with
ample grounds, which enable the Vali and troops to take
their exercise judiciously in the official precincts without
obtruding their presence on the inhabitants of the town.
The Albanian part of Scutari is dirty and melancholy.
Most of the larger houses are built within courtyards, and
the streets are bordered by blank walls. I happened, how-
ever, to see the town first on a Monday, when it presents
a more animated appearance, for it is on this day that
Albanians—at least Christian Albanians—marry. The
gloomy high-walled alleys are enlivened by processions of
red-robed matrons leading veiled brides who are expected
to feign reluctance, close their eyes, and only follow the
road to the altar when led and pushed by their nearest
relatives. The priests who perform the ceremony bear
the unreverend title of Don, and have long moustaches,
for in Albania no man is considered respectable without
these appendages, and when practical interests are at
stake the Church of Rome does not go in for hair-splitting.
It is a strange place, inhabited by strange people, without
character and yet full of character. They are so devoid of
both originality and unity that it is in vain to seek for
anything in politics, art, religion, literature, or customs to
which the name Albanian can be properly applied as
denoting something common to the Albanian race. Yet
they certainly have an individuality, which refuses to be
controlled and forces both the Sultan and the Pope to
modify their systems to suit its idiosyncrasies.

The Albanians are generally and, in all probability,THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 387

correctly identified with the ancient Illyrians; but the
justice of the identification depends mainly on the fact
that it commits us to very little.1 The Ulyrians were simply
the inhabitants of Illyria, or Illyricum, a district on the
east of the Adriatic and north of Epirus, but not clearly
defined, and embracing different areas at different periods.
Nothing is really known about them except that they were
brave and intractable, hard to subdue, and slow to adopt
Greek and Roman civilisation. In these qualities they cer-
tainly seem the prototypes of the modern Albanians; but
in order to make the relationship between the two clear
we must inquire what is meant by an Albanian. The
eastern coast of the Adriatic has been repeatedly invaded
and colonised by Slavs, but it presents two phenomena
which appear to be pre-Slavonic — a race with marked
physical characteristics, and the Albanian language. The
men belonging to this race are comparatively blonde, and
some of the tallest and broadest - headed people in the
world. They form one of the most distinct ethnic types
of Europe, and are called by Deniker the Dinaric race. It
is true that the majority of the persons who belong to this
group at the present day—the Dalmatians, Croatians, Mon-
tenegrins, Bosnians, and many Servians — speak Slavonic,
and regard themselves as Slavs; but the physical peculiari-
ties mentioned can hardly have been imported by the
Slavs, for they do not characterise them in other parts
of Europe. We must therefore suppose that these tall,
broad-headed men represent an older substratum;2 and

1	The identification of the Albanians with the Pelasgi has less to recom-
mend it. If we admit that we know nothing about the Pelasgi (which
appears to be the case), the identification does not advance us, and if we
-connect the Pelasgi with any particular district or style of architecture, then
there is no evidence for identifying the Albanians with them.

2	Mr. Tozer, in his " Highlands of Turkey " (vol. i. p. 293), says, however, of
the Miidites: "They are a wiry, active people, but small in stature ; indeed
they appeared to us quite pigmies after seeing the Montenegrins." I cannot
^confirm this from my own observation.388	TURKEY IN EUROPE

since we know that Slavonic languages were introduced
into the country, and since Albanian is a non-Slavonic
language, of whose introduction we have no record, it is
permissible to conjecture that it was the language, or rather
is the descendant of the language, spoken by this older
population. Its principal features are compatible with the
system of Aryan European languages, and some of them
show marked resemblances of detail to Greek. Yet Al-
banian as a whole is so odd and capricious, that one
wonders if it is not a mosaic like Hindustani.1 The area
in which it is spoken has apparently increased in historic
times. It is only in the country of the Mirdites, south of
the river Drin and west of Dibre, that all the names of
localities are Albanian. In the other districts inhabited
by Albanians they are mainly Slav. It seems probable
that the constant incursions of Slavs from the North during
the sixth and succeeding centuries of our era confined the
older population to a narrow mountainous district from
which they did not emerge before the thirteenth century.
It is also remarkable that the legends of several tribes
trace their origin to an illicit union of an Albanian with a
Slavonic girl.

At present the Albanians inhabit the Turkish vilayets
of Scutari (or Shkodra) and Janina, as well as the
adjoining portions of Kossovo and Monastir. They are
also found on Greek territory in the western parts of
Thessaly, in Hydra, and Spezzia, and appear to have
once occupied the whole country almost as far as Athens,
to say nothing of their invasions of the Morea. There
are also about 80,000 of them in South Italy and Sicily,
descendants of the refugees who fled after the Turkish
conquest.

The name Albanian appears in Greek as Apjiavlrrjg or
AXftavlrris, and in Turkish as Arnaut, but is hardly used
1 See Note I. on the Albanian language, p. 419.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 389

by natives. It is said, however, that the words Arboeri
and ArboereQ are applied to the country of the Liaps
south of Avlona and to its inhabitants, and are also
used in Italy and Hydra. The national designation is
Shkyipetar,1 sometimes written Skipetar, an orthography
which, though simpler, somewhat obscures the pronuncia-
tion. It appears to be derived from a word signifying
an eagle, a name which a race of mountaineers might
well give themselves. Two other names are in common
use, namely, Gheg (Gegoe, Gegari) and Tosk (Toskce,
Toskoes, Toskceri), the former of which is applied to the
Northern Albanians, and the latter to the Southerners.
These names, though in common use and very convenient,
are not thought quite complimentary, and may be com-
pared to such a designation as Yankee applied to New
Englanders. The two sections differ from one another so
considerably as to almost form separate nationalities, and
may be most conveniently treated separately.

The Ghegs are mountaineers inhabiting the vilayet of
Scutari and the Sanjaks of Ipek, Prisrend, and Prishtina
in Kossovo, as well as Dibre and Elbasan in Monastir.
Their southern limit is the river Shkumb. They are
divided into a number of tribes or clans such as the
Hotti, Clementi, Castrati, Grudi, and many others. Some
of them, for instance the Clementi and Castrati, are
nomadic, spending the summer in the mountains and
descending in the winter to the shores of the Adriatic.
The important tribe of Mirdites, who inhabit a mountain-
ous district to the south of the Drin, are in many ways a
more considerable division than the others. All these
tribes are engaged in perpetual quarrels and vendettas,
which appear to be due to a naturally warlike disposi-
tion and an absence of occupation. It is certainly wrong

1 Ckyipoetar, Albanian ; Ckyipoeri, Albania ; Kouvendon Ckyip, to speak
Albanian.39°	TURKEY IN EUROPE

to ascribe them, as is often done, to religious animosity,
for the Albanians are not at all fanatical. The mistake
is, however, excusable, for the occasional riots at Scutari,
which naturally attract the attention of Europe, do happen
to take the form of a quarrel between the townsmen,
who are mostly Moslims, and the surrounding tribes,
among whom the Christians are in the majority. But
the quarrel is essentially town versus country, and the
incidents of shooting at a cross or placing a pig's head
in a mosque are merely time-honoured ceremonies for
declaring war. The Mirdites, who are all Catholics, are
the solitary example of a tribe belonging entirely to one
religion, all the others containing both Christians and
Mohammedans.

The whole of Albania may be said to be only nomin-
ally subject to Turkey. In the vilayet of Scutari the
subjection is hardly nominal. There is a Turkish Governor,
a few troops, and a custom-house, but otherwise Turkish
law and institutions are not recognised. There is no
conscription, though the natives, who are always ready to
fight, are often employed as volunteers. No taxes are
paid except the tithe, and that only occasionally, and
more as a friendly act than a debt which can be claimed
of right. Above all, no Albanian can be tried for capital
offences by Turkish law, but must be handed over to his
tribe to be judged according to its peculiar customs. It
is said that the Albanians have so great a contempt and
loathing for theft (which must be carefully distinguished
from the noble act of killing a man and taking his money),
that they allow it to be dealt with by the Turks. But
cases of such procedure are rare.

The Yali is assisted by a Tribal Council, composed of
delegates from the chief tribes, who meet at Scutari, and
are consulted by him. No measure has any chance of
being executed without their consent. Each tribe hasTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 391

its separate internal organisation, which varies consider-
ably in different cases. The chief is often called Baryak-
tar (from the Turkish Bairakdar, " standard-bearer"), and
with the assistance of a Council of elders manages the
ordinary affairs of the tribe, administers justice, and exe-
cutes sentence, the commonest form of punishment being
to confiscate the cattle of the offending party. There is
also a General Assembly, to which every house sends a
delegate. It meets regularly twice a year in spring and
autumn, but must also be specially summoned to consider
questions of general importance, such as the commence-
ment or conclusion of a tribal vendetta.

In the vilayet of Scutari, where the inhabitants are
not irritated by any attempt to bring them under Otto-
man law, things are better than in those districts of
Kossovo and Monastir which are inhabited by Ghegs. In
these provinces the Porte is loth to admit that the
Albanians are entitled to exceptional treatment, and con-
sequently endeavours to subject them to the general regula-
tions respecting military service and the payment of taxes.
The result is chronic discontent and disobedience, with
occasional outbreaks, which are carefully hushed up, but
may be detected by the transference of officials and the
withdrawal of troops. On one occasion two Mutesarrifs
and a Kaimmakam were driven out of their districts by
the inhabitants, and sought refuge in a neighbouring pro-
vincial capital. The Turkish papers, which possess extra-
ordinary powers of euphemism for the description of
disagreeable incidents, said that they were staying with
the Yali on a friendly visit while awaiting promotion. They
shortly received it, and did not go back to Albania.

The same independence appears in matters of religion.
The Albanians have a natural aversion to obedience in the
spiritual as well as in the temporal domain. At the time
of the Turkish conquest they were nominally Christians,392	TURKEY IN EUROPE

though, from the number of Pagan customs which still
survive in their weddings, funerals, and other ceremonies,
it may be surmised that their conversion was only super-
ficial. Subsequently they distinguished themselves by em-
bracing Islam more readily than any other European race.
This change of faith took place principally at two epochs,
firstly, immediately after the conquest, and secondly, in the
seventeenth century, when there occurred a wholesale apos-
tasy due to the fact that there was a good career open
to European Mussulmans at the period. But even in the
present century tribes and villages have changed their
religion for very trivial causes. According to the story,
part of one Christian tribe became Mohammedan because
their priest, who served several villages and visited them
first, insisted on saying Mass at an unreasonably early
hour. On the whole, the Northerners have been more
faithful to Christianity than the Southerners, doubtless
because they were allowed to carry arms. At the present
day the Christians among the Ghegs belong to the Roman,
and among the Tosks to the Orthodox Church, but in the
northern division many Eastern practices are said to be still
observed, such as the Communion of the laity in two kinds.
The Roman Catholic Church in Albania is under the pro-
tection of Austria, and not of France as in other parts of
Turkey.

The outward signs of Islam are few; mosques are rare,
wine is openly drunk, and professing Moslims swear by the
Virgin. Arms make the man, and priests of all religions
are held in small repute, as may be gathered from the
following popular story. When Mohammed went up into
heaven he saw an angel standing with a large drum. In
answer to his questions he was told that whenever any
minister of religion, whether Mollah, Priest, or Rabbi, did
an unselfish act, the angel struck his instrument in order
that all the celestial host might rejoice over the gratifyingTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 393

news. " Most interesting," said the Prophet, " I should like
to wait and see him strike the drum." " Certainly, if you
wish it," replied the courteous guide, " but it's only fair to
tell you that he has been standing there since the creation
of Adam, and has not struck it yet." The majority of
Moslim Albanians belong to the Bektashi dervishes, who, in
spite of the fact that they were officially connected with the
Turkish Government through the Janissaries, are one of the
most unorthodox Mohammedan sects, and are said to teach
in secret, not only pantheism, but also the doctrine that
no moral precepts are binding on the elect.

Trade, manufactures, agriculture, art, and literature are
alike neglected in Albania. There is a certain consumption
of cheap Austrian goods, and the Austrian Lloyd's steamers
touch along the coast; but the ports consist, like Medua,
of a few offices on a desolate shore, and are not connected
with the interior by any serviceable roads. Manufactures
are nil; the women of each household make the clothes
and linen required by the family; the village carpenter and
itinerant gipsy blacksmiths supply most other needs. The
country is bare and uncultivated, except for a few fields and
gardens round each village. The native costumes universally
worn, even by the richer classes, are certainly picturesque,
but otherwise the artistic sense seems lower than among the
Turks—houses, churches, and mosques being alike of a hard,
ungainly simplicity. The villages are small, and the dwell-
ings, with high walls and no windows except in the top
storey, resemble fortresses, which indeed they are.

Native literature is almost non-existent. Translations
of parts of the Bible and a few religious books have been
published, and Albanian newspapers are printed in Italy and
Brussels, but hardly ever reach Albania. An effort has been
made of late years, in connection with Protestant missionary
enterprise, to establish an Albanian school and printing-press
at Koritsa, but owing to the united hostility of Turks and394

TURKEY IN EUROPE

Greeks, both of whom blandly assert that the Albanian lan-
guage does not exist, it has not had the success it deserves.
It is said that a Greek Archbishop, in one of those phrases
which one would wish to have turned otherwise, denounced
the printing-press for disseminating " the New Testament
and other works contrary to the teaching of the Holy and
Orthodox Church/'

Many Albanians who can read and write foreign languages
do not understand their own when they see it printed. This
is perhaps not astonishing, for no one has ever decided in
what alphabet Albanian ought to be written, and at least
four systems are in vogue.1 This is partly the fault of the
Turks, who object to the language being printed or taught
in schools, although it is the universal medium of con-
versation ; but it must be admitted that this suspicion and
intolerance of the Ottoman Government are of recent date,
whereas the sterility of Albanian authors has been chronic
in all ages. Even the popular songs and stories are strangely
meagre and devoid of national colour. There is nothing to
be compared to the national epics of Servia; the exploits
of Scanderbeg are unsung among his forgetful countrymen.
It would appear from the collections published that the
popular stories are mostly versions of well-known Indo-
European fables, and contain little that is characteristic of
the country or the people; while the songs seem to have
been composed chiefly under Moslim influence, and are
modelled upon Persian and Turkish verses. But the bul-

1 One employs the Greek alphabet pure and simple; another, used in
Kristoforides' translation of the Bible, uses both Greek and Roman letters,
with many diacritical marks—e.g. ga$t$-8ite, sixty. Books published at
Bucharest are printed in a fanciful and unsightly variation of the Latin
alphabet, also with some Greek characters. Finally, more than one attempt
has been made to write Albanian in Latin letters. I here follow the system
of M. Dozon (Manuel de la langue Chlcipe), whose grammar I have used.
It is more suited to French than English readers, but I have thought it best
not to alter it. In it ce — u in but, g = sh, tch — ch, dh and th are the Greek
<5 and 6, and the other vowels are pronounced as in French.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 395

bul's notes seem out of tune on the Aeroceraunian mountains,
and in any case the soul of the people is little disposed to
find expression in speech or song.

It is in fact no exaggeration to say that the only occu-
pation of Ghegs in their own country is fighting with one
another. They emigrate with facility, for the ties which
attach them to their families and dwelling-places are but
weak; and those who seek their fortune in other parts of
Turkey easily gain a living by their intelligence which,
though it finds small room for display in their native moun-
tains, is really very great. The upper classes become
officials; the lower have a special predilection for the trades
of mason and cavass. But in the vilayet of Scutari itself,
few follow any calling but that of shepherds.

Two states of social relations are recognised, the one
called Bessa, " peace," or rather " truce/7 and the other Gyak,
or " blood-feud." The sanctity attaching to the former has
gained the Albanians a reputation for trustworthiness which
they do not deserve, for they are a treacherous people; and
their rigid code of honour is due, not to any acute sense of
chivalry, but to the fact that a nation which spends so much
time in quarrelling is obliged, by the instinct of self-preser-
vation, to strictly define the occasions when killing is not
permitted—a close time, so to speak—for otherwise exist-
ence would become impossible. Thus you may not kill a
man in his own house, nor any one with whom you eat salt
(the invariable prelude to an Albanian repast in order to
make sure that the guests will not kill one another or the
host), nor a man who is escorting a woman, though there is
no objection to one woman killing another or a man if she
can. Nearly all the tribes have historic vendettas which
are rarely extinguished, and new feuds continually arise
over the most trivial incidents. When whole clans take
part in a feud, it is generally arranged that fighting shall
be restricted to a particular time near evening. The shep-396	TURKEY IN EUROPE

herds pasture their flocks during the day, knowing that they
will not be touched by the enemy, and towards sunset the
fray begins. If it is necessary to go to town for market or
other reasons, a suspension of hostilities is arranged for a
few days, and then the feud begins again.

As some counterpoise to all this fighting and killing
may be mentioned the custom of fraternal friendships, by
which two young men vow to assist and defend one another
through their whole life. These unions are regarded as
peculiarly sacred and as creating relationships so intimate
that the children of the two parties may not marry. It is
said that among the Mirdites the two friends first receive
the communion together and then drink wine in which is
mixed a small quantity of the blood of each. There is a
story that two such friends once fell in love with the same
Turkish woman. They discovered their rival ambitions and
agreed to end the difficulty by simultaneously plunging
their daggers in the lady's heart. Their action has
popular approval, but the Turkish woman must have had
her own views, if she had time to form any, about Christian
brotherhood.

The Mirdites are much more numerous than the other
tribes, being, according to some authorities, more than
30,000 in number. They form a small independent State,
the capital of which is Oroshi, the residence of the princely
family. This family is said to be descended from a warrior
called D2on Marku, who lived some two hundred years ago,
but in recent times it has been chiefly associated with the
names of Prenk and Doda. The first of these is said to be
merely the Albanian equivalent of Peter, but it is tempting
to connect it with Princeps, and it appears to have become
in practice a royal designation. Most of the Ghegs wear a
peculiar kind of red baggy trousers embroidered with black
braid, but the Mirdites are distinguished by dressing chiefly
in white. Their costume consists of a long white woollenTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 397

coat, tied round the waist with a red girdle, and white
trousers fastened tightly round the ankles. They wear white
felt caps and shave their heads, except at the back where
the hair is allowed to grow long. They are all Catholics
and their peculiar marriage customs involve them in con-
tinual quarrels with their Mohammedan neighbours. Every
man who aspires to win popular respect endeavours to carry
off a Moslim damsel. The lady is probably willing enough
herself, but the proceeding generally involves an exchange
of shots with her male relatives. Mirdite women mostly
marry Christians of other tribes. As long as they are
unmarried they are kept in great seclusion and may not
speak to or be spoken to by any man out of their imme-
diate family circle. Should any one so far forget himself as
to pay a compliment to a Mirdite belle either he or she
must be shot—a rule which affable strangers will do well
to remember.

The Southern Albanians differ from the Northerners in
many important respects. Their generic name is Tosk,
which has often been conjectured to be the same as Tuscan,
though no one has ever explained what the connection may
be. The natives of the country round Janina and Prevesa
are knows as Chams, and those of the district round Premeti
as Liaps. They can be at once distinguished by their cos-
tume, the fustanella, a voluminous white petticoat reaching
to the knees and similar to that worn by a ballet-dancer.
This dress certainly looks somewhat strange when worn by
stout and stalwart men, but its effeminate appearance is
somewhat lessened by the custom which prescribes that it
must always be soiled and dusty, "clean petticoat" being a
term of reproach implying sloth and cowardice. The fusta-
nella, though never worn by the Ghegs, is not peculiar to the
Tosks, being in general use in Greece, even in the Morea, and
also among the rural Turks in the Valley of the Vistritza.

The Tosks are nominally subject to the ordinary Otto-398	TURKEY IN EUROPE

man regulations for conscription and taxation, and, unlike
the Ghegs, have no tribes, but a system of territorial magnates
called Beys, who were formerly the recognised and are still
the practical rulers of their districts, except in the vicinity
of large towns. As a rule a Bey who is the head of his
family is not in the Government service, but some near rela-
tion holds the office of Kaimmakam or Mudir and keeps up
communications with the authorities. The higher adminis-
trative posts are filled by Turks, but some of the principal
natives have received the title of Pasha from the Sultan. The
Tosks are milder and more civilised than the Ghegs. They
have fewer blood-feuds, and these are mostly of a private
character between individuals or families and do not involve
whole tribes and districts. The Chams and Liaps have,
however, a bad reputation, and are said to have done a
good deal of pillaging during and after the last Turco-
Greek war.

Southern Albania, though wild enough according to our
standards, is far more fertile than the North. The bare,
inhospitable mountains, that seem made of cast-iron, are
replaced by ranges covered with oak forests, and many of
the Beys have extensive estates where agriculture is prac-
tised on a large scale. Their houses, though not coming up
to European ideas of a nobleman's country-seat, are veritable
palaces compared with the simple dwellings of Gheg chief-
tains, and the hospitality which they dispense is princely.

I once visited a prominent Bey in Southern Albania. A
mile or two from his house I was met by a party of horse-
men bearing salutations and a roast goose, the latter as a
sort of snack, for Albanian etiquette requires that a guest
should be treated as if he had the appetite of Gargantua.
The house was a veritable castle, built in the style of a
Turkish honak, but larger and more solid, and filled with
a bustling crowd of retainers in the fustanella, not one of
whom ran any danger of incurring the reproach " cleanTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 399

petticoat." My host was a man about fifty, who wore a
somewhat modified form of the national costume, and was
accompanied by his son, dressed rather incongruously in a
frock-coat. Conversation respecting his lands and cattle
was varied with frequent offers of raki and hors d'oeuvres,
and at last an enormous dinner was served. This proved a
somewhat embarrassing ceremony. I had to sit down alone ;
the retainers stood round the room or ran about bearing
dishes. The Bey, with a towel thrown over his arm, insisted
on waiting on me despite all protest, and plied me with
monstrous mountains of viands, which he sometimes put
into my mouth with his fingers, until this solitary banquet
seemed to partake of the character of a surgical operation.
My distended feelings were somewhat relieved by the arrival
of the Beys father. It appears that in this part of Albania
a man of middle age generally performs the functions of
head of the family, and the seniors only appear on occasions
of ceremony and preserve their reputation for wisdom by
never doing anything but give good advice. The deep
respect of the Bey for his parent caused him to desist from
stuffing me, and he stood motionless with his hands clasped
over his stomach, an attitude which I might have adopted
with much more propriety. The father was dressed in a
Turkish uniform, and was styled Pasha, which title the Porte
had given him in the hope of " conciliating local suscepti-
bilities," a piece of diplomacy attended by very moderate suc-
cess. The Pasha talked much and well. Albanians, despite
their many peculiarities, are distinctly Europeans, and not
Asiatics. Those of them who have held high office have an
insight into politics, of which they can make no practical use
in their own country, but which is theoretically far more
advanced than any Turkish views.

Whenever I have been in Albania it has always been
the marrying season. It would appear that all marriages
are crammed into a few weeks, with which my visits have4oo	TURKEY IN EUROPE

coincided, and that except during these periods Albanians
are exempt from those temptations which beset the ordi-
nary European male at all times. Etiquette requires
bridegrooms to pay a visit to the principal persons of the
neighbourhood, and on this evening three arrived. It is
not thought right that they should say anything on such
occasions, and after sitting speechless, with heads bowed
down under the weight of imminent matrimony, they
departed as they had come with silent salutations.

Next morning one felt something was going to happen.
There was an air of preparation and mystery throughout the
household; doors were shut and guarded as if to screen
some solemn spectacle from the profane gaze. Finally, I
was told that the grandfather of the Bey had come to see
me, and desired my presence. The apparition of the father
had been somewhat of a surprise, but the existence of this
older generation was almost supernatural. I was bidden to
an inner room, where there sat on a divan the oldest and
largest man I have ever seen. The mystery which had
attended his entry was explained; doubtless some strange
mechanical appliance was necessary to get him through the
door, for he certainly could not have walked through it.
His turban was as a coachman's umbrella, and his white
moustaches like a mammoth's tusks. He was dressed in cloth
of gold and silk sashes, and profusely ornamented with re-
volvers and yataghans. His face and eyes seemed to be made
of horn, and incapable of expressing any feeling but dignity
and the embers of ferocity. Before him stood in a humble
line, with folded hands, three generations of descendants and
a row of dependents, and I was requested to seat myself by
this living mountain. Conversation with the patriarch was
not sparkling or frivolous ; it consisted of deliberate compli-
ments divided by two minutes of deep reflection. Only for
a moment did he show any human interest; it was when
he inquired, with a passing flash in his horny eyes, whetherTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 401

it was true that in a certain place the Turkish tax-collectors
had been repulsed with considerable loss.

The whole of the Tosk country has been strongly influ-
enced by Greece, or rather it would be difficult to say
whether Epirus is Greek or North-Western Greece Albanian.
Though the southern dialect of Albanian is used for conver-
sation, Greek is universally understood, and since the time
of Ali Pasha of Janina, who made it the official language,
is almost exclusively employed in written communications.
On the rare occasions when Albanian is written, Greek char-
acters are generally employed. Such of the Tosks as are
Christians belong to the Orthodox and not to the Catholic
Church, but the great majority are Mohammedans; for in
most places those who wished to retain their ancient faith
after the Turkish conquest found it impossible to compete
with their apostate brethren, and followed their example in
order to obtain such privileges as the right to bear arms.
A characteristic instance is the story of the Karamurtads,
or inhabitants of thirty-six villages near Pogoniani, which
was related to me by a Bey. Till about a hundred years
ago these people were Christians, but finding themselves
unable to repel the continual attacks of the neighbouring
Moslim population of Leskoviki, they met in a church,
solemnly swore that they would fast until Easter, and in-
voked all the saints to work within that period some miracle
which would better their miserable lot. If this reasonable
request were not granted they would all turn Mohammedan.
Easter Day came, but no sign from saint or angel, and the
whole population embraced Islam. Soon afterwards they
obtained the arms which they required, and had the satis-
faction of massacring their old opponents of Leskoviki and
taking possession of their lands.

It is not surprising to find there is no history of Albania,
for there is no union between the North and the South,
or between the different northern tribes and the different

2 c402	TURKEY IN EUROPE

southern Beys. Only two names emerge from the confusion
of justly unrecorded tribal quarrels, and claim somewhat
doubtfully a place in European history—those of Scander-
beg and Ali Pasha of Janina. I have related elsewhere1
the career of the former in outline. He was apparently a
brave man and a capable general, but he did not succeed in
uniting his nation or in creating any sort of State which
could maintain an opposition to the Turks. After his death,
though the Northern Albanians continually and successfully
resisted the practical assertion of Ottoman rule, they also
continually embraced Islam, and furnished the Turks with
officials and soldiers. In the South the connection between
the Turks and the Albanians was more intimate during the
eighteenth century. They were the enemies of the Greeks,
and the Porte, fearing the Greek Klephts and Armatoles,
appointed Albanians to the offices of Dervendji Pasha, or
superintendent of the mountain passes, who was charged
with the supervision of Epirus, Acarnania, Northern Thessaly,
and Southern Macedonia.

Ali Pasha came from the stock of these Southern
Albanians,2 and illustrated in his career most of their pecu-
liarities. They desired to be the lords of the Greeks and
independent of the Turks. But the two ambitions were
incompatible, and neither the Albanian people nor Ali gained
any more solid advantage than the pleasures incidental to a
life of successful adventure. Ali was the son of the Bey of
Tepeleni, a small town situated to the north of Janina. His
father died when he was very young, and, if the legends are
true (which is by no means certain), he was educated by
his mother Khamko, a lady of great family, and equally
remarkable for her pride, vigour, and ferocity. Sword in
hand, she led her retainers into battle, and protected her

1	Page 48.

2	He sometimes claimed to be a Turk of an Asiatic family, but it appears
that this was not true, and merely a way of flattering the Ottomans.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 403

son's possessions, which were attacked by the people of Gar-
diki, the hereditary enemies of the family. On one occasion,
however, she and her daughter were captured by her foes
and subjected to great indignity, on which the two women
swore they would never rest until they had slain every man
in Gardiki. Ali's first appearances in the field were not
creditable, and it is said that his angry mother gave him a
distaff, saying he could use it better than a sword. Ulti-
mately, says the story, he discovered a secret treasure, raised
with it an army of mercenaries and routed his foes. As
soon as he entered his ancestral possessions in triumph, he
murdered his brother, and then imprisoned his mother on
the charge of having committed the crime. She died shortly
afterwards. But though Ali can hardly be described as a
dutiful son, he remembered and executed her sterner wishes.
Many years later he sacked Gardiki, and put the whole
male population to death, in revenge for the insults which
their fathers had offered to his mother and sister forty years
before.

Once securely established in his family estate, Ali de-
voted himself to the achievement of his design of becoming
an independent prince. He won the good graces of the
Porte by helping to subdue the Pasha of Scutari, who was
in rebellion, and was made assistant to the Dervendji Pasha.
In this post he at first combined with the Klephts against
the Ottoman authorities, but was soon deposed by the latter.
Seeing that he had made a false move, and that it was of
capital importance to conciliate the Porte, he won his way
back to favour by heavy bribes and efficient military assist-
ance. He was made Pasha of Trikala, in Thessaly, and
added to it the Pashalik of Janina, which he is said to have
seized by means of a forged firman. That such a proceed-
ing was possible, and that the Porte ultimately sanctioned
it, throws a remarkable light on the provincial government
of the period. His position now enabled him to handle laTURKEY IN EUROPE

haute politique ; and at the beginning of the nineteenth cen-
tury he showed considerable skill in negotiating alliances
alternately with Napoleon and the English, by which he
obtained Preveza and Parga. His conquest of Suli is more
celebrated. The Suliots have somehow acquired in popular
estimation the reputation of being Greeks. As a matter of
fact they were a tribe of Christian Albanians forming a
small independent State somewhat analogous to that of the
Mirdites in the North. They inhabited a wild cluster of
mountains near Arta, intersected by black precipitous gorges,
through one of which flows Acheron, the River of Hell. Ali
desired to incorporate this little community in his dominions,
and, after a prolonged, determined, and bloody war, suc-
ceeded in doing so. The conquest of Suli was due mainly
to the treachery of a portion of its inhabitants, but the fall
was attended by romantic and heroic incidents. Women
took part in the fighting, and threw themselves from preci-
pices rather than be taken captive; and a priest named
Samuel, who had inflamed the religious fanaticism of the
Suliots, blew up himself and his adherents by setting light
to a powder magazine.

The surviving Suliots fled to the Ionian Islands, but
seventeen years later, in 1820, when Ali had been declared
a rebel, the Turks brought them back as likely to be the
worst enemies of the formidable Pasha. But the Suliots
and Turks could not get on together or fight side by side;
there was less difference between them and the old tyrant
than might have been supposed, and they ultimately made
common cause with him and the Greeks. They formed
themselves into an organised military community, and cut
a prominent figure on the Greek side in the contest against
the Turks.

By the acquisition of Preveza, Parga, and Suli, Ali had
created for himself a Principality of considerable size and
practically independent. Within it he maintained goodTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 405

order by a somewhat strict system of discipline, constructed
roads and encouraged trade, but his abominable and osten-
tatious cruelty (we are told that one way of flattering him
was to remind him of the elaborate tortures which he had
inflicted) detracts considerably from any praise which we
may award to his administration. His attitude towards
the Greeks varied at different periods of his career. As
long as he was building up his power he entertained the
most friendly relations with them, but when he felt himself
secure he endeavoured to exterminate the Armatoles by a
process of gradual and systematic assassination. Fate, how-
ever, caused him to enter again into alliance with them and
appear in his last days as the champion of Greek indepen-
dence and the enemy of the Turks.

His success and audacity had long attracted the un-
friendly attention of the Porte, and in 1820 Sultan Mahmud
resolved to crush him. He was deposed from his office,
and ordered to hand his Pashalik over to the nominee of
the Sultan. Having no hope left with the Turks, Ali
openly espoused the cause of the Greeks. He summoned
an assembly of Greeks and Albanians, and addressed to
them a discourse in which he represented himself as the
champion of liberty and religious toleration against the
Porte, and promised a Constitution to the Christians. His
words did not inspire confidence or produce any immediate
practical result, and, had he lived longer, the weakness of
the ties that connected him with the Greeks would no doubt
have become apparent. But his example showed that it
was possible to carve an independent Principality out of
the dominions of the Porte and to oppose an armed resist-
ance to the Sultan, and thus produced a profound effect on
the temper of the Greeks.

When Ali refused to resign his position at the Sultan's
order, an army was sent against him, under the command
of Hurshid Pasha, who succeeded in forcing him to take4O6	TURKEY IN EUROPE

refuge with a few followers in the citadel of Janina, where
he was closely besieged, but having established himself and
his treasures on the top of a powder magazine, threat-
ened to blow the citadel up if he were attacked. Hurshid
replied that if Ali did not surrender he would come himself
and apply the match, thus destroying the romance but
leaving all the inconvenience of an explosive death. At
last Ali agreed to retire under safe conduct to a small
island on the Lake of Janina and there to await the return
of a messenger sent to Constantinople to bring the Sultan's
orders. But no new orders were necessary. On that island
he was killed, for though one of the most perfidious people
in the world, he seems to have forgotten that the Turks
might beat him at his own game. According to the story
still current at Janina the Turkish troops killed him by
firing through the floor of the room in which he slept.
According to another version more widely spread he was
visited by his friend Mohammed Pasha, Governor of the
Morea, who, as they were parting with profound bows on
the termination of an exceptionally amiable interview, sud-
denly drew a yataghan and drove it into his heart. At any
rate, in February 1822, his head, with those of his three
sons and his grandson, was despatched to Constantinople and
exhibited in the outer court of the Sarai, as seen and described
by the Rev. R. Walsh, chaplain of the British Embassy.1

Ali no doubt aided the cause of Hellenic independence,
but his memory and that of those like him has left a lurid
trace in popular speech. Most Eastern nations commonly
employ some such phrase as " God is not without mercy,"
which means, " Cheer up; things may take a turn for the
better." One Greek equivalent for this is, " Don't despair.
God is not an Albanian." (O 0eo9 Sev elvai Apdavlrrj^).

The chief abiding consequence of Ali Pashas career was
that it inspired the Porte with a distrust of the Albanians.

1 Narrative of a Journey from Constantinople to England.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 407

After the Greek War of Independence four powerful
chiefs—Mustafa, the last hereditary Pasha of Scutari, Yeli
Bey of Janina, Silehdar Poda, and Arslan Bey—agreed to
forget their private differences and to make common cause
against the Turks. Reshid Pasha, the Grand Yizier, deter-
mined to crush this movement, and commenced by an act
of which one can only say that it was worthy of Ali Pasha
himself. He proclaimed a general amnesty and invited all
the Albanian Beys to a peaceful conference and a grand
banquet to be held at Monastir. About five hundred ap-
peared headed by Yeli and Arslan, and were received with
every attention. When they repaired in gala costumes to
the parade ground, where the banquet was to be held, they
were suddenly surrounded by Ottoman troops and killed to
a man. Though Arslan succeeded in breaking through the
Turkish lines, he was pursued and slain a few miles outside
the town. After this massacre it only remained to crush
Silehdar in the South and Mustafa Pasha in the North.
The former, who had made himself master of Janina, was
easily disposed of, and all Epirus was brought into subjec-
tion. Mustafa Pasha was less easy to deal with, and was
conquered only thanks to the inveterate hostility of the
Christian races to the Albanians. After being severely
defeated in Perlepe, he was besieged in Scutari and com-
pelled to surrender. After this the Porte abolished the
hereditary Pashalik and appointed Turkish Pashas to the
office.

Since this period there are few political events to be
recorded of the Albanian people. About the year 1880
was formed what was called the Albanian League, an asso-
ciation of chiefs which was supposed to aim at the union
and independence of Albania. I have often heard it said
that originally this league was not anti-Turkish, but was in
its earlier stages encouraged by the Ottoman authorities, in
order to impress the Powers as a national protest against4o8	TURKEY IN EUROPE

tlie cession of Dulcigno to Montenegro. Subsequently, how-
ever, the Turks became alarmed, broke up the league, and
banished some of its most prominent members, including
the Mirdite chief, Pip Prink Doda.

At the present day the Porte seems to be nervous and ap-
prehensive about the condition of Albania, but unwilling to
take any decided action. In one sense the Albanians are no
doubt disaffected ; they dislike the Turks, and resent any in-
terference with their own customs, which are mostly incom-
patible with a decent administration, even in the Turkish sense.
But in estimating the practical dangers which may arise from
such a temper we must remember the national incapacity for
union. Albania presents nothing but oppositions—North
against South, tribe against tribe, Bey against Bey. Even
family ties seem to be somewhat weak, for since European
influence has diminished the African slave-trade, Albanians
have taken to selling their female children to supply the
want of negroes. Had they ever been ready to combine
against the Turks, there seems to be no reason why they
should not have preserved the same kind of independence
as Montenegro; but from the first some of the tribes and
clans endeavoured to secure an advantage over the others
by siding with the invaders. Indeed, their present quasi-
independent position is less the result of their own valour
than of Turkish policy. In many ways they are in Europe
what the Kurds are in Asia. Both are wild and lawless
tribes who inflict much damage on decent Turks and
Christians alike. Both might be easily brought to reason
by the exhibition of a little firmness. But as it becomes
clearer and clearer that the Ottoman Empire is a battle
ground between Islam and Christianity, and that the Chris-
tian races will detach themselves whenever they can, the
authorities become more and more unwilling to take any
action against Moslims. The Porte shows an extreme delicacy
and timidity in dealing with Albanians, Kurds, and Arabs,THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 409

feeling apparently that any quarrel with their subjects
would be a scandal and endanger the sacred character of
the Sultan as the head of all Islam, which has been put
forward so prominently of late years. The least symptom
of Moslim discontent paralyses the Central Government.
It is not perhaps wonderful that brigandage should be
tolerated when Christians are the principal sufferers; but
it is somewhat remarkable that the Turks should allow
their officials to be expelled and their troops prevented from
making roads by a disorderly population, who might easily
be kept in order by a firm hand.

Politically, Albania is hardly a danger for Turkey, for
Albanian patriotism is not a home product. Papers and
books on the national movement are written at Bucharest,
Brussels, and various Italian towns, but they are not read
at Scutari or Janina. The stock grievance of this literature
is that the Turks will not allow Albanian to be taught in
the schools, and endeavour to ignore the existence of the
language; but, though the complaint is well founded, I
doubt if the mass of the people have much feeling on the
subject. The Albanians are always ready to fight for any
cause or no cause. They might be a source of great weak-
ness to the Turks in time of disaster, though even this
must be qualified by the consideration that many of them
have always been willing to fight on the Turkish side; but
they show no sign of combining and detaching themselves
from the Turkish Empire as an independent State like
Greece, Roumania, Servia, and Bulgaria.

Scattered over Macedonia is found yet another race of
great interest and some importance—the Ylachs or Wallachs.
They remind one of those ingenious pictures in which an
animal or a human face is concealed so as not to be obvious
on first inspection, though when once seen it appears to be
the principal feature of the drawing. In the same way, oneTURKEY IN EUROPE

may live and travel in the Balkan lands without seeing or
hearing anything of the Vlachs, until one's eyes are opened.
Then one runs the risk of going to the opposite extreme,
and thinking, like Roumanian patriots, that most of the in-
habitants of Macedonia are Vlachs in disguise. There are
many reasons for this curiously inconspicuous character of
the Vlachs. They still retain the old habit which Servians
and Bulgarians have outgrown of calling themselves Greeks.
They have no political organisation or Church of their own;
and though they have their own language, they are nearly
all bilingual, and do not obtrude their peculiar tongue on
strangers. Their villages are nearly always placed in the
highest and least visible spots, the favourite position (natu-
rally somewhat rare) being a hole on the top of a hill. This
custom no doubt originated in the time of the barbarian
invasions, when the plains were overrun with Slavs, Bulgars,
and Avars, but it has been maintained on account of its
obvious advantage as a means of eluding the Turkish tax-
collector. Snow or mud renders such villages inaccessible
in winter, and in summer they are almost uninhabited, at
least, by men. Every Vlach has a natural love of wander-
ing about in the open air in charge of animals. Many are
shepherds; but perhaps the most characteristic of their
trades is that of Kiraji, or an owner of horses and mules,
who either lets them out to travellers or wanders through
the country himself as a travelling merchant or peddler on
a large scale. In the summer months one can hardly travel
anywhere between the Danube and the Pindus without
meeting long strings of pack-horses winding up the moun-
tain passes or plodding across the dusty plain, conducted
by roughly-dressed, handsome men, whose bright eyes and
unusually intelligent faces make one wonder why they do
not play a more conspicuous part in the Eastern world.
But it seems as if they had little desire to do so.

The headquarters of the Vlachs are in the Pindus range,THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 411

which traverses Northern Greece and Southern Macedonia.
The town of Metsovo, on the road between Trikkala and
Janina, whose streets are staircases cut in the rock, and the
houses limpets that adhere to the mountain sides, is in
some sense a national capital. More sporadic settlements
occur to the North, notably round Berat and Koritsa in
Turkey, and in Bulgaria, on the upper waters of the Ister,
and north of Yratza. People called Roumanians or Wal-
lachians, also inhabit the Danubian Principalities, and form
a considerable part of the population of Northern Servia,
east of the Morava, of Transylvania, Bukowina, and Bessa-
rabia. It is said that there are also Vlachs in Dalmatia
and Istria. These various populations do not form a
political, nor, as far as I can judge, a physical unit. But
they do form a linguistic unit, and most of them practise
certain birth and marriage ceremonies (e.g. the anoint-
ing of the door-posts by a bride) which seem to be derived
from a common Roman origin. The languages spoken by
the Ylachs of Macedonia and by the Roumanians north of
the Danube are not quite identical, but both are dialects of
one form of a Romance or modern Latin language. Those
who are accustomed to the Western descendants of Latin
—Italian, French, Spanish, &c.—find this Eastern tongue
odd and barbaric, but its derivation from Latin is as clear
as its strange appearance.1 Roumanian- and Macedonian-
Ylach agree in phonetic peculiarities, which produce such
forms as opt, noapte (nopte) for octo and nox, popor
for populus, limba for lingua, in the general system of
declension and conjugation, and in such remarkable uses
as the preposition a (instead of de) to represent 0/, and
numerical expressions like patru spredece (<quattuor supra
decern) for fourteen. The differences between them lie
mainly in the vocabulary. In addition to the common

1 It is often more strikingly like Latin than any Western language : e.g.
mult, much ; suntu, they are.412	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Latin element, Roumanian contains a quantity of Slav
words which do not appear in Vlach, and Vlach con-
tains a quantity of Greek words which are unknown in
Roumanian.1 Also there are some minor differences in the
conjugation, particularly in the compound tenses, and Ylach
has some phonetic peculiarities, the most remarkable of which
is the change of / into h before i: e.g. hilliu, son; hievra,
fever, hiuy hii) himo, hiba, forms derived from the Latin fio,
which appear in Roumanian as fiut fi9 fimu, fia.2 But the
substantial identity of the languages is indisputable, and
the problem before us is to explain how the same dialect
or variation of Latin is found in the plains of the Danube,
in the Carpathians, and in the mountains of Macedonia and
Thessaly. There appears to be absolutely no record of
any invasions or immigrations from Roumania southwards
which would explain the presence of the Southern Vlachs.
Had any of the numerous hordes who poured into Mace-
donia and Thessaly spoken Latin we should certainly have
heard of it, and it is therefore necessary to suppose that the
Latin element was previous to the Slavs. In the fifth and
sixth centuries Latin was no doubt the language of the
people in the Balkan Peninsula and in the provinces north
of the Danube. Greek, it is true, was establishing more
and more firmly its position as the language of government,
trade, literature, and religion, but it was essentially a coast
language, and was not spoken by the inland peasantry.
There is not, I believe, any direct evidence as to the extent
to which Latin was spoken north of the Danube from
a.d. 400-600, but as for the south, an oft-quoted anec-

1	Thus, in a Vlach fable with a Roumanian translation (Obedenaru : Texte
Macedo-Romane. Bucure, 1891), occur the words : arisesce ( = api<TK€l), pleases ;
ora ( = Copa), time; alihia ( = a\if)d€ia), truth; tora ( = rwpa), now; apofasi§i
( = <x7r6</>cL(ris), resolved ; etia ( = atria), cause, which are all otherwise rendered
in the Danubian version of the same fable, where, however, occur the Slar
words : tovaras, companion; glasu, voice; vreme, time ; rob, slave ; pricing
cause, which appear to be unknown in Vlach.

2	Vide Note ii. on the Vlach language, p. 421.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 413

dote1 represents one Macedonian muleteer saying to another,
in a.d. 587 : Torna, torna, fratre, "Turn, turn, brother." The
people who spoke this Latin language belonged no doubt
to different stocks. Both north and south of the Danube,
the Roman legionaries and the Roman colonists must
have left a good deal of Italian blood behind them, and
the Greek influence cannot have been exclusively intel-
lectual, but in all cases the main constituent of the race
must have been the aboriginal local population. It is
therefore probably correct to identify the Vlachs of Thes-
saly, Macedonia, and Bulgaria with the ancient Thracians,
in the same way as the Albanians are identified with the
Illyrians, but in neither case does the identification add
much to our knowledge. This Latin-speaking population
was, during several centuries, invaded and harassed by
hordes, of whom the Slavs were, at any rate linguistically,
the most important. North of the Danube Latin held its
own as the dominant language, though it accepted a large
percentage of Slavonic words into its vocabulary. Probably
the Italian element in the population was stronger there,
and perhaps the continued presence of Bulgarians who had
not lost their original speech, and of such tribes as Avars,
Kumans, and Pechenegs weakened the influence of Slavonic.
South of the Danube Slavonic drove all other popular
forms of speech out of the plains; but Albanian and Latin
held their own in the mountains, whither those who spoke
them retired, impelled no doubt, not only by the necessity of
finding natural fortifications, but by an instinctive liking for
high places. The largest mountain settlement of these Latin
speakers was in the Pindus and Agrapha mountains, which
explains the considerable Greek element in their language.

1 During the campaign of Comentiolus against the Avars in 587, the
baggage fell from a mule. The muleteers behind, not wishing to be stopped
while the animal was reloaded, called out to the man who was leading it,
" Turn back, brother." The words were misunderstood as an exhortation to
retreat before an advancing enemy, and a panic ensued.4i4	TURKEY IN EUROPE

The name Ylach or Wallach seems to be the same
as Wloch, the Polish word for Italian, and to have been
originally applied by the Slavs to people of Latin speech,
just as they called people of Germanic speech Nemtsi.
The Ylachs style themselves Armani,1 a variation of Rom&ni
or Romans. They are sometimes called Kutzo-Vlachs
(Lame Ylachs) or Tzintzars. The latter name appears to
be due to an attempt to imitate their language, in which
the sound of ts is very frequent. There are also found
in Thessaly, particularly in the district of Sofiades, near
Trikkala, people called Karaguns (" black furs "), w-ho have
the appearance and dress of Ylachs, and follow the same
trades, but speak Greek. One also hears of Albano-Ylachs,
which apparently means Ylachs who live among Albanians
and speak their language, but I am not sure that it denotes
any definite tribe or body of people.

The Ylachs have even less history than the Albanians.
In critically estimating the value of statements made about
them, one must remember that the old chroniclers and, to
a certain extent, modern authorities have a tendency to
use the name, not in a national or linguistic sense, but as
signifying simply " shepherd." Whatever political import-
ance they may have had seems to have been greatest in the
eleventh and twelfth centuries. Thessaly was then known
as Great Wallachia (McyaA?; BXa^e/a), and the Jewish
traveller, Benjamin of Tudela, who passed through the
district about a.d. i i 60, describes the prosperity and
magnificence of the Vlach towns. The founders of the
Ylacho-Bulgarian Empire2 were apparently Ylachs, and, if
the revolt which led to the establishment of that Empire
was caused by an attempt of the Byzantine Court to impose
extra taxes on cattle, we may very well believe that the

1	d in Roumanian is pronounced almost like the Russian and Polish y in
such words as mylo, soap.

2	Vide p. 33.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 415

first impulse came from Vlach herdsmen. But if so, they
contributed nothing but the first impetus; the Empire of
the Asenids shows no traces of Vlach influence in its
institutions or language, and the Latin conquerors of Con-
stantinople do not seem to have had any sympathy for
this Latin-speaking population of the East or to have been
even conscious of its existence. After this period we hear
no more of the Ylachs as a political power until very
recent years. They did not even fight among themselves
like the Albanians, but tended their beasts, made money,
and called themselves Greeks.

When Macedonia became the battlefield of nationalist
Propagandas, when Greeks were proved to be really Bul-
garians, Bulgarians really Servians, and everybody some-
thing different from the name he bore, it was only natural
that the Vlach element should be brought into prominence,
and a theory started that most people in Macedonia were,
with or without knowing it, really Vlachs, and this theory
naturally found favour in Roumania. Vlach schools were
established in Monastir and elsewhere, and an agitation
was commenced for the appointment of a Vlach bishop,
under the leadership of a certain Apostol Margaritti, who
laboured hard and with fair success to weaken Greek influence
and win the favour of the Turks. The weakness of this
Propaganda was on the ecclesiastical side. The Orthodox
Church had always been unwilling to admit that the
spoken language of a district ought to be its ecclesiastical
language; that because a province was peopled by Bul-
garians it ought to have a Bulgarian bishop and a Bulgarian
liturgy. But the case of the Vlachs was worse. It was
impossible to find a single Episcopal See in which the
majority were Vlach-speaking, and a Vlach bishop could be
provided with a flock only by uniting the folds scattered
through various dioceses. Neither the Patriarch nor the
Exarch, who were both sounded, felt able to sanction such4i6	TURKEY IN EUROPE

an arrangement, or to consecrate such a bishop. The
strength of the movement came from the Porte itself.
When Greece and the Slavonic States on the borders of
Turkey proved that the population across the frontier was
Greek or Slav, the Turks did not much like the science
of ethnography, and thought it was only a disguised form
of annexation. But when the Roumanians proved that the
Pindus was inhabited by Roumanians, this seemed a harm-
less scientific theory, none the worse for being unpalatable
to Greeks and Slavs. Roumania could never become
conterminous with the Pindus or hope to add it to her
territory. Accordingly, a recognition that the inhabitants
of that mountain, and of other regions, were neither Greeks
nor Slavs was a very convenient answer to many argu-
ments based on the needs of the majority of the Christian
population. Besides, the Ylachs and Turks got on together
admirably. When the tax-collector called, the inhabitants
of the villages were never at home, and this simple arrange-
ment was accepted by both parties. For some reason or
other—perhaps a natural disinclination to martyrdom in
any cause—the Ylachs have never aroused the love of
" atrocities" latent in the breast of the Turkish soldier.
After the Greco-Turkish war the Vlachs of Thessaly
petitioned the Powers that they might be placed under the
Ottoman, and not under the Greek Government. This
petition was perhaps not quite unsolicited, but it was also
not quite insincere, for the Ylachs are certainly a proof
that Christians who have no political aims or ambitions can
be happy and quiet under Turkish rule.

In spite of all the pains that have been spent on Ylach
educational movements, Vlach literature is even more scanty
than Albanian. There are, however, a number of popular
songs and fairy stories which show considerable force
and descriptive power. The supernatural personages in
these legends are generally called fairies (dini, from theTHE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 417

Turkish Jin); but the incidents often recall those of classi-
cal mythology, a resemblance which may be due to Greek
influence quite as much as to the Roman origin of the
Vlach language. Thus, in the story of Perpillita, we find
the three Fates {Mire, that is, Molpai); a hunter who, as a
punishment for watching fairies bathe, is turned into a stag
and nearly killed by his own dogs, reminds us of Actseon;
and a flying horse,1 of Pegasus. A lady is rescued from a
demon on condition that her lover does not look back at
her, and, in fables, the human race learns wisdom, for the
Ylach hero did not commit the fault of Orpheus, and was
properly married by the rites of the Orthodox Church.

Remarkable in another way is the ballad of the " Bridge
of Arta."2 The king of the country summoned three Ylach
brothers, who were masons, and bade them build a bridge
across the river, on condition that, if they could not com-
plete it in seven years, their lives should be forfeited. Six
years did they toil, but every night the river destroyed the
work of the day. In the seventh year a bird told the
eldest brother to bury the wife of the youngest alive in the
foundations. He accordingly privately told her to bring
dinner to them at the bridge, and then suggested to his
brothers that they should bury one of their wives according
to the bird's advice, and choose the one who should happen to
bring them dinner. There is something treacherous in the
whole story, for when the woman comes with the dinner,
and inquires why her husband is crying, he says he has
dropped his ring in a pit, and asks her to descend and
recover it. As soon as she has entered the pit the brothers
wall her up, in spite of her prayer that an opening may be
left sufficient to let her suckle her child.

1	The horse is called Ballia. This is perhaps from the Slavonic Bel,
white, but one cannot help thinking of Xanthos and Balios, the horses of
Achilles.

2	The ballad also exists in an Albanian version, in which the bridge is
called the Bridge of Scutari.

2 D4i 8	TURKEY IN EUROPE

It does not look as if the Ylachs would ever be an
important political factor in the East, except in as far as
they tend to support the Ottoman Empire. They have
shown an admirable fidelity to the Orthodox faith, and have
never, I believe, become Mohammedans or even Catholics.
But beyond this they show little zeal; it is their friends
rather than themselves who desire to create a Ylach
Millet and a Ylach Church; and though, in a way, they
are proud of their race, that unobtrusiveness which is their
most marked quality prevents them from making any
display of a national movement. Yet they must not be
considered as simply shepherds and peasants. Many of
them are bankers and men of substance in whom the
inherent love of wandering takes the form of business
journeys to other countries; and the towns which they
inhabit, though deserted for so much of the year, are
generally much better built than those of the Slavs and
Greeks. A similar liking for massive, unbreakable objects
is shown in the dress of the women, who delight in wearing
heavy tiaras and ornaments of coarse silver. Perhaps with
the Roman language they aequired a taste for solid archi-
tecture, which is singularly absent in the Levant. The
Turk, who regards all buildings as temporary shelters, never
troubles how they are constructed; and his Christian sub-
jects, who have better traditions, are afraid to erect any-
thing sufficiently imposing to attract attention. But the
Ylachs have a genius for well-built stone houses, pro-
vided with comfortable, quasi-European furniture; and I
have even known one with whom I stayed go so far as to
replace a broken window pane, not with brown paper, but
with a new piece of glass—a proceeding, I believe, unique in
the Levant.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 419

NOTES TO CHAPTER IX.

I. Note on the Albanian Language.

The Albanian language is so little known and so curious that
it merits some description. It does not, indeed, offer to the
philologist so piquant a problem as Basque, for it is clearly an
Aryan tongue, but it is one of the least studied . languages of
Europe, and its exact affinities are not easy to determine. It is
full of words borrowed from Italian, Slavonic, and Greek, and often
much curtailed and corrupted in the borrowing. Cpi, a house,
is apparently the Latin hospitium, which appears as air it l in Greek;
hoengce, a song, is canzone; jpralhoe, a story, parola; lyigoe, law,
and zako% custom, are clearly taken from Italian and Slavonic.
But since the original substratum of the language is Aryan, it is
often not easy to say whether a particular word is borrowed or is
merely the Albanian equivalent of the forms met with in other
tongues.

Such words as no\ to know, and goh, to see, seem to be original.
But is vit, a year, a corruption of eros or an independent formation ?
"What is the relation of lyoumce, a river, to Jiumen ; of ouyk, a wolf,
to vuk and Xvkos ; of qkrouan, to write, to scribere; of keky, bad, to
kclkos ; of dhe, earth, to yrj and 8a 1 Are the Albanian forms loan-
words or coincidences ?

The grammar of Albanian is simple but irregular. The forms
are not numerous or hard to construct, but it is often impossible to
say what method of declension or conjugation a particular word
requires. Especially frequent is the practice of using more than
one root to form the tenses of one verb like our own go, went; so
in Albanian the present tense is vin and the aorist erdha. It looks
as if these forms had been borrowed from the Italian venire, and
the modern Greek tlpra (= rjXOov) respectively. It is perhaps not
fanciful to think that this sterile but lawless language reflects the
character of the people.

The nouns are declined in two ways according as they are con-
sidered as definite or indefinite. In the indefinite declension, the
cases are somewhat imperfectly distinguished; in the definite, there
are as many as four distinct cases. This definite declension does
not, however, entirely supersede the definite article, for there is also
a prefixed article, used mostly with adjectives, and a conjunctive420	TURKEY IN EUROPE

article, which emphasises the genitive relation, e.g. briri i lyopoesoe,
the cow's horn (literally, horn-the the cow-the-of). The verb
possesses five simple and six compound tenses, the latter being
formed with the aid of the auxiliaries yam, I am, and ham, I have.

For the information of the curious reader, I subjoin an extract
from an Albanian translation of the Bible (Gen. iii. 1-5) with a
literal translation, which will give an idea of the genius of the
language.

Edhe gyarpoeri icte mce i ourte soe gyithce ctcezoetc
And serpent-the was most the cunning	all beasts-of-the

e foucoesoe kyce boeri Zoti Peroendia. Edhe gyarpoeri
of-the field-of-the which created Lord-the God.	And serpent-the

i tha grouasce	A	me tee voertetce tha

to-her said woman-to-the Interrogative particle In the true said

Peroendia mos hani nga c' d6 drou i kopoegtit 1 Edhe
God	not eat-you from any tree of-the garden-of-the ? And

grouaya i tha gyarpoerit Nga poemet e drounvet
woman-the to-him said serpent-to-the from fruits-from-the of-the trees-of-the

kopectit munt toe hame. Po nga poema e drourit
garden-of-the it-is-possible that eat-we. But from fruit-the of-the tree-of-the

kyoe oecte nde mest toe kopoectit Peroendia tha mos hani
which is in middle of-the garden-of-the God said not eat-ye

nga ay kyoe toe mos vdisni. Edhe gyarpoeri i tha
from it in order that not die-ye. And serpent-the to-her said

grouasoe. Me toe vertetoe noukoe dotoe vdisni. Po Peroendia
woman-to-the. In the true not shall die-you. But God

e di se atoe ditoe kyoe toe hani nga ay dot' ou hapene
it knows that the day that may eat-you from it will be opened

youve sutoe edhe dot' ine posi Peroendirra touke nohouroe toe
your eyes and will be-you as	Gods	in knowing the

miren' e toe kekyenoe.

good and the evil.

Gyarpoeri is perhaps the same root as serpens. The last r is not
radical, and gy in Albanian sometimes represents s in other lan-
guages, e.g. gyaqtoe, six. Perhaps gyak, blood, is sa-n-guis.

Zot, Lord, or master, is possibly akin to Greek words meaning
living or vigorous.

Q do, any, literally, " what (you) like." Gf. Latin quivis, quilibet.
Kopectoe, garden, is perhaps related to Krjwos, and drou, a tree,
to Spvs.THE ALBANIANS AND VLACHS 421

Vdisni.—It has been conjectured that this word is akin to
tjydelpw.

Dotf ou hapene.—The passive of the aorist and optative is
formed by prefixing ou to the active.

Youve, your.—It is one of the eccentricities of Albanian that
(according to one system of orthography) the second personal pro-
noun of the plural is you.

II. Note on the Ylach Language.

Th6 following is an example of the popular Macedonian dialect,
taken from a fairy story (Dr. M. G. Obedenaru. Texte Macedo-
Rom&ne publicate dupa manuscrissele originale de Prof. Bianu.
Bucuresci, 1891). A fairy, who has married a king, explains to him
her apparently strange conduct in destroying his commissariat:—

Tora nic& un mistirvhiu mi argmane ni-spus fora
Now still a mystery for-me remains not-explained without

sS chi&ra chiro. Yoiii s8 die co itia a versari-llie* a
losing time. I wish to say that the-cause of the-throwing-away of

zairei-lliei ieste aesta care va sS 'ti spun de auace 'n&inte.
the-grain is that which [I] will you explain from here before.

Mai-mar-lu cap a osti-lliei 'si avea sburita cu ebjiri-lli
Most-great-the chief of the-army had an understanding with the-enemies

a tSi, acelli ci voru s8 'ti Hie amirarillia. Si asice
your, those who wish that from-you they-take the-kingdom. And so

ehjiri-lli ill! taxira multa tutipot& tea s8 'si faca acea
the-enemies to him promised much money	that-he-might-do that

ci IS didea de m&na a lor.

which to-them gave hand to them.

That is-—"Now there still remains a mystery which I must
explain to you without loss of time. I mean that the reason why
I destroyed the grain is the following: The Commander-in-Chief of
your army had an understanding with your enemies who wish to
take your kingdom. And so your enemies promised him much
money that he might do what suited them."

Tora, mistirvhiu, chiro, itia, and etyiri are from the Greek Tw/oa,
MvcrTrjpLoVy Kaipos, atrta, and kydpoi. Taxira is possibly derived
from racro-o), which, however, means to order or appoint rather than
to promise. Zaireilliei and amirarillia are derived from the Turkish
zahire and emir, which were originally Arabic words. Spun and422	TURKEY IN EUROPE

spus come from the Latin expono and expo situs, and chiera from
perdere. For this change of consonants, which seems peculiar to
the Macedonian dialect, cf. chietra (Trerpa), chielle (pellis), serchi
{serpens), and also cicior, foot, which appears in Roumanian as picior.
It is the converse of fapt and nopt, from factus and nox.

Tutipota, all powerfulness, as an expression for wealth, ought to
be characteristic of the speakers. A literal rendering of some of
the expressions is more intelligible in French : Voiu se die is je
veux dire; de auace 'nainte, dHci en avant, straight away; isi avea
sburita, s'etait entendu. The extract illustrates another peculiarity
of both the Danubian and Macedonian Ylach—their plethora of
affixed articles and of pronouns, representing what the Latin
grammar calls the Dativus commodi vel incommodi. Albanian
shares this peculiarity to some extent.

The Roumanian (Danubian) version of the above extract is
given as follows :—

" Acuma, anca un lucru ascunsu imi rgmUne ne-spus. Voiu sS
c5 pricina aruncari merindi-lor ieste asta care o sS'fi o spui d 'acilea
'nainte. Capitanu al mai mare peste oste se vorbisse cu vrajm§,|i
tSi aia care voru sS'ti ie impSratia. Si asea vrajmasi li fagaduira
multa avere ca sS faca ce le venea lor mai bine la m&na."

In this version the Greek and Turkish words disappear, and we
find the Slavonic words pricina, cause; and vrajmas, enemy. But
Slavonic words are not wanting in Macedonian Ylach.CHAPTER X

the armenians

" ?Tis the most distressful country that ever has been seen."

Some races seem doomed to failure as corporate bodies;
they cannot succeed in forming national political organisa-
tions strong enough to hold their own against the adverse
circumstances by which they are surrounded. A familiar
example of this is afforded by the Poles: they appear to
possess all the lighter and more attractive virtues, bravery,
wit, and charm; yet any one can see that the restoration of
the Polish kingdom is an impossibility, and that the parti-
tion of Poland, though it may awaken sympathy and inspire
indignation, was due, not only to cruel fate, but to certain
faults in the national character, such as want of coherence
and of capacity for united action.

The Armenians are another example of political failure.
Like the Poles they are divided between three empires,
Russia, Persia, and Turkey, but in other ways they offer
more analogies with the Jews than with any European
people. The Israelite and the Armenian both possess an
extraordinary aptitude for finance and commerce, particu-
larly such pursuits as banking in the higher, and money-
changing in the lower walks of life; both have wandering
instincts with the necessary adaptability to varying circum-
stances ; both, in spite of outward conformity to ordinary
social usages remain faithful to their somewhat peculiar
forms of religion. But there is this difference between the
two peoples that though one, and perhaps the most im-
portant, section of Armenians are cosmopolitan financiers

423424	TURKEY IN EUROPE

who not only form a considerable proportion of the popula-
tion of Constantinople, but also have such distant centres as
Manchester in the west and Madras in the east, another
section, who are chiefly agriculturists, still dwell in Armenia,
little affected by external influences. Unfortunately, how-
ever, they do not constitute the whole or even the majority
of the inhabitants of the districts comprised under that
vague name, and this circumstance is the chief cause of
their troubles.

It is hard to say what are the limits of Armenia, for it
is not a recognised political division of the globe. The very
name is rigidly forbidden in Turkey, and all maps marking
any district as Armenistan are confiscated, nor would the
Russian Government much relish such an appellation as
applied to the southern part of Transcaucasia. Armenia
simply means the districts inhabited by Armenians, but
there is a certain tendency, not altogether logical, to restrict
it to the Turkish provinces in Asia Minor where the
Armenians are most numerous, and particularly to the
vilayets of Erzerum, Van, Sivas, Harput, Bitlis, Diarbekir,
and part of the vilayet of Aleppo. Nevertheless, the
Armenian population is relatively densest in the Russian
provinces of Kars and Erivan, where are situated Echmiadzin,
the seat of the Catholicos, or head of the Armenian Church,
and the ruins of Ani, one of the most ancient and remarkable
of Armenian cities. Armenians also form a considerable
element in the population, not only of the vilayets above
enumerated, but of most inland districts of Asia Minor
north of Aleppo, particularly in the provinces of Angora,
Broussa, and Trebizonde. The last-named is remarkable as
being the only maritime district where they muster in force.
As a rule they avoid the sea as regularly as Greeks are
attracted to it, and but few of them are found in the south-
western corner of Asia Minor.

The name Armenia clashes to a certain extent withTHE ARMENIANS

425

another local designation—Kurdistan—which is commonly
applied to the vilayets of Erzerum, Bitlis, Van, and Diarbekir,
and to an even more extended tract. It means simply the
country inhabited by Kurds, just as Armenia means that
inhabited by Armenians. In many parts of Asia Minor the
population is mixed, and while the Turks prefer to call
such districts Kurdistan, the friends of the Armenians
style them Armenia. The expressions Greater and Lesser
Armenia are sometimes applied to the Armenian districts
respectively east and west of the Euphrates.

The Armenians, like several other nations, do not use
the name by which they are known to foreigners, but call
themselves Haik and their country Haiasdan. According
to the national tradition they are descended from Haik, the
grandson of Japhet, whose dynasty came to an end in 328
B.C. in consequence of the conquests of Alexander of Macedon.
After his death Armenia was for a short time ruled by the
Seleucids, but, as their power decayed, there arose in Asia
Minor a number of states which combined Greek culture
with indigenous elements. One of them was called Armenia,
but, if the Armenian race was then distributed as at present,
it must have extended into other kingdoms. An important
influence at this period was the Parthian dynasty of the
Arsacides, whose territorial limits were somewhat fluctuating,
but who must have been the suzerains, if not the sovereigns,
of a considerable Armenian population. Somewhat later
the Romans appeared upon the scene. Dikran, or Tigranes,
King of Armenia, opposed them in alliance with his father-
in-law, Mithridates, King of Pontus, who had recourse to
the characteristic Oriental method of a systematic massacre
of Romans throughout his dominions. Tigranes, as well as
Mithridates, had to pay for these doings, and was conquered
by Lucullus and Pompey some fifty years before the birth
of Christ.

There ensued a period of nominal Roman supremacy and426	TURKEY IN EUROPE

real anarchy during which various native rulers achieved
occasional independence by playing off the Romans on the
west against the Persians on the east, but it is clear that
there was no fixed national Government. In the first half
of the third century after Christ the power of Persia greatly
increased under the Sassanid dynasty. Shapur, or Sapor I.,
of that line defeated the Roman Emperor Valerian and con-
quered Armenia, but it was recovered for the empire by
Diocletian, who established Tiridates as king. The reign
of this sovereign marks an important epoch in the history
of the country. He began by persecuting Christianity, and
imprisoned his cousin, St. Gregory the Illuminator, for
fourteen years in a dry well. At the end of that period
he accepted in a literal sense the proverb respecting the
position of truth and embraced the new religion.

A large part of Armenia was given back to Persia by
the Emperor Jovian in 363, and about 440 Theodosius II.
made an arrangement by which he retained the western
part for the Romans but ceded the eastern part, or Pers-
armenia, which became a Persian province, and was ad-
ministered by governors appointed by the Persian Court,
and sometimes of Armenian, sometimes of Persian origin.

The conquest of Persia by the followers of Mohammed
did not do much to emancipate Armenia, for from the
seventh century onwards it was the scene of incessant dis-
putes between the Byzantine Empire, various Mohammedan
rulers, and native princes. These latter had no pretensions
to be kings of any united kingdom which could be called
Armenia, but from time to time dynasties arose which com-
manded the allegiance of certain districts. Such were the
Pagratids (or Bagratids) who ruled in Northern and Central
Armenia from 743 to 1079, and Ardzrunian dynasty
of Vasburagan, who came to an end about the same time.
The last native dynasty was that of Rhupen or Reuben, in
the Taurus (1080 till 1393), who formed alliances with theTHE ARMENIANS

427

Crusaders, and also with the Mongols, but were unable to
withstand the advancing tide of triumphant Islam. The
last king of this dynasty—Ghevont or Leo—died in exile
at Paris in 1393. After this date almost the only thing to
be related of the history of Armenia, until quite recent
times, is that Shah Abbas laid the country waste in 1604,
and transported 40,000 persons to Julfa in Persia.

Though few rays of light pierce the darkness which
surrounds the Armenians from this period until the present
century, it is easy to imagine the evils of their position.
Much of the territory which they inhabited lay between
Turkey and Persia, and formed the battleground of occa-
sional conflicts between those Powers. Oriental frontiers
are generally vague, unless they have been " rectified" by
European commissions, and it is one of the maxims of
Oriental statecraft that it is a good thing to keep the
border districts desolate and depopulated, in order that
when your enemies invade your territory they may not
find much in the way of supplies, and may have some
difficulty in advancing. The Armenians suffered severely
from the application of this principle. Devoid of all
national government, they were raided alternately by Turks
and Persians, and harried continuously by local Mussulman
chiefs. The government exercised by Turkey and Persia
alike meant little but the exaction of tribute and taxes,
with occasional sanguinary reminders that it was the busi-
ness of Christians to keep quiet. But no doubt their
remoteness, and even the very badness of the government,
produced certain countervailing advantages. There was no
attempt at interference in matters of detail; no Phanariots
imposed upon them an alien Church or language; and
though condemned to political extinction, they never lost
their national consciousness, as did the Bulgarians after
the Turkish Conquest, but preserved their religion, speech,
customs, and idiosyncrasies as stubbornly as the Jews.428	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Peculiarly admirable is their fidelity to Christianity, for
few races have produced more martyrs in ancient as well
as in modern times, or come in contact with more perse-
cutors.

The Armenian Church is not, strictly speaking, ortho-
dox or in communion with the Churches of Russia and
Constantinople. It was not represented at the Council of
Chalcedon, and never signified its adherence to the doc-
trines there promulgated. It has been contended that this
abstention was involuntary, and due to the remote position
of the Armenian bishoprics and the unsettled state of the
country, but some of the formulae of the Armenian Church
seem tainted with that form of monophysite heresy styled
Aphthartodocetism—the heresy, that is, of believing that
the mortal body of Christ was incorruptible. It is perhaps
more important to notice that the Armenian liturgy and
ceremonial have been developed separately from those of
the Greek Church, and have an individual character of
their own. Externally they are strikingly Oriental, and
somewhat quaint according to Western, even Greek, ideas.
During the Mass the assistants rattle a strange instrument
somewhat resembling the Egyptian sistrum, and composed
of a cross set with jangling rings. The altar is not con-
cealed behind a screen, but during the more solemn por-
tions of the service a curtain is drawn round it, which may
suggest to irreverent minds that the priest is going to bed.
As in the Greek Church, ecclesiastics are divided into the
ordinary clergy who marry, and monks who do not. The
higher clergy, invariably chosen from the monastic order,
are called Vartabeds. The head of the Church is styled
Catholicos (in Armenian, Katoghikos), and resides at Ech-
miadzin, in Russia. The same title is borne by prelates
resident at Aghtamar (an island in the lake of Van) and at
Sis, in Cilicia. This hierarchical arrangement has nothing
to do with the Armenian Patriarch of Constantinople, who,THE ARMENIANS

according to strict ecclesiastical ideas, is merely a bishop,
neither greater nor less than others. Owing, however, to
the Turkish system of classifying and organising the subject
races of the Ottoman Empire according to their religions, the
Patriarch became the official head and representative of the
Armenian community in Turkey, and practically, though
not theoretically, a more important person than the Catho-
licos of Echmiadzin. On the whole, the Armenian clergy,
though not more educated, are superior to the Greek.
They do not attempt to make money out of their flocks, and
they have never espoused the side of the Porte against their
fellow-Christians. Armenian patriotism and the Armenian
Church have always been identified.

Physically the Armenians are a short, solidly built,
thick-necked, large-nosed race of men, with features of the
type often called Jewish. It may be observed that this
physiognomy is not really characteristic of the Israelites,
but is simply Oriental. It is equally common among the
Georgians, Persians, and Afghans, whence some ingenious
persons have surmised that the latter are the lost tribes.
The ethnology of Asia Minor, and above all that of the
districts near Caucasia, is even more complicated than
that of the Balkan Peninsula, and historical data are want-
ing as to the rise or immigration of many of the tribes
now found there. We are therefore, as in many other
countries, dependent mainly on linguistic criteria, according
to which the Armenian language is a branch of the Aryan
or Indo-European family, though the relationship is some-
times obscured by its extraordinary system of phonetics.

Readers of " The Romany Rye " will perhaps remember
that when the author tried to teach Belle Armenian, that
lady said it sounded more like the language of horses than
of human beings. It not only possesses an unrivalled
collection of difficult and not very euphonious sounds, both
guttural and sibilant, but seems to revel in piling them oneTURKEY IN EUROPE

on the top of the other, and in beginning words with at
least three consonants. The following are specimens of its
vocabulary1: Jshmarid, true; gmal, to be able; pzhishg, a
doctor; prmgthsnel, to kindle; ashharh, world. Of course
no human tongue can really pronounce these awful com-
binations without interpolating a dull vowel sound similar
to the Hebrew sheva; but even with this assistance the
majority of Armenian words sound, to our ears at any rate,
singularly inharmonious. Asdgh, star; tusdr, daughter;
achJch, eyes, represent well-known European roots, but in
no other language do they appear in so unlovely a form,
and few will think it pretty to call a girl aghchig, or one's
parents dsnoghJch. The grammar of Armenian, unlike its
pronunciation, is simple. The noun has four or five cases,2
some of which, however, require to be helped out with
prepositions, and the verb3 four tenses (besides infinitives,
imperatives, and participles). The conjugation is, however,
somewhat irregular, and occasionally displays a caprieious-
ness which reminds one of Greek. The pronouns and
numerals have some resemblance to those of other Aryan
languages.4

The above remarks apply to the ancient or classical
Armenian, in which are composed the most considerable
literary works of the language. Modern Armenian, which

1	J, sh, ch, ts, ds are pronounced as in English; zh=j in French ; th, Ich,
as in soft hat and black hat; the former also appears in the combinations
ths and thsh represented by single letters in the Armenian alphabet; gh is a
deep guttural, rr (one letter in Armenian) a strong r, and h is the German ch.

2	e.g., Mart=3, man. Singular: nominative, mart; genitive and dative,
marto ; accusative, z mart; ablative, i marto; instrumental, martov. Plural:
nominative, martkh; genitive and dative, martoths ; accusative, z marts ; abla-
tive, i martoths; instrumental, martovTch.

3	The present tense of the verb yel (to be) is: Singular—i, yem; 2, yes;
3, L Plural—1, yemlch ; 2, &kh; 3, yen. The verb unil (to have) is similarly
conjugated—unim, unis, uni; unimlch, unilch, unin.

4	The pronouns are as follows: First person, yes, mekh; second person,
tu, tukh; third person, inkhn, inkhiankh. The numerals are : 1, mi {meg);
2, yergu; 3, yerekh ; 4, chworkh; 5, hink ; 6, veths; 7, yevthn ; 8, uth; 9, inert;
10, dasn.THE ARMENIANS

43i

is used for conversation, and possesses a small literature of
novels and periodicals, differs somewhat from the older
form of speech. It is full of foreign words, and has simpli-
fied the inflections. It has also developed a suffixed definite
article. It exists in several dialects, of which the most
cultivated and most important are those of Constantinople
and Tiflis. It is also the custom of the Armenians in
Turkey to write Turkish in their own alphabet, and Turkish
newspapers so printed are published at Constantinople.

This alphabet, like the Cyrillic, owes its existence to
missionary zeal. At the beginning of the fifth century the
Bishop Mesrob, in his desire to spread the knowledge of
the Holy Scriptures, is said to have invented letters for
both the Georgian and Armenian languages. The older
uncial forms of these two alphabets are very similar, and
both show traces of being borrowed from the Devanagari
characters of India. There is also a remarkable superficial
resemblance between the capital letters of Armenian and
of Ethiopic. The more modern cursive alphabet differs
considerably from the older form, and, though it represents
very exactly the sounds of the language, the differences
between many of the letters which it comprises are so
slight that, unless it is exceptionally well printed, reading
becomes a severe labour for the eyes. Ancient Armenian
literature is copious, but somewhat devoid of general
interest, as it consists almost entirely of historical and
ecclesiastical works, among the latter an ancient trans-
lation of the Bible. The chief historian is Moses of
Khorene. All these works are distinguished by learning
and solidity rather than by spontaneity or beauty, and
though some of the hymns found in the service books show
originality and power, the language has produced little
poetry, and the popular songs fall short of the standard
reached by Greeks and Slavs. It would seem that the
race has little artistic feeling. The ruins of Ani areTURKEY IN EUROPE

certainly fine, but in modern times it is difficult to point
to anything distinctively Armenian in architecture or
ornamentation. This sterility is no doubt largely to be
attributed to the Turkish yoke, but, as the Armenians,
though a downtrodden race, have been always stubbornly
conservative of many peculiarities, it is fair to assume
that the artistic instinct was not strongly developed in
the national character—not so strongly, for instance, as
the religious and money-making instincts. As a rule an
Armenian (or a Jew) will suffer martyrdom rather than
change his religion, or lose a lira.

If we sum up the characteristics of the Armenians, they
would seem to be somewhat as follows: Firstly, they are a
race with little political aptitude or genius for kingdom-
building. This want of capacity was not due to the Turkish
Conquest. Even before that event they had proved unable
to hold their own; they were divided by continual dissen-
sions, and became alternately the vassals of Parthians and
Romans, Persians and Greeks. This was partly the result
of their geographical position, but after all they had no one
but themselves to thank for that position. They seem to
have had a natural aversion to the coast—otherwise they
might have occupied Constantinople and the mountains of
the Caucasus. A nation holding those two fortresses would
indeed have been strong. Secondly, the Armenians do not
belong to the Orthodox Church. The differences which
divide them from that communion may be absurdly trivial,
but their consequences are real and important. The
average Greek or Slav does not regard the Armenian as a
brother Christian. At the time of the Bulgarian " atroci-
ties" the Russian peasantry were shocked at the idea of
Pravoslavnys1 being slaughtered, but the Armenian mas-
sacres of 1895-96 did not arouse any popular indignation
in Russia. They were regarded as shocking, just as a
1 Orthodox Christians.THE ARMENIANS

433

massacre of Catholics in China might be shocking, but they
did not seem to come nearer home—neither did the (Ecu-
menical Patriarch, or any other acknowledged authority of
the Orthodox Church, display any practical indignation at
these outrages.

Thirdly, the Armenians are a people of great commercial
and financial talents, supple and flexible as those must be
who wish to make others part with their money: stubborn
to heroism in preserving certain characteristics, but wanting
withal in the more attractive qualities, in artistic sense,
kindliness, and some (though not all) forms of courage.

The fate of the Armenians has largely depended on
their association with the Kurds. These Kurds are an
Iranian people, speaking an uncultivated dialect akin to
Persian. They are divided into sedentary and nomadic
tribes, both of which, but more especially the latter, are
lawless and practically independent. They are governed by
their own chiefs, or Agas, and pay scant attention to
Turkish officials. In some districts, for instance the Dersim,
their recognition of the Sultan's Government is hardly
nominal. Of late years an effort has been made by the
Ottoman Government to create among them a military organi-
sation analogous to that of the Cossacks in Russia, or rather
to that which the Cossacks once possessed. The troops so
formed are styled Hamidie, and on paper are very numerous.
But in reality little has been done, except to distribute arms
and uniforms among the wild tribes. They cannot be induced
to submit to military discipline; the regiments which figure in
the Ottoman army list can rarely be persuaded to appear
on parade; the officers sent to command them often reside
comfortably in the nearest town, and are careful not to
interfere much with their troops: and the chief practical
result is that deeds of violence increase, because their per-
petrators are regarded as Ottoman soldiers not amenable to
the jurisdiction of the tribunals. The Kurds are nominal

2 ETURKEY IN EUROPE

but very lax Moslims. Their religious observances seem
to contain many Christian as well as older heathen elements,
but they have an intense respect and veneration for certain
Sheikhs of their own, who are generally fanatical without
being orthodox Mohammedans. It is not easy to disentangle
the relations of Kurds and Armenians, for few travellers
have had the necessary knowledge to enable them to make
trustworthy reports about the interior of Asia Minor, and
our information is inadequate except as concerns the larger
towns. In many cases the Kurds appear as simple brigands
and, even when judged by a robber's standard, needlessly
cruel and barbarous. But it also seems certain that in
several districts at least there is a feudal connection between
them and the Armenians. The latter recognise a certain
Kurdish chief (or tribe) as their overlord, and pay tribute.
In return the chief and his clan protect them against other
Kurds. One disadvantage of this system is that Armenians
are regarded by Kurds as their property, and therefore if
one Kurd has a grudge against another he is as likely to
kill his Armenians as to carry off his cattle. Kurds are not
found in the more western vilayets inhabited by Armenians,
such as Angora, but in the eastern provinces the population
may generally be reckoned as one-third Turkish, one-third
Kurdish, and one-third Armenian. These wild tribes are
really a bane to respectable Moslims and Christians alike;
but of late years the growing distrust of Christians has
forced the Kurds and Turks into a somewhat unnatural
alliance, just as in Europe the Porte is always ready to
condone the misdeeds of Albanians in order to keep up the
fiction that the Moslim subjects of the Sultan are a solid
and united body.

There are two mountainous districts in Anatolia, which
form, as it were, islands of compact Armenian population in
a sea of surging nationalities. They are Zeitun, in the pro-
vince of Aleppo, among the Taurus mountains, and Sassun,THE ARMENIANS

435

to the west of Lake Van. Both have been the scene of
considerable disturbances, probably because the inhabitants
were of a more robust and vigorous physique than other
Armenians, and further differed from them in being armed
and enjoying practical autonomy.

Before turning to the history of the Armenians in the
present century I should advert to the distinction between
Gregorian 1 and Catholic Armenians, who are considered by
the Porte as different millets or communities. The Gre-
gorians are the adherents of the Armenian Church founded
by St. Gregory, and constitute the great majority of the
Armenian people. The Catholics are numerically a very
small body, and live chiefly in Constantinople and the more
western towns, such as Angora. They are not found at all
among the rural population, but in cities their wealth and
prosperity render them an important element. Their origin
seems to date from the time of the Crusades, when many
Latin churches were founded in the Levant, but they first
became important at the end of the last century, when
a considerable number of converts were made to the Roman
Church. One of these was the monk Mekhitar, who sub-
sequently fled to the Morea and to Venice, where was founded
the convent on the island of Saint Lazaro, which for some
time formed the residence of Byron and which still may be
visited. The name Mekhitarist is generally restricted to the
Armenian Catholics in Italy, but the Church in Constanti-
nople increased and prospered under the protection of
the French, who regarded it with special favour. In 1856
there arose a dispute, generally connected with the name
of the Catholic Patriarch Hasun, which threatened to divide
the community, the majority of whom objected to the
policy of the Patriarch, which they considered too sub-
servient to Rome and anti-national. In the Bull known
as Reversurus, the Pope asserted his right to interfere in

1 There are also a certain number of Armenian Protestants.436	TURKEY IN EUROPE

the affairs of the Armenian Catholic Church, particularly
in the election of bishops and in finance. The Hasunists
supported the Papal pretensions, but their opponents re-
fused to admit them and deposed Hasun. The difference
was at last arranged, largely owing to the mediation of
France. Hasun was made a cardinal, and Monsignor
Azarian was accepted as his successor by both sides. Many
Catholics, however, joined the Gregorian Church.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the Ar-
menians were active chiefly in the sphere of commerce,
and carried on a regular and important traffic along the
great trade routes of Asia Minor, particularly those connect-
ing Trebizonde, Erzerum, Tabriz, and Isfahan. But in the
time of Peter the Great and Catharine II. they already
began to have aspirations towards independence. They
made appeals to those sovereigns, and received promises
from them in return, but no material change in the position
of Armenia occurred until the Treaty of Turkmenchai in
1829, when the Russians took the eastern part of Trans-
caucasia, as far south as the River Aras, and thus incorpor-
ated a large Armenian population and the ecclesiastical
centre of Echmiadzin. In 1836 was published an or-
dinance, or Polozhenie, regulating the condition of the
Armenian community, and more especially defining the
hierarchical position of the Catholicos as head of the Gre-
gorian Church. But this interest in Armenian affairs was
accompanied by a desire or tendency to assimilate. It was
pointed out that the difference between the Armenian and
Orthodox Churches was so small that the spirit of Christian
brotherhood naturally suggested their union. This was true
enough, but it offended the national and patriotic ideas
of the Armenians. They valued the peculiarities of their
Church, not from any fanatical conviction of their truth,
but because those peculiarities were essentially Armenian
and characteristic of the nation. The patriotic writersTHE ARMENIANS

437

Hachadur Abovian, author of La Plaie de VArmenie, and
Nalbendian, gave expression to Armenian discontent against
both the Sultan and the Czar. Meanwhile, another centre
of national sentiment arose in Paris, where an Armenian
college had been founded. The young Armenians who were
educated there, and who imbibed the liberal ideas of which
France supplies so many successive crops, made their in-
fluence felt, chiefly in the constitution of the Armenian
community of Constantinople. Previous to 1847, the
management of that community was in the hands of the
Gregorian Patriarch and of certain notables, who did not,
however, meet in any sort of council. In 1847, the
prevalent desire for a more definite and regular form of
national government led to the creation of two councils,
to assist the Patriarch, one ecclesiastical and the other lay.
Both, however, were elected by the notables, and in no
sense constituted a popular representation of the nation.
They, therefore, in no way satisfied the aspirations of the
"Jeune Armenie," or liberal and educated party, who
continued to work and agitate for a more popular and
democratic form of government, until their efforts cul-
minated in what was called the Armenian Constitution
of i860. It reorganised the millet and provided for the
appointment of all officials by election, for universal suffrage,
and for popular education. It also contained a good many
general statements as to the duties of individuals towards
the nation {i.e. the Armenian people), and of the nation
towards individuals. The Porte confirmed this instrument
three years later. Its title of Constitution and the use
in it of the word " nation " are somewhat misleading. It
did not really accord any autonomy to the Armenians in
the sense of adjusting their relations towards the Sultan,
who retained his absolute power over one and all of them,
but merely authorised certain changes in their relations to
one another. It is somewhat surprising that the Ottoman438	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Government should have raised no objections to the text
submitted to them; but they, no doubt, attached little im-
portance to the whole affair. The Armenians had hitherto
managed their churches, schools, and hospitals in one way;
they were now allowed to do so in another. Their methods
of electing bishops and councillors affected the Ottoman
Empire no more than the method of electing London
school boards affects Greater Britain. The Turks had no
suspicions, for at this time they and the Armenians got
on excellently together. For the latter Russia was the
enemy. She had acquired a large accession of Armenian
population, but had shown a desire not to protect and
develop but to obliterate. She afforded, indeed, secu-
rity for life and property, but she hampered with many
restrictions the Armenian Church, Armenian schools, and
the Armenian language. The Turks, on the contrary, were
perfectly tolerant and liberal as to all such matters. They
did not care how the Armenians prayed, taught, and talked,
and in many ways found them the most useful and loyal of
their Christian subjects. There were several reasons for
this. The Armenians were thorough Orientals, and much
more in touch with Turkish ideas and habits than Greeks
or Slavs. The richer ones entirely understood and sympa-
thised with Turkish methods of transacting business; the
poorer were extensively employed in Moslim houses in
certain branches of domestic service. The eyes of the
Greeks were always turned to Hellas, and every one, as soon
as he made his fortune, was anxious to become a Hellenic
subject. But there was no Armenia. With the exception
of those who settled abroad for commercial purposes, the
Armenians were quite content to live among the Turks, and
spend their money in Turkey. They spoke Turkish, often
even among themselves, and though their accent and
phraseology were not always those of the Osmanli, the
language was practically a second mother tongue to them.THE ARMENIANS

439

Kurds and Zapties, perhaps, rendered life a little too eventful,
but on the whole the money-changers gained more than
brigands and tax-gatherers took, and the balance of wealth
remained with the Christians. The Turks treated them
with good-humoured confidence, and the phrase,

sadika, " the loyal community," was regularly applied to
them. The Moslims did not, of course, consider them as
equals; they regarded them much as the kinder class of
proprietors in the Southern States regarded their slaves—
as people to whom they might trust their business, money,
and even their children, but who were almost as far removed
from them as a pet dog.

During the Russo-Turkish war the Armenians showed
little enthusiasm for the Russians, but some of those near
the Russian frontier, notably the inhabitants of Bayezid,
were, nevertheless, massacred by the Turks, and the
Treaty of San Stefano, which concluded the war, contained
the following article (No. 16): "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 main-
tenance 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 against the Kurds and
Circassians."

This treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Berlin
(signed July 13, 1878), which restored to Turkey the
districts of Alashgird and Bayezid, and contained the
following article (61): " The Sublime Porte undertakes to
carry out, without further delay, the improvements and
reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces
inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security
against Circassians and Kurds. It will periodically make44°	TURKEY IN EUROPE

known the steps taken to this effect to the Powers, who will
superintend their application."

On June 4, 1878—that is, between the Treaties of San
Stefano and Berlin—a bilateral Convention was signed
between Great Britain and Turkey to the following
effect:—

"If Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them shall be
retained by Russia, and if any attempt shall be made at any
future time by Russia to take possession of any further terri-
tories of his Imperial Majesty the Sultan in Asia, as fixed
by the definitive Treaty of Peace, England engages to join his
Imperial Majesty the Sultan in defending them by force of
arms. In return his Imperial Majesty the Sultan promises
to England to introduce necessary reforms, to be agreed
upon later between the two Powers, into the government
and for the protection of the Christians and other subjects
of the Porte in these territories. And in order to enable
England to make necessary provision for executing her
engagement, his Imperial Majesty the Sultan further con-
sents to assign the island of Cyprus to be occupied and
administered by England."

In one way neither Article 61 of the Berlin Treaty nor
the Cyprus Convention produced much effect. Great
Britain, indeed, appointed a number of military Consuls to
various posts in the Armenian districts, who made tours and
reports, but no attempt was made to introduce the promised
"reforms and improvements." But in another way these
instruments had a great effect, for they familiarised the
Armenian people with the idea that they were entitled to
the grant of special privileges from the Porte; and this idea
was easily exaggerated into another—the possibility of
founding an Armenian kingdom, or at least an Armenian
autonomous province. The common people undoubtedly
looked to Great Britain for the realisation of these ideas,
regardless of the fact that that Power was obviously anxiousTHE ARMENIANS

441

to continue on friendly terms with Turkey, and not to
weaken the Ottoman Empire.

The period which followed the Russo-Turkish war wit-
nessed another remarkable phenomenon—the development
of Nihilism in Russia. It was a period of secret societies,
revolutionary papers, plots to assassinate princes, and hope-
lessly unpractical patriotic movements, the essence of which
was the desire to do something striking, and so attract sym-
pathy or inspire fear, without regard to consequences or any
clear ideas of reconstruction. This spirit inspired many of
the inhabitants of the Caucasus, and naturally spread to the
Armenians of Tiflis and Transcaucasia. At first it was
directed chiefly against the Russians, and by a natural
interaction the discontent of the Armenians increased the
severity of the Czar's government, and that severity in its
turn increased the discontent. In 1882 the Mshak, an
Armenian political paper published at Tiflis, was suppressed.
Two years later the Government insisted on the election of
the Catholicos Makar in opposition to the will of the people,
and a large number of schools were closed. Finding that
the Russian police were too well informed and too vigorous
for the comfortable existence of secret societies in Tiflis, the
Armenian patriots migrated westwards, and made Paris,
London, and Geneva their headquarters. In 1887 was
founded in Paris the celebrated secret society called the
Hintchak, and from 1888 to 1892 an Armenian doctor
called Nazarbek published at Geneva several revolutionary
papers and reviews, one of which was also called HintchaJc
and another AptaJc.

It was inevitable that all this movement should affect
the Armenians of Turkey, and equally inevitable that by so
doing it should destroy the few merits of the Ottoman
administration—its easy tolerance, and its readiness to let
Christians prosper financially and commercially at the
expense of Moslims. Every Turk* from the Sultan to the442	TURKEY IN EUROPE

private soldier, has a frantic terror of secret societies and
plots, not altogether unnatural, if we remember the part
played by the Hetaireia and the Bulgarian committees.
As in the case of Greece and Bulgaria, the Armenian
patriots were somewhat chary of appearing in Turkey, but
they sent emissaries to work upon the feelings of the people
and distribute revolutionary literature. The change pro-
duced in Ottoman feeling was enormous. The Turks had
formerly regarded the Armenians as the best kind of Giaour
—harmless, serviceable, comfortable infidels, whom one
could not expect to meet in heaven but who were very
useful here below. But it now appeared that this was not
the case. The millet-i-sadika, the loyal people, no longer
deserved that title: they were as seditious as Greeks and
Bulgarians; they had secret committees and revolutionary
printing-presses; they were probably arming and conspiring
to massacre good Moslims. Subsequent events can only
be understood if we realise that the fears of the Turks,
however unfounded we may think them, were wide-spread
and quite genuine.

Another element in the new situation created between
1880 and 1890 was formed by the Protestant missionaries.
They were mostly Americans by nationality, but their con-
nection with the Evangelical Alliance of London brought
them into contact with the British authorities. I should
be sorry to say one word which could be construed as
reflecting on the character or even the discretion of these
missionaries. They were gentlemen of education and judg-
ment, who in a noble spirit of self-denial devoted their lives
to the task, not of converting the Armenians and other
Oriental Christians, but of bettering their condition and
diffusing among them religious knowledge, in the hope of
dispelling, or at least of supplementing, the excessive cere-
monialism and superstition to which the ancient Churches
of the East are too prone. For this purpose they foundedTHE ARMENIANS

443

several colleges and schools in various parts of Anatolia,
which, though open to all races, became practically Armenian
institutions, because in most towns the great majority of
Christians were Armenians. Somewhat later, in 1890, was
founded in London the Anglo-Armenian Society, an institu-
tion which was equally unconnected with such societies as
the Hintchak on the one hand and with the British Govern-
ment on the other, though the list of members comprised
several eminent Englishmen. Their object was to ameliorate
the condition of Armenia, and to secure the introduction of
the reforms promised by treaty. This laudable project was
hampered by their invincible ignorance of the spirit and
methods of the East. They invoked public opinion, the
rights of Armenia, religious equality, and other excellent
principles, which were understood in Turkey about as well
as a body of British electors would understand a proposal
to cure agricultural depression by a Hatt-i-Sherif.

A certain well-known proverb about good intentions is
often misapplied, but unfortunately in the present case the
really important point is not what were the objects of the
missionaries and of the sympathisers of the Armenians in
England, but what were the ideas, stupid and distorted as
they may have been, which they inspired in the Turks. It
is no use proving that red is a quite harmless colour, and
that bulls ought not to be afraid of it.

The good position of the Armenians in Turkey had
largely depended on the fact that they were thoroughly
Oriental and devoid of that tincture of European culture
common among Greeks and Slavs. But now this character
was being destroyed: European education and European
books were being introduced among them. Foreigners were
talking of Armenia as they had once talked of Bulgaria.
The Turks thought that there was clearly an intention to
break up what remained of the Ottoman Empire and found
an Armenian kingdom. This hostile feeling was aggravated444	TURKEY IN EUROPE

by the tendency which prevailed in the same decade to
accentuate the Sultan's position as Caliph. Previously this
had been a respectable, accepted, but little-talked-of belief,
much like the doctrine that the Queen is the head of the
English Church. But now there was a continuous attempt
to make it a vital reality, which kept before the minds of
Moslims the idea that the Sultan was the head of all Islam
on one side, as opposed to all Christians on the other. One
other cause of discord must be mentioned. It is that
the clergy of the old Gregorian Church were naturally ill-
disposed to the missionaries, and were ready to assent to
and support the Turkish idea that their schools and colleges
were centres of disaffection.

Again I say that I have nothing but approval for the
aims of the missionaries and of the friends of Armenia; but
the Armenian massacres are not intelligible unless we under-
stand that there are two sides to every question, and that
things appear very different according as they are looked
at from the East or West. " Onward, Christian soldiers,
marching as to war," in English is a harmless hymn, sug-
gestive of nothing worse than a mildly ritualistic procession;
but I confess that the same words literally rendered into
Turkish do sound like an appeal to Christians to rise, against
their Mahommedan masters, and I cannot be surprised that
the Ottoman authorities found the hymn seditious and
forbade it to be sung.

The first symptoms of the hatred and distrust of the
Armenians which were growing among the Turks were seen
in the increasing lawlessness and violence of the Kurds,
who plundered and ravaged with absolute impunity. The
pressure of certain foreign Embassies obliged the Porte
to summon the famous bandit chief, Musa Bey, to Con-
stantinople and to try him for his misdeeds; but he was
triumphantly acquitted and treated with great respect.
Naturally his example found many imitators.THE ARMENIANS

445

In 1890 the Patriarch Ashikian presented a petition to
the Porte, setting forth the grievances of the Armenian
people and complaining of the violence to which they were
subjected. He obtained no redress. On the contrary, the
summer of the same year witnessed an event which may be
regarded as the opening of hostilities between the Ottoman
Government and the Armenian people. It was reported
to the Sublime Porte that the Armenians of Erzerum had
stored arms and ammunition in the principal church of
that town for the purposes of a revolutionary outbreak.
The church was searched by the troops and brutally dese-
crated. Nothing suspicious was found in it, but popular
passion was aroused; the Turks were alarmed, and the
Armenians ready to defend their religion with their blood.
The result was a conflict, in which about fifteen Armenians
were killed and many wounded. Several foreign houses
and missionary establishments were attacked. At the time
this outbreak was called a massacre. Five years later so
trivial a slaughter would hardly have attracted attention.

It was at the time of these disturbances at Erzerum
that I first visited Armenia, travelling southwards from
Kars. The Armenians of Russia were then discontented,
and full of revolutionary talk, affecting to think that it was
better to be under the capricious but lax government of
the Porte than to submit to the minute and galling regu-
lations imposed by Russian bureaucracy. The Turkish
Armenians hardly shared this view. They were beginning
to find the double yoke of Kurds and Turkish soldiers
intolerable, and to form wild, vague aspirations towards
autonomy.

Northern Armenia is one of the gloomiest and dreariest
countries in the world. It may have some brief spell of
tenderness and grace in the spring, which I have never
seen, but in summer and winter alike it is hard, repulsive,
and terrible. During the heat everything is baked to a dry,446	TURKEY IN EUROPE

muddy yellow, from the spiky grass on the plains to the
scanty brushwood on the mountains, which is hardly dis-
tinguishable from the rocks. A village is indicated by
heaps of grey stones on a mountain side suggesting the
remains of a landslip. These heaps are really the roofs of
subterranean dwellings, for the inhabitants of the country
are Troglodytes. Their houses are large burrows, lighted by
a circular hole in the ceiling, and consisting of a family
dwelling-room, into which neither Christians nor Moslims
ever admit the stranger, and a stable in which the sheep,
cattle, and horses of the owner are lodged. In this latter
apartment is a small raised platform made of baked clay and
surrounded by wooden lattice-work. This is the reception-
room for guests, but the hospitality which it accords is not
refreshing. The stench of the big animals and the attacks
of the small ones render comfort impossible. The Armenian
women show themselves little. They wear a sort of veil,
and if they appear at meals do not sit down but wait on
the men. A curious custom forbids an Armenian bride to
speak to her husband's relations for some time after
marriage, and it is said that this practice does much to
ensure domestic tranquillity. Besides these human rabbit-
warrens Northern Armenia has little architecture to show;
but every now and then one sees a church of solid, simple
masonry, devoid of ornament within or without, battered by
the outrages of time and of Turkish soldiery and perhaps
not unscathed by fire — unpoetic, unattractive, unsung,
unpitied, almost uninteresting, but still crowned with the
dignity of stubborn suffering and ages of martyrdom.

If Armenia is not a pleasant land in summer, it is still
less so in winter. Every country which is periodically over-
whelmed with snow must present a terrible monotony of
whiteness, but in Russia and Siberia mankind have learnt,
if not to conquer, at least to cope successfully with the all-
pervading phenomenon. They have snow roads and sledges,THE ARMENIANS

447

well-warmed houses, suitable exercise, and food. But in
Anatolia man lets himself be helplessly overwhelmed by the
annual avalanche. The roads are blocked and life is at a
standstill. There are no amusements, no resources, no
means of getting about. The earth, the mountains, and the
sky are all full of snow, and the human race sit huddled
together like sheep in a pen trying to keep themselves
warm.

It was in these desolate oppressed regions rather than
in Constantinople that the discontent of the Armenians
and the suspicions of the Turks first became serious. The
Armenians of the capital were, it is true, more accessible to
European ideas, but they were also wealthy and prosperous
and apparently secure. It was not till later that the
revolutionary committees attempted active measures in
Europe. In the early nineties they worked chiefly upon the
population of the provinces. Another society called the
Troshak was formed, and a considerable number of delegates
from both it and the Hintchak found their way into Asia
Minor, and in many cases resorted to terrorism in order to
force the country populations to adopt their cause. The
irritation on the Turkish side became stronger, and
acts of aggravating and malicious tyranny more frequent.
Ecclesiastics were arrested,, the firmans, or permissions,
granted to Armenian schools were withdrawn, and all
institutions which seemed to be connected with the
Armenian race or name were systematically persecuted.
In February 1893 the college at Marsovan was burnt;
more and more Armenians were thrown into prison on
more and more frivolous charges, and more and more
terrible stories were circulated as to the horrors they
endured.

With regard to these stories of torture, I think a
certain amount of circumspect scepticism is not amiss.
No doubt the interiors of Turkish prisons present most448	TURKEY IN EUROPE

of the horrors which can be caused by brutality and
neglect. No doubt educated and delicate persons are
confined in the same rooms with the lowest ruffians, who
are allowed to treat them as they choose. No doubt, too,
such rough punishments as the bastinado are freely em-
ployed. This is all very bad, but still it does not prove
the truth of the " hellish" and " unutterable" forms of
torture of which the Turks are freely accused. These are
often spoken of as being so terrible that the details cannot
be given in print, but I believe them to be largely the in-
vention of morbid and somewhat prurient brains. Medical
testimony makes it certain that no human being could
survive the tortures which some Armenians are said to
have suffered without dying.

In the summer of 1894 took place an event of more
importance for the Armenians than any yet described—the
massacres of Sasun. Sasun, as already mentioned, is a
mountainous district near Mush, inhabited by a peculiarly
sturdy race of Armenians who were practically independent
and allowed no Turkish functionaries to enter their villages.
They paid no taxes to the Government, but maintained good
relations with the Kurds by presenting them with an annual
pecuniary contribution. Though their independence was
certainly anomalous, it does not seem proved that they in
any way formed a revolutionary centre; but it is alleged
that some secret agents of the Armenian committees had
been working in the district. In 1893 the local Ottoman
officials called upon the inhabitants of Sasun to pay their
taxes, but were informed in reply that the Kurds had taken
all there was to get; the villagers were ready to pay taxes
to the Porte if protected against the Kurds, but they had
not enough for both. This was reasonable enough, but it
did not please the Turks. When once their attention was
called to the fact, they felt that the existence of an inde-
pendent, untaxed Christian district was highly irregular;THE ARMENIANS

449

but unfortunately they did not for a moment entertain the
idea of ameliorating matters by keeping the Kurds in order
and giving the Armenians a chance of paying their taxes.
The Kurds were Mohammedans, whom the Porte was
determined to regard as a bulwark of the empire. All
Armenians were, in their estimation, of doubtful loyalty:
these Armenians of Sasun had openly refused to obey
orders. Therefore it was decided (it is well to use this
impersonal formula, for we do not know who decided) to
give them a lesson. Turkish troops and Kurds—among
the latter some Moslim ecclesiastics, including the Sheikh
of Zeilan—attacked Sasun, destroyed several villages, and
massacred the inhabitants. The number of killed was at
first stated as 8000, but the final report of the Commission
of Inquiry reduced the figure to 900.

This Commission of Inquiry was appointed in conse-
quence of the sensation created in Europe by the reports
of the Sasun massacre. It consisted of Russian, French,
and English Consular officials, besides Turkish functionaries,
and the evidence which it received clearly demonstrated
that the Ottoman authorities were responsible for the
attack. The principle implied in this commission—that
it was time for Europe to actively interest herself in the
affairs of Armenia—was not allowed to drop, and the three
Embassies who had sent delegates proceeded to prepare a
scheme of reforms to be introduced into the Armenian
vilayets. This scheme was altered many times to meet
the objections of the Porte, and in its final form was open
to severe criticism, as compromises generally are. It was
sufficiently complicated and formidable in appearance to
exasperate the Turks, but yet it gave the Armenians no
really practical guarantees of better government. It was
proposed to create a Governor-General for the six Armenian
vilayets, to appoint Christians as adjuncts to Moslim func-
tionaries, to restrict the license of the Hamidie troops and

2 FTURKEY IN EUROPE

o f the nomad Kurds, to develop the various institutions of
local and municipal government so as to secure a represen-
tation of Christians as well as of Moslims, and to give the
right of supervision and interference to a commission sitting
at Constantinople and in communication with the Embassies.
Most of these so-called reforms existed already in the Otto-
man statute-book, and had simply never been put into
practice. It was certain that the men who would now be
entrusted with their execution would continue to ignore
them, and had the Turks simply accepted the proposals of
the Powers, the condition of Armenia would probably have
remained unchanged, just as it remained unchanged by the
Treaty of Berlin. But fear and irritation prevented the
Porte from merely ignoring and evading the obnoxious
measures. It is said that when the Sultan read the
memorandum presented to him he observed, " This busi-
ness will end in blood." Perhaps his Majesty was acting
on the transatlantic principle of "Dont prophesy unless
you know," for the result of the scheme of reforms was an
outbreak of massacres in the Armenian districts of Asia
Minor. That the responsibility for these massacres rested
with both the local authorities and the central Government
no impartial reader of the papers officially published can
doubt. But we should probably be doing an injustice if we
suppose, as is often done, that orders were issued for a
deliberate and organised slaughter of Armenians. The
Turks were alarmed. They believed that the Armenians,
people who lived in their midst, who were employed by the
Government as officials and by private persons as domestic
servants, were plotting against the Turkish Empire, and
were ready to assassinate individual Turks. These nefarious
schemes were now strengthened by the protection of at least
some European Powers, who urged the Porte to recognise
the Armenians as a special privileged race, and, according
to Turkish ideas, abetted and encouraged them in theirTHE ARMENIANS	451

rebellious attitude. Perhaps their frame of mind will be
more intelligible if we try to imagine what would be the
feelings of Anglo-Indians if they supposed that the natives,
under the influence of Russian intrigues, were preparing to
repeat the horrors of the Mutiny. Probably the orders
issued to the local Ottoman authorities warned them to be
on their guard against any revolutionary movement of the
Armenians, and, should there be any reason to apprehend
one, to at once take the offensive.

Under diplomatic pressure the Sultan sanctioned the
scheme of reforms in the autumn of 1895, but it was not
officially published by the Turkish Government, and the
arrangements made for executing it through the Com-
mission sitting in Constantinople were, for any one who
knew Turkey, obviously inadequate. But it mattered little
what arrangements had been made for the execution, for
the massacres seemed to have for object to so reduce the
number of Armenians that it should be impossible to con-
tend they were the predominant element in any district.
The first blood was shed in Constantinople at the end of
September on the occasion of a demonstration of Armenians
in the streets. Other attacks of the Moslims on Armenians
followed in rapid succession, without, as it would appear,
any special cause. In the last three months of 1895 out-
breaks occurred in some fifteen towns of Asia Minor, to say
nothing of sporadic butchery in the villages. The most
considerable carnage took place at Trebizonde, Erzerum,
Diarbekir, Arabkir, Bitlis, Kaisariye, and Urfa. The num-
ber of victims in the cases of which detailed consular
reports were forthcoming amounted to about 25,000, but
it would probably be safe to double this figure if we include
the slaughter which took place in the villages and remoter
towns and of which no record was kept.

There were two remarkable features about these mas-
sacres. Firstly, they were executed with military precision.452	TURKEY IN EUROPE

Each lasted only a short time, generally twenty-four or
forty-eight hours, and often began and ended with the
sound of the trumpet. The authorities did not interfere,
and in some cases encouraged the mob. The victims were
only Gregorian Armenians; other Christians, and even
Catholic Armenians, remaining as a rule untouched.
Secondly, though the motive of the slaughter seems to
have been clearly political and not religious fanaticism, the
movement was anti-Christian in this sense that in many
places Armenians were offered their lives if they would
abjure Christianity, and after the bloodthirsty ebullition was
over, persistent efforts were made to induce the villagers in
various districts to accept Islam. From the Turkish point
of view it was much the same whether an Armenian was
killed or whether he embraced that faith. In either case
he ceased to be an Armenian, and the sacred law punishes
apostasy from Islam with death.

This destruction of human life passed unpunished, and
in most countries excited strangely little comment. In
England and the United States, indeed, it called forth
expressions of indignation against the Ottoman Government
and of sympathy with the sufferers. Meetings were held,
and very considerable relief funds were raised. But in
France, Austria, Germany, and most of the other European
countries, both the press and public opinion seemed disin-
clined to attach any importance to the question, or even
to believe what were later proved to be indisputable facts.
In Russia Prince Lobanoff was not disposed to coerce or
restrain the Sultan by any exercise of force, and no national
sentiment urged him to abandon this negative attitude.
The Russian people did not think of the Armenians as
"little brothers."

So the winter of 1895-96 wore on. Destitution took
the place of massacre. In whole districts the surviving
population—chiefly widows and orphans—were in want ofTHE ARMENIANS

453

food, shelter, and raiment. Much difficulty was experienced
in distributing the sums subscribed for the purpose of re-
lieving this misery, and the authorities usually raised
objection to the foundation of almshouses for the reception
of fatherless children. Cold, hunger, and exposure greatly
reduced the number of those who had survived the
slaughter.

In the spring of 1896 a conflict broke out in Zeitun.
This district was, like Sasun, a confederation of mountain
villages, practically independent and possessed of arms, but
controlled by a small Turkish garrison posted in a fort.
After the frightful massacre which occurred in Urfa at the
end of 1895, they doubtless feared they would be the next
victims, and, resolving to anticipate an attack by the Turks,
rose and besieged the garrison. They successfully repulsed
the Ottoman force sent to reduce them, and the conflict was
only terminated by the mediation of the British Embassy at
Constantinople.

Meanwhile serious trouble arose in Crete, and emboldened
the Armenian revolutionary committees, who were not un-
naturally goaded to frenzy by the sufferings of their
compatriots and the apathy of Europe. In June 1896
disturbances occurred at Van, apparently due to an attempt
to stir up an insurrection there, and a couple of months later
Constantinople itself was the scene of an extraordinary
series of events which seem to have at least temporarily
disposed of the Armenian question.

The Armenian colony in Constantinople is consider-
able. There is no census in Turkey, but it is variously
reckoned at from 200,000 to 400,000 persons. It may be
divided into two classes. First of all there is the trad-
ing community comprising not only bankers, money-
changers, and considerable commercial houses, but also an
enormous number of small merchants. One has only to
observe the quantity of Armenian inscriptions in Pera andTURKEY IN EUROPE

Galata, and indeed everywhere except in the exclusively
Mussulman quarters, to realise how large a proportion of the
shops are owned by Armenians. The second class are
commonly known as hammals, or porters. They are
peasants from Asia Minor, who leave their families in the
provinces and remain in the capital until they have amassed
what they consider a sufficient sum of money and then
they return home. The bad roads of Constantinople, in
many instances impassable for carriages, and the primitive
arrangements of the Turkish Custom-House, offer employ-
ment to a large number of these human beasts of burden.
The Kurds, who are so often the enemies of the Armenians
at home, are also their competitors and rivals in the carrying
trade, and there is no love lost between the Christian and
Mohammedan porters.

The Armenians are generally distributed through the
European quarters of Pera and Galata, and are also found
collected in compact communities in several places, notably
Haskeui, on the Golden Horn, and Kum Kapu, on the
southern slope of Stambul. This latter is in some ways the
centre of the nation in Turkey, for in it are situate the
Cathedral, Patriarchate, and other institutions of the com-
munity recognised by the Sublime Porte. It was only
natural that the Armenian revolutionists, when determined
to strike a final blow, should collect in Constantinople.
They had a better chance of being concealed there than in
the provinces, and of extorting concessions from the Turks
by terrorism. A new revolutionary society was formed,
called the Dashnaktsutiun, which appears to have been
more violent in its methods and objects than any which
had preceded it. Convinced that it was useless to either
appeal to the humanity of the Powers, or to remind them
of the obligations which they had assumed, the members of
this society armed themselves with dynamite and firearms,
and on August 26th suddenly attacked and captured theTHE ARMENIANS

455

Ottoman Bank in Galata, declaring that they would blow it
up if their demands for the introduction of reforms in
Armenia were not granted. The attempt proved a complete
failure. The desperate conspirators who had captured the
Bank by an audacious surprise about i.o p.m. left it quietly
at midnight, having obtained no better terms than a pro-
mise of a safe passage to France. This sudden collapse was
probably due to the fact that the leaders of the party were
killed in a scuffle as they first entered the building.

But the matter did not end here. About 6 o'clock
bands of Moslims, chiefly Kurds and Lazes, made their
appearance, armed with iron bars and wooden clubs of a
peculiar pattern, and throughout the night and the next day
paraded the streets, destroying all the Gregorian Armenians
they could find by smashing their heads. The massacre
continued until about eight o'clock on the following evening.
The victims were chiefly hammals, or porters, and, as in
other cases, almost exclusively Gregorians, hardly any
Catholics or other Christians being touched, and those
few apparently by mistake. The troops and police did
not attempt to stop the massacre, though they did not
take part in it. It is estimated that about 6000 persons
perished.

These events were a bolt from the blue for the Em-
bassies in Constantinople, and, indeed, for all Europeans,
but there is reason to think that they were not so much of
a surprise to many of the Turks and Armenians interested.
There was clearly a deliberate attempt on the part of the
Armenian revolutionists to bring pressure upon Turkey and
Europe by seizing the Ottoman Bank, and threatening to
destroy its inmates. Whether that was the full extent of
the programme is a matter of uncertainty. On the same
day bombs were thrown near Galata Serai, and it seems to
me an exceedingly plausible supposition that the Armenians
had contemplated a series of attacks on different points of456	TURKEY IN EUROPE

importance, including the Sublime Porte. The Turkish
police, with their system of ubiquitous espionage, could not
fail to be informed of these plans. Such of them as
menaced Ottoman interests they nipped in the bud, but the
attack on the Ottoman Bank was allowed to develop itself.
They justly calculated that it would discredit the Armen-
ians in the eyes of Europe, and if it succeeded it would
merely blow up a pack of Christian clerks. And what did
that matter ? It is pretty certain that the Armenian com-
munity knew that something was likely to happen on the
26th of August. Many well-to-do families left Constanti-
nople for the Islands, in the Gulf of Ismidt, on the morning
of the fatal day, and it is probably not too much to say
that there was a national conspiracy among the Armenians
of Constantinople, a vague and ill-organised conspiracy, no
doubt, but still a consciousness that a last and desperate
effort was going to be made, and a hope that it would
succeed. There can be equally little doubt that the Turks
were prepared for acts of violence on the part of the
Armenians: The Sopajis—that is, the organised mob armed
with bludgeons — appeared about five hours after the
Armenians attacked the Bank, and must have been got
ready some time beforehand, for clearly they were not a
spontaneous demonstration of the Turkish populace. The
Ottoman authorities had had a very good notion of what
was likely to happen, and had taken their measures accord-
ingly. Probably their idea was not that they were going
to slaughter Armenians, but that for the protection of the
city it was necessary to enrol a special service of con-
stables. In fact, the Turks thought that the whole
Armenian people were combining against them, and they
combined against the Armenians. It was a real outburst
of national feeling, and, though individuals may have
regretted the cruelty displayed by the rabble, no section of
Turkish opinion sympathised with the Armenians. TheTHE ARMENIANS

457

Liberals and young Turks were as ready to explain and
excuse the carnage as the most fanatical Mollah.

This massacre attracted more attention than those of
the preceding winter, for it took place in Europe, in the
capital of the Turkish Empire, under the eyes of the repre-
sentatives of the six Powers, a large part of whose time was
occupied in treating the Armenian question. Yet it brought
about no intervention and no punishment. The Embassies
proved to the Sublime Porte that the Ottoman Government
was responsible for what had occurred. The Porte simply
denied the fact, and declined all responsibility. The revolts
of the subject Christian races against the Turkish yoke have
been generally successful, but in this case the tables were
turned, and the Ottoman Government triumphed completely;
and one reason why I have spoken of the Armenian question
in a book devoted to Turkey in Europe is because this triumph
has affected all the Turkish Empire, and not merely Asia.
There can be no doubt that after the massacres, both those
of 1895 and 1896, the Turks were alarmed at what they
had done, and thought they would draw upon themselves
the vengeance of Europe; but when they recognised that
Europe was too indifferent, or too divided, to interfere, they
felt correspondingly reassured and confident. Plots and
revolts are of so common occurrence in Turkey that one
must be prepared for them at all times; but the spectacle
afforded by the Armenians certainly did much to keep the
Balkans and Macedonia quiet. All classes of native Chris-
tians felt that neither Russia nor England could be depended
upon to act as champions of Christianity unless it suited
their other interests at the moment, and saw that it was
useless to manufacture horrors, because the most terrible
outrages might not succeed in attracting the attention of
Europe.

Much blame has been thrown on England for abandon-
ing the cause of the Armenians, and if that unhappy people458	TURKEY IN EUROPE

feel that we have deceived and betrayed them, it can hardly
be thought unnatural. But, for the honour of England, it
must be remembered that we did not promise the Armenians
reforms, as the criticisms of our policy often assume. In
both the Treaty of Berlin and the Cyprus Convention it
was the Porte who engaged to introduce reforms. No one
engaged to force the Porte. At the present day most people
with an adequate knowledge of the facts are probably agreed
that it is useless to attempt to introduce reforms in Turkey
(except in unobtrusive matters of detail) if they are to be
executed by Turkish officials. Reform under foreign super-
vision is another matter, but naturally is beset with inter-
national complications. As long as improvements have to
be executed by officials who are unanimous in hating all
improvement, it matters very little what the details of such
schemes may be: they must be doomed to failure in prac-
tice. A country detached from Turkey, like Bulgaria, may
change, but it is not clear that any act of forcible inter-
vention, such as a Russian army on the Caucasian frontier,
or a British fleet in the Sea of Marmora, could improve the
administration of Asia Minor by Ottoman officials.

It is hard to see any hope for the Armenians politically,
for, unlike Bulgaria, they cannot be detached from Turkey.
If we call a certain Turkish district Armenia, we are forced
to admit that the majority of the inhabitants of Armenia
are not Armenians, and that the majority of Armenians do
not live in Armenia. Besides, if it were possible to create
an Armenian province in Northern Anatolia, where the
Armenian population is densest, this would naturally en-
counter the opposition of Russia, whose interests would be
more threatened than those of Turkey by such a step.
What effect the gradual opening up of Asia Minor may
have on Armenians it is hard to say, but unless some future
outburst of Mohammedan fury is provoked, it will probably
be beneficial. The extension of railways can hardly failTHE ARMENIANS

459

to ultimately increase the security and good order of the
country districts, and the Armenians are certain to profit
by the growth of trade and civilisation, and become superior
to the Turks and Kurds. The danger is that when that
superiority is felt another outbreak may occur.PEST

Mkna}

buVwarest

Iyhmboty

AS'j'F. KS -K'

Jhtlei

CJ'aliJ.Tii •///,„ ,i

USTAMT INOrlX,

ISTAMBOUL. 8

£ UAiOiOK-A

D^hJgoinir
OS	----

Crdt-1
g"''u

Imhros/^ V\
(i. ii 77tfr3ti^5p^|

ij»«n»ssa!

rjui/ IT nil

.Soma

thissrr

^AJIah- Shthr

MLMH FimSlTLA

CAS*M4

Engluh. 'ifiljet

CXitJufutai

<%GouJo*

LONDON: EDWARD ARNOLD.I

80 90 100 110 120 130 14<0 150





4 T zSPf"!,

C Sou

>< <*&#*? .«—

r. STt'Z&ff'koL

(v> _V°

./vX

.,t<r

fT*"~ i="k'') V*- * Vs' v	*%#**

Kg? : • ^ <Av	/



7 uiiTui--!





,<S

y. 7<n





■®-

w"*-.

Ii

V'« >""

iaUJ,H

T NzT^*

L^ — 'TUASSJ1^ y ^^x<tt^raT

Zjt*4*

W ''-vr. O J*j \



i ;«■





MU)i^V>5^ - —-«!*Cw-«* 'ih'irtii J:

*, rSlF ;ui"-"' . • x

-	Hami \>



ijKa' ^ojt'utrfvi "QTnrui	v"\

■L3®^	I. , r-r=fj^'Jhht,um<i yyd/' •*' f

vn^/"'-v-" . «•

E SE/rUKKE S TAN ^BagtrtSMtfljj

**)«&'LjTotan \De	J0	I $	v_~

-c/,,	E

,fi> v »$

<•*>** -V^r
fQ«,uf

ft** jfi 7^°"1'
->< q« ^

gy Trf*""



an it

3^'

•T.rSiw"'

»w





ba



i i''^

oN

y,i""ji

m

•''JZnU

1^'ft V t v^j3?V^!V>?' ^

:.Tr w,

icojcole.

; EL&S

English



:%;v"

C. CxFnoriri

CEYLON

6 >s?"'u

i •$ .
•i" • ». Jv

%c*e™ 110

^ialdive I?'"-.

A N '■ r

Longitude, East 80 of Greenwich-

Tke ZfbnburgiL Geographical Institute

John. Bartholomew 8t Co.

LONDON: EDWARD ARNOLD.INDEX

A'a, application of title, 121 note
Abbaside dynasty, 21, 84, 87, 127
Abd-ul-Aziz, Sultan, 349
Abd-ul-Hamid II., Sultan, mosques of,

115 ; autocratic rule of, 130
Abdul Mejid, palace built by, 94; Chris-
tians conciliated by, 320
Acacius, Patriarch, 218, 223
Adrian II., Pope, 237
Aga, application of title, 121 note
Agathangelus, Patriarch, 278
Agatho, Pope, 227

Agriculture, Turkish fondness for, 95
Aivali, Greek colony at, 311
Alau-'d-din, Sultan, assisted by Erto-
ghrul, 88; Mevlana at the court of,
197; story of Osman's present from,
198
Albania—

Despotate of Epirus, 22, 48
Dushan's lordship over, 48
Geographical situation of, 58
Independence of, after Dushan's death,
42

Scenery of, 385

Skanderbeg's rule over, 48-9; history
of, from Skanderbeg to Mahmud II.,
71-2

Albanian League, 407-8
Albanians—

Arms, right of bearing, possessed by,

77, 386
Bravery of, 24, 48

Dervendji Pasha, office of, held by,

3I4» 4°2
Distribution of, 388
Disunion of, 24, 48, 408
Family names, pride in, 120
Feuds of, 330, 395-6
Greece, in rural parts of, 300; Greeks
massacred by, 315-16; share of, in
Greek War of Independence, 329
Hospitality of, 362, 398-9
Illyrians the ancestors of, 24, 387
Individuality of, 24, 298 note, 386
Islam, conversions to, 72, 76, 383, 392,
401-2

Language of, 388, 394, 419-21
Literature of, inconsiderable, 393-4
Old Servia occupied by, 275
Physical characteristics of, 387

Albanians—continued
Religion of (see also above, Islam),
390-2, 401; Catholics protected by
Austria, 125, 392
Treachery of, 395
Turkish attitude towards, 434
Turks served by, 383 ; Turkish attitude

towards, 386, 406-8
Unsubdued position of, 48, 150, 390-2
Alexander Couza of Roumania, 71, 280

-Mavrocordato the Phanariot, 307

Alexandria, Patriarchate of, importance
of, 216; curtailment of sphere of,
217; Bulgarian Church declared
schismatic by, 285
Alexius Angelus, Emperor, 22

-Comnenus, Emperor, quarrels with

Crusaders, 21; seeks aid from the
Pope, 244; persecutes Bogomils,
264-5, 364
Ali, Caliph, 194

Ali-Pasha of Janina, 72-3, 3x6-17, 401-6
Allah, signification of title, 167
Almanack & Vusage du Levant, 142-3
Alp Arslan, 21, 85
Ambelakia, village of, 334-5
Andronicus II., Emperor, the "Grand
Company " hired by, 21; misgovern-

ment of, 60; ecclesiastical policy of,
250-1

- III., besieged in Salonica, 41; ex-
pedition of, against Albanians, 48 ;
Barlaam sent to Rome by, 252
Angeli, Emperors, incapacity and mis-
government of, 2i, 60; foreign
settlers encouraged by, 123-4
Angels, Moslim belief in, 185
Anglican Church compared with Mo-
hammedan, 195 ; with Orthodox, 232
Ani, ruins of, 424, 431
Antai (Slavs), 26
Anthimus, Patriarch, 277-8
Antioch, Patriarchate of, ancient exist-
ence of, 216-17; Bulgarian Church
declared schismatic by, 285; Geor-
gian Church formerly a dependency
of, 289
Aphthartodocetism, 428
Arabic, influence of, on Turkish, 106-8
Arabs, Constantinople besieged by, 30,
227 ; traces of, in Crete, 335462

INDEX

Arcadius, Emperor, 217
Arianism, 220, 236
Arm&ni (Vlachs), 414
Armatoles, 77, 303-4, 314, 316, 402, 405
Armenia, proportion of Turkish in popu-
lation of, 90
Name prohibited in Turkey, 424
Population of, proportion of Turkish
in, 434

Shah Abbas' desolation of, 427
Armenians—

Anglo-Armenian Society, 443
Asiatic origin and character of, 2,438,
443

Church of—tenets, ritual and patriot-
ism of, 223, 428-9 ; headquarters of,
424, 428 ; Gregorians and Catholics,
435-6; hostile towards Protestant
missionaries, 444
Commerce, aptitude for, 423, 433
Commercial ability of, 148
Constantinople, numerous in, 424,

453 ; rising and massacre in, 453-6
Constitution for, promulgated, 437
Greeks contrasted with, 438
Jews compared with, 423, 427, 432
Kurds' relations with, 433-4, 448;

their oppression of, 444
Language of, 429-31
Literature of, 431

Massacre of (1895-96), 448-9, 451-3;
effect of, on Christians' position, 148;
approved by Young Turks, 164, 457;
not prevented by the Powers, 242,
452, 457; Greek massacre of Latins
(1182) compared with, 244; Kurdish
view of, 272 ; Turkish fear of Chris-
tians, an explanation of, 318, 442,
450; Cretan affairs influenced by,
339; not keenly felt in Russia, 432 ;
not resented by Orthodox Church,
433

Physical characteristics of, 429
Political incapacity of, 423, 432
Protestant missionaries among, 442,

j\/\ 4

Roman rule of, 425-6
Sasun, massacres of, 448-9
Turkish government formerly pre-
ferred by, to Russian, 314 note
Turkish relations with, formerly
friendly, 438, 442; subsequently
suspicious and apprehensive, 442,

444) 45°

Women, position of, 446
Zeitun, rising in, 453
Army, Turkish—

Janissaries. See that title
Kurdish troops (Hamidie), 433
Officers, corruption and incapacity of,
96, 99

Rank and file, discipline and loyalty
of, 4, 82, 99, 117-18 ; ferocity of,
96, 416 ; taxes collected by, 157; re-
sourcefulness of, 96, 189; Mace-

Army, Turkish—continued

donian villages helped by (1895),
382

Reform of, rejected by Turks, 164
Arnaut (Albanian), 298 note, 388
Arrest, arbitrary power of, 140
Arsenius, Patriarch, 251, 275
Aryan languages, Turkish contrasted
with, 103

Asen I., Second Bulgarian Empire
founded by, 33, 35

-II., power of, 36, 261; union with

Rome abolished by, 261
Asperuch (Isperich), 31
Athos, Mount. See Mount Athos
Atticus, Patriarch, 217
Attila the Hun, Constantinople under

tribute to, 25
Austria (see also Powers)—

Albanian Catholics under protection

of, 125, 392
Bosnia and Herzegovina administered

by, 57, 65, 379-80
Bukovina ceded to (1777), 70
Turks a menace to (1520-86), 63
Autocracy, 130
Avars—

Characteristics of, 28
Incursions of, into Balkan Peninsula,
29 ; anecdote of campaign against

(587), 413 note

Medley of races covered by name of, 79
Azerbaijan, 102

Baldwin, Emperor, 22, 35
Balkan Peninsula, geographical divi-
sions of, 54
Bardas, Regent, 234-5
Barlaam, 252

Basil I., the Macedonian, Emperor,
237-8, 242

-II., the Bulgarian-slayer, 21, 33,

240, 260

-, heresiarch, 264-5

-, Patriarch of Bulgaria, 261

-the Wolf of Moldavia, 70

Bayazid. Sultan, Timur's defeat of, 23,
51, 89 ; victory of, at Nicopolis, 44 ;
conquests of, in Asia, 88
Beccus, Patriarch, 249, 251
Beggars, prevalence of, among Moslims,
190

Bektashi dervishes, 66, 196, 393
Belgrade. See under Servia
Beratlis, position of, 312
Berlin, Treaty of. See under Treaties
Bessarabia, ceded to Russia (1812), 70;
formerly included with Roumania,
279

Bey, application of title, 121 note
Bogomils, sect of, 47, 263-5
Boris, king of Bulgaria, 31, 259-60
Bosnia—

Austrian administration of, 57, 65,
379-80INDEX

463

Bosnia—continued

Bogomils strong in, 264
Independence of, after Dushan's death,
42

Moslims in, of European race, 338 ;

contentment of, 381
Servian occupation and rule of, 37, 39,
44

Turkish defeat of Bosnians at Kossovo
(1389), 43; Turks welcomed by
(1563), 47
Brankovich, George, 45-7
- Vuk, 44

Bribery, Levantine notions of, 145-6
" Bridge of Arta," ballad of, 417
Bridges, insecurity of, 156
Brigandage, prevalence of, in Byzantine

times, 303 ; at present time, 357-8
Brigands, Council of, 221-2
Buddhism, Turks in contact with, 83
Buhawids, 21
Bukovina, 70
Bulgaria—

Autonomy of, constituted by Treaty
of Berlin, 65, 350; connection of,
with Turkey merely nominal, 150
Bagpipes the national instrument of,
36i~2

Chorbaji, position of, 363, 374
Church of, controversy between Rome
and Orthodoxy regarding, 236, 238,
259-62, 282; struggle of, for inde-
pendence, 280-3; Uniat movement
in, 282-3

Exarchate, establishment of (1870),
76, 283-4 and note, 321, 348 ; dis-
sensions of, with Orthodox Church,
284-5 5 influence of 352-3; fees
taken by, 353 ; proposed reconcilia-
tion with Orthodox Church, 365
Extent of, 57

First Empire of, under Simeon, 23,
32, 260, 301, 346; Patriarchate
established by, 260 ; annihilation of,
33

Haiduds, 77, 347, 362
Independence of, after Dushan's death,
42

Insurrection of (1875-76), 65, 76
Kuman settlements in, 34
Macedonia, sympathy with, 364
Nicopolis, 44

Pasvan Oglu recognised by the Porte,
75

Pavlikans, 363-4

Phanariot influence in, 274-5 > revolt

against Phanariots, 348
Pomaks, 363

Russia, attitude of, towards Bul-
garian Church, 281, 285-6 ; support
of, 284; occupation by (1810, 1827),
348 ; strained relations with, 351 ;
reconciliation with, 365 ; literature
influenced by, 369
Second Empire (Vlacho-Bulgarian),

Bulgaria—continued

importance of, 23, 346 ; founders of,
probably Vlachs, 33, 414; prosperity
of, under Asen II., 36, 346; na-
tional Patriarchate established by,
260

Servian conquest of, 36-7, 40
Slava, custom of, found in, 372
Sofia, Kumanic origin of population

of, 34 note 2
Suspension of national life of, 75, 347
Trnovo, Vlacho-Bulgarian capital at,
34; beautified by Asen II., 36; burnt
by Ottomans, 37
Varna, 45, 256
"Women, position of, 362
Bulgarians—

Ballads of, 362
Characteristics of, 28
Christianity, conversion to, 28, 31,
231, 235, 259, 262; adherence to, 74
Industry of, 351, 362, 374
Language of, 368 and note, 369-70
Massacre of (1875), 349
Origin of, 27 and note, 346
Physical type of, 356, 367
Rise of, 30-31
Slavonic influence on, 28
Turks, alliance with, 37; Turkish
victory over, at Kossovo (1389), 43;
Turkish favour towards, 352 ; dis-
favour towards, 354
Bureaucracy, 135
Byzantine Empire—

Criticisms of, 59-60
Emperors of. See their titles
Exile of Emperors at Nicsea, 22
Foreigners' privileges under, 123
Intellectual influence of, 73
Latin usurpation of, by Crusaders, 22
Persian wars of, 19, 83
Pomp and ceremony of, imitated by

Turkish court, 121
Vassalage of, to the Sultan, 23

Cadis, religious law administered by,
140-1

Callixtus, Patriarch, 261
Cantacuzene. See John Cantacuzene
Capitulations, with Great Britain, 123;

with Venice, 124 ; with France, 125
Capodistrias, 279

Catholicos (head of Armenian Church),

424, 429, 436
Censorship, rigour of, 149
Chams, 397-8

Chants Populaires de la Grece Moderne

cited, 305
Charlemagne, 20, 230
China, Turkish origins described in re-
cords of, 81; Oigur civilisation in-
fluenced by, 84; Yuen dynasty
founded by Khubilai Khan, 87
Christianity (see also Orthodox Church
and Roman Church)—464

INDEX

Christianity—continued
Bulgarians converted to, 28, 31, 231,

235, 259, 262; faithful to, 74
Koran's references to, 210-11
Kumans converted to, 51
Mohammedanism contrasted with, 176
Mohammed's ideas on, 176, 208-12
Servians converted to, 38, 231, 259
Supremacy of, in the Levant, secured

by Leo the Isaurian, 20
Turks in contact with, in Central
Asia, 83
Christians—

Children, tribute of, exacted from, 66,

268, 302
Cities, position in, 148
Commercial abilities of, 73, 95, 148,

163, 300-1, 312
Extermination of, projected, 272, 302
Greed of, 97-8

Immunities of, after Turkish conquest,
267

Islam embraced by. See Mohammed-
anism, Conversions to
Mutual antipathies of, 160, 162, 342
Official positions rarely held by, 151;

vice-governorships held by, 159-60
Servility and timidity of, 160
Turkish scorn of, 15, 138, 165, 271,
303, 356; alliances with, 37, 44, 58,
272 ; distrust and fear of, 96, 164,
187, 318, 442, 444, 450; Young
Turks' attitude towards, 164
Cities, social conditions in, 148
Classification by religion, 429
Clement V., Pope, 248

- VI., Pope, 253

Codex Alexandrinus, 273
Commerce—

Christians' ability for, 73, 95,148,163,

300-1, 312, 423, 433
Frankish development of, in the

Levant, 21, 243-4
Turkish dislike and incapacity for,
94-5, 124, 145, 267
Commission for the Selection of Func-
tionaries, 153
Comneni, Emperors, policy of, regarding

foreign settlers, 123-4
Concert of Europe, 340
Constans II., Emperor, 30, 226
Constantine IV., Pogonatus, 30-31, 227

-V., Copronymus, 229-30, 263

-VI., 230

-Monomachus, 241

-XI., Palaeologus, 46, 257

Constantinople—

Arab attack on, 30,227
Armenians numerous in, 424, 453;

their rising and massacre in, 453-6
Attila exacts tribute from, 25
Beauties of, 60

Churches destroyed in (1821), 278
Commercial importance of, in ninth
and tenth centuries, 20

Constantinople—continued
Conference of the Powers at, 349
Cosmopolitan character of, 142-4, 150
Crusaders' capture of, 22, 35, 242-3,

245

Dushan's expedition against, 41-2
Foreigners' position in, under Byzan-
tine Empire, 123-4 ; at present time,
243-4

Greek element in, strengthened by

Mohammed II., 301-2
Hostility of, to Roman Church, 243,
245-6

Latin churches and convents in, 240-
241 ; Latin Empire at, see Latin
Empire

Massacre of Visigoths at (401), 25 ; of

Latins by Greeks (1182), 242-4
Political importance of, 18, 89
Provinces contrasted with, 141
Sieges of (673-77, 717-18), 20
Social conditions in, 146, 149
Turkish capture of, 23, 45-6, 242, 258 ;
European contrivances used for, 97
Coraes, political importance of, 277, 311-
312

Cossack, original use of term, 80
Council of Ministers, constitution of,
134

Council of State, work of, 135
Councils, ecclesiastical, importance of,
219, 255

Couza, Alexander, of Roumania, 71, 280
Crete—

Armenians emboldened by disturb-
ances in, 453
Insurrections in (1770-1896), 336
Saracen capture of, 21, 335
Social life in, 337-8
Turkish mismanagement in, 341; con-
trol of, now merely nominal, 150
Venetian rule of, 335
War of 1897, 339-40
Crimea, Russian annexation of, 315
Crimean War, 64; effects of, in Rou-
mania, 71; in Bulgaria, 281; Hatt-
i-Humayun a result of, 322
Croatia} Servian conquests in, 38
Croatian language, 370 and note 1
Croatians, Servians a kindred race to,
27; advance of, in reign of Heraclius
30 ; Servians hostile to, 373
Crusades, disastrous influence of, in the
Levant, 21-2, 244; Latin Empire
established by, 22, 35, 242-3, 245;
directed against Constantinople, 248
Cydonia, Greek colony of, 311
Cyprus Convention, 440, 458
Cyril of Alexandria, 221

-Lucaris, Patriarch, 273

-, Patriarch, 281-2

-, Saint (Constantine), missionary

labours of, 28, 235, 259, 262, 367;
Glagolithic alphabet invented by,
370 note1INDEX

465

Cyrillus Contari, 273

Czar, etymology of term, 32 note

Dere-beyis, rule of, 158-9
Dervendji Pasha, office of, held by

Albanians, 314, 402
Dervish, meaning of term, 192
Dervishes—

Bektashis, 66, 196, 393
Mevlevi (dancing dervishes), 197-201
Mysticism of, 193
Orders of, 192
Position of, 191, 194
Rufais, 196
Tenets of, 194
Dinaric race, 387

Dolma Baghche, palace of, 94, 109
Dragosh, Moldavia founded by, 51
Dress, Oriental views on, 361
Dushan. See Stephen Dushan

Eastern Church. See Orthodox Church
Eastern Roumelia, separated from Bul-
garia by Treaty of Berlin, 57, 65,
350; incorporated with Bulgaria,
^5» 350 I Phanariot influence in, 275
Effendi, application of title, 120-21 note
Election, form of, on accession of Sultan,
128

England. See Great Britain
Ephesus, Council of Brigands held -at,
221-2 ; bishop of, refuses assent to
union with Rome (1439), 256
Epirus—

The Despotate of, 22, 48
Geographical situation of, 58
Illyrian kingdom of, under Pyrrhus, 24
Slavonic occupation of, 30
Epitropi in Crete, 339
Ertoghrul the Ottoman, 87-8
Espionage, 13, 146-8, 152-3
Eugenius Bulgares, 277

-, Patriarch, 278

-IV., Pope, 255-6

Eustathius, Patriarch, 240
Eutliemius, Patriarch, 239
Eutyches, doctrine of, 217, 222-3

Fate (kismet), doctrine of, 187-8
Fatimites, 127

Festivals, Mohammedan, 206-7
Fetnas, importance of, 131-2, 303
Fiefs. See Military fiefs
Financial system and administration,

145-6, 154-5, 161, 305, 339, 358
Finnish language, 78, 100, 104, 106
Finno-Ugric stock, 27
Fleet, Dragoman of the, Phanariots

appointed as, 74, 274, 307
Foreigners, position of, under Byzantine
Empire, 122-3; at present time,
243-4

France (see also Powers)—

Armenian Catholics protected by,
435 ; Armenians influenced by, 437;

France—continued

represented on Commission of In-
quiry into Armenian massacres, 449
Bulgaria supported by, 284
Capitulations with, 125
Greek autonomy advocated by, 319
Massacre of French in Sicily, 250
Roman Catholics in Turkey under

protection of, 125, 392
Turkey supported by, 64
Frederick Barbarossa, 38
Freeman on Byzantine Empire, 59
Fustanella, 397

Galata, Genoese colony at, 124
Gennadius (Gregorius Scholarius), 258,
266, 268

Genoese, colony of, at Galata, 124 ; By-
zantine commerce in the hands of,
243

George Brankovich of Servia, 45-7

-Castriotis. See Skanderbeg

Germanus, Patriarch, 262
Ghaznevids, 85

Ghegs (see also Albanians), tribal divi-
sions and customs of, 389 ; feuds of,
395-6 ; fraternal friendships of, 396 ;
dress of, 396
Gibbon on Byzantine Empire, 59 ; on
attitude of Greek emperors towards
the Pope, 246-7
Glagolithic alphabet, 370 note1
Golden Horde, the, establishment of, 011
the Volga, 87 ; Timur's conquest of,
89; Russian Tartar settlements
originating from, 101
Golden Horn. See Phanar
Government, Turkish—

Change of officials, frequency of, 86,
138, 309

Christian vice-governors, 151, 159-60
Collapse of, frequently predicted, 162
Commission for the Selection of

Functionaries, 153
Divisions of departments, 134
Internal organisation, 140
Judicial administration, 140-1, 213
Ministers, number and position of, 134
Salaries of provincial posts, insuffi-
ciency of, 146, 154
Spies, 13, 146-8, 152-3, 456
Title of, 135
Grammar, Turkish, 102-6
" Grand Company," the, 22
" Grand Seignior," Sultan's title of, 121
Grand Vizier, Turkish title for, 153
Great Britain (see also Powers)—

Armenia, attitude towards, 443, 457-8;
represented on Commission of In-
quiry into Armenian massacres, 449
Bulgaria supported by, 284
Capitulations with, 123
Cyprus Convention with, 440, 458
Greek autonomy advocated by, 319
Turkey supported by, 64

2 G466

INDEX

Greece-

Church of, recognised as independent,
279

Cretan sympathies of, 336; war of

1897, 339-43
Ethnike Hetaireia (1897), 340; (1815),

311, 3I3> 3*7
Morea, Slavonic occupation of, 30;
Venetian influence in, 47, 314; re-
volt attempted in (1770), 315 ; revolt
in (1821), 318
Scenery of, 334

War of Independence, 64, 317-19;
Roumanians not favourable to, 70-
71 ; Ali-Pasha engaged in, 73, 317,
405-6; effect of, on position of
Greeks in Turkish Empire, 74;
causes of, 310
Greek Empire. See Byzantine Empire
Greeks—

Architecture of, 332
Armenians contrasted with, 438
Commercial ability of, 73, 95, 148,

300-1,	312
Conspicuousness of, 332-3
Distribution of, 90, 299-300, 330
Energy and intelligence of, 321, 330
Influence of, on Slavs, 372; in the

Tosk country, 401
Language of, 324-9, 369; Turkish
contrasted with, 103; Vlach words
allied to, 412 and note1
Latins massacred by, 242-4
Literature, popular (ballads), 305,

308, 311; Phanariot, 310
Massacre of, by Kaloyan, 35 ; in 1770,
3i5

Mixed descent of, 293, 300
Mohammed II. 's policy towards,

301-2

Moslims massacred by, 318
Peasant class of, rarely found, 300,

329

Phanariots. See that title
Urban character of, 300
"Venality of, 303
Gregorius Scholarius (Gennadius), 258,

266, 268
Gregory, Patriarch, 278

- II., Pope, 229

-VII., Pope, 38

Giilhane, Hatt-i-Sherif of, 321-2

Haiasdan (Armenia), 425
Haiduds, 77, 347, 362
Haik (Armenians), 425
Haji Bektash, Janissaries blessed by, 66,
196

Hajj, the (pilgrimage to Mecca), 184,
213-14

Halet Effendi, 317 and note, 318
Hamidie (Kurdish troops), 433
Harem, Imperial, ceremonial of, 122;

influence of, 62, 120
Harun-ar-reshid, treaty with, 21

Hasan, grandson of Mohammed, 126,
194, 208

Hassan Effendi, anecdote of, 10-12
Hasun, Patriarch, 435-6
Hatt-i-Humayun (1856), 281, 322-4
Hatt-i-Sherif of Giilhane, 321-2
Havales, 154-5

Hawkwood, negotiations with, 254
Hellenic (literary Greek), 327-8
Hellenic Church, recognition of, 279
Heraclius, Emperor, successes of, 19;
Slavs unopposed by, 29 ; attempts
of, to unite Eastern and Western
Churches, 225-6
Herzegovina—

Austrian administration of, 57, 65,
379-80

Insurrection of 1874, 65, 349
Servian rule over, 38, 41
Turkish occupation of, 47
Hetaireia. See under Greece
Hintchak, 441

"History of Bulgaria, The," 347
Hiung-nu, Chinese accounts of, 81
Honorius, Pope, 226-7
Houses, Turkish, 91-2, 418 ; Greek, 332;

Albanian, 393 ; Vlach, 418
Hukyumet-i-seniye, 135
Humbert di Silva Candida, Cardinal, 241
Hungarians {see also Magyars), language

of, 106 ; physical features, 293-4
Hungary-

Avars' occupation of, 29
Belgrade taken by, after Dushan's
death, 42

Ladislas of, sent by Eugenius IV.

against the Turks, 256
Magyars' occupation of, 26
Roumanian wars with, 51
Servia, hostility to, 39 ; Servian vic-
tory over, 41; emigration of Serbs
to, 44

Turkish defeat of, at Nicopolis, 44;
at Varna, 45 ; Turkish influence on,
62; Turks expelled from, 63
Huns, western movement started by,
24; successes of, under Attila, 25;
physical features of, 79, 294
Hunyady Janos, 45-7, 49
Husein, grandson of Mohammed, 126,
194, 208

Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, 318-19

-Sultan, 272

Iconium. See Konia
Iconoclasm, 228-31, 263
Ignatius, Patriarch, 234-5, 237~8
Ilarion Mikhailovsky, Bishop, 276,280-2
Illyrians, 24, 387
India—

English Empire of, compared with

Turkey in Europe, 91
Mongol Empire established in, 89
Suleiman's navies, threatened by, 63
"Infidel dog," origin of phrase, 245INDEX

467

Inheritance, cases of, dealt with by-
Patriarch of Constantinople, 141,

303

Innocent III., Pope, correspondence of,
with Kaloyan, 34 note35 ; view of,
on Latin conquest of Constantinople,
246 ; Kaloyan crowned by, 261
Ionian Islands, 316 and note
Ipek, See of, 274-5, 279> 3°8
Irades, frequency of, 133-4; nature of,
149

Iranians, 79, 84
Irene, Empress, 230
Isaac Angelus, 35

Isidore, Metropolitan, 225-7 and note
Islam (see also Mohammedanism), mean-
ing of term, 169
Isperich (Asperuch), 31
Italy, Albanian emigration to, 72, 388 ;

Armenian Catholics in, 435
Ivan the Terrible, 287
Izzet Bey, 317 note

Janissaries, corps of—

Abolition of, 67, 162, 303, 319
Composition of, 62, 66-7, 79, 97, 268,
302

Excesses of, in Servia, 75
Haji Bektash, blessing of, 66, 196
Jelalu-'d-Din, 197-9
Jenghiz Khan, 80, 87
Jerusalem, Church of, Bulgarian Church

declared schismatic by, 285
Jesuits, 272-3
Jews—

Armenians compared with, 423, 427,
432

Berats acquired by, 312
Interpreters, used as, 306
Mohammed's relations with, 174, 211
Joachim, Patriarch, 282-3
Joannitza. See Kaloyan
Joasaph, Patriarch, 269, 273
John V., Palaeologus, Emperor, 253-4

- VI., Palaeologus, Emperor, 254,

256

-XIX., Pope, 240

-Cantacuzene, 23, 41, 252-3

-Corvinus Huniades, 45-7

-the Faster, Patriarch, 218

-the Grammarian, Patriarch, 230

-the Terrible of Moldavia, 69

-Zimesces, Emperor, Russians de-
feated by, 33; Nicephorus assassi-
nated by, 240; Paulicians trans-
planted to Thrace by, 264, 364
Joseph, Patriarch, 249, 251, 255
-Sokolski, 283

Jurisprudence, Turkish system of, 140-
141, 213

Justin, Emperor, Turkish overtures re-
fused by, 83 ; union with Rome re-
established in the reign of, 224
Justinian, Emperor, power of, 19 ; title
of (Ecumenical introduced by, 218 ;

Justinian, Emperor—continued

efforts of, to unite Eastern and
Western Churches, 224-5
-Rhinotmetus, 31

Kaaba, shrine of the, 172, 175, 213-14
Kaikhosrau II., Seljuk Sultan, 87
Kaloyan (Joannitza), Czar of Bulgaria,
correspondence of, with Innocent
III., 34 note35, 260 ; successes of,
against Latins and Greeks, 35;
crowned by Innocent III., 35, 261
Kara George of Servia, 75
Karabajak, alleged exploits of, 358
Karagyoz (shadow-play), 114
Kazak (Cossack) original use of term,
80

Khalifah, application of title, 126;

theoretical qualifications of, 127
Khawarij, tenets of, 128
Khilafet-penahi, title of, 125
Khoja Nasreddin Effendi, humorous

stories attributed to, 111-13
Khubilai Khan, 87
Khudavendigiar (Broussa), 88
Kirghizes, 80, 101
Kismet, doctrine of, 187-8
Kizil Bashs, 102

Klephts, 77, 303-5, 314, 316, 326, 335
Knez, Princes of Servia styled, 44
Konak, usual type of, 151-2
Konariots, 102

Konia (Iconium), Seljuk Sultanate of,
86-8, 299; Dervish services at, 199
Koniots, 102
Koran—

Abrogated verses of, 212
Christianity, references to, 210-11
Future life emphasised by, 183, 185-6
Infidels denounced by, 182
Interpretation of, limited, 132-3, 181
Mesnevi antagonistic to, 194
Minuteness of detail and rigidity of,

180-2
Omissions in, 184
Origin of, 177

Polytheism denounced by, 167
Psalms of David quoted in, 178
Quotations from, 167-9, 182, 210-11
Sacrificial offerings enjoined by, 206
Style of, 179-80
Veneration for, 178-9
Kossovo, battle of, Southern Slavs de-
feated at, 37, 43-4; mourned by
Servians in ballads, 43, 377 ; Mircea
of Wallachia engaged in, 51
Kroya, Mohammed II. 's defeat at, 49
Krumn, king of Bulgaria, 31
Kudaiku BUik, 84

Kul-Tegin, inscription to, 82 and note 1
Kumans, 34, 51, 413
Kurdistan, districts of, 425
Kurds, view of, on Armenian massacres,
272; Albanians compared with, 408 ;
Armenians' relations with, 433-4,468

INDEX

Kurds—continued

448; their oppression by, 444;
Turkish attitude towards, 433, 449
Kyopriilii (Veles), 355
Kyopriilus (Albanian Viziers), 72
Kyritsos Michalis, ballad of, 308

Language—

Arabic, 106-8

Bulgarian, 368 and note, 369-70
Classification by, 78, 295-6, 367
Croatian, 370 and note1
Greek, 324-9, 369
Hungarian, 106

Latin, Ylach similar to, 33-4, 411 and
note, 412-13; Turkish contrasted
with, 103
Magyar-Finnish, 78, 100
Manchu, 78, 100, 104
Mongol, 78, 100
Montenegrin, 371
Persian, 106-8

Roumanian, 369 and note, 412
Servian, 370-2 and notes
Turkish, 78, 94, 100-9, 327
Ylach, 411-13 and notes
Latin Empire at Constantinople, estab-
lishment of, 22, 242-3, 245; Kalo-
yan rebuffed by, 35 ; Asen II.'s
relations with, 36
Lazar of Servia, 43-4
Leilu-'l-berat, festival of, 187, 207
Leo III., the Isaurian, Emperor, suc-
cesses of, 20; iconoclasm of, 228-9

-IV., Emperor, 229

-the Armenian, Emperor, 31, 230

-VI., Emperor, 238-9

-IX., Pope, 241

Letter-writing, 109
Levantine, type signified by, 142, 144
Liaps, 389, 397-8
Liberal Party. See Young Turks
Literature, Turkish—

Artificial character of, 109-10, 138
Censorship's effect on, 149
Humour of, 111-13
Oriental idea of, 109, 138, 326, 378
Persian element in, 108
Popular songs, 110-11
Style of, 109-10
Lombards, 19-20, 28
Louis II., Emperor, 237, 242

-IX., 248-9

-the Great of Hungary, 41

Macedonia—

Asenid rule of, 36
Fiefs numerous in, 68, 158
Geographical situation of, 58
Phanariot influence in, 274-5
Rising in, 365
Scenery of, 354-6, 358-9
Turkish occupation of, 43
Vacouf lands numerous in, 68
Magyar-Finnish language, 78, 100

Magyars (see also Hungarians, Hungary),
Hungary occupied by, 26; physical
appearance of, 79, 293-4
Mahmud II., Sultan, ability of, 64;
expedition against Ali-Pasha, 72-3,
405 ; Christians conciliated by, 320 ;
Crete occupied by order of, 336
Mahmud of Ghazni, 85
Manchu language, 78, 100, 104
Manuel Comnenus, Emperor, 38, 265

-Palseologus, Emperor, 23, 254

Manzikert, Romanus defeated at, 21,
85

Marc, Bishop of Ephesus, 256

Maritime Serbs, 30

Maritsa, Turkish victory on the, 42

Marko Kralyevich of Servia, 43, 377

Marsovan, burning of college at, 447

Martin IV., Pope, 250

Masud the Seljuk, 86

Matthew Bassarab of Wallachia, 70

Maurice, Emperor, 218

Mecca, Pilgrimage to, 184, 213-14

Mehemet (Mohammed) Ali of Egypt, 64,

3l8, 336
Mekhitarists, 435
Melchites, schism of, 277
Melik Shah the Seljuk, 85
Mesnevi, antagonism of, to the Koran,
194 ; authorship of, 197 ; English
translation of, 201
Mesrob, Bishop, 431

Methodius, Saint, missionary labours of,
28, 235, 259, 262, 367; Glagolithic
alphabet, 370 note1
Michael III., Emperor, 234^5, 237, 259
-Palseologus, Emperor, Constanti-
nople recaptured by, 22 ; Servia in
alliance with, 40; ecclesiastical dif-
ficulties of, 248-51

-Angelus, Despot of Epirus, 48

-the Brave of Wallachia, 69

-Cerularius, Patriarch, 240-2

-Soutzo, complicity of, in Greek

revolt, 317-18
Military fiefs, institution of, 67-8; nu-
merous in Macedonia, 68, 158
Millets, list of, 296-7
Milosh Obrenovich of Servia, 75
Mircea of Wallachia, 51
Mirdites, Tozer on, 387 note ; importance
of, 389, 396 ; religion of, 390, 397;
customs and dress of, 396-7
Mirie (Crown lands), 141
Moesia, seven Slavonic tribes of, 31
Mohammed the Prophet—

Christianity, ideas on, 176, 208-12

Death of, 84

Life of, 171-5

Relic of, venerated, 207

Successors of, 126-7

-I., Sultan, 23

-II., Sultan—

Church policy of, 266-7
Constantine XI. harassed by, 257INDEX

469

Mohammed II.—continued
Constantinople captured by, 20, 45-6,
258

Greek element in Constantinople

strengthened by, 269, 301
Morea mostly subdued by, 314
Skanderbeg's victory over, at Kroya, 49

-(Mehemet) Ali of Egypt, 64, 318,

336

Mohammedanism—

Anglicanism compared with, 195
Books, sacred, other than the Koran,
177-8

Church and state identified by, 131, 267
Conversions to, general from fifteenth
to seventeenth centuries, 272; of
Albanians, 72, 76, 383, 392, 401-2 ;
Oigurs, 84; Cretans, 336; Pomaks,
363 ; Serbs, 374, 379, 482 ; Bosnians,
379> 382
Cramping effect of, 188
Creed of, 166

Discipline, sense of, strengthened by,

86, 189
Fatalism of, 100
Five duties of, 185 note
Future life emphasised by, 183, 185-6
Individual liberty fostered by, 189
Koran. See that title
Namaz (form of public worship), 169-

170, 184, 202-6
Predestination taught by, 187-8
Prophets venerated by, 171
Ramazan, 200-1, 206
Religious seasons, 206-7
Sultan's claims to be head of Moham-
medan Church, 117, 125-8, 444
Sunna, limited interpretation of, 132-
133; Sheri system of jurisprudence
based on, 140, 213; binding charac-
ter of, 184, 212-13
Traditions. See above, Sunna
Unprogressive character of, 180
Vacouf property possessed by Church,
68

Mohammedans (see also Turks), Albanian
attack on, 316; massacre of, by
Greeks, 318
Moldavia (see also Roumania)—

Early history of, 51-2
Insurrection in (1821), 277-8
Phanariot rule in, 70, 74, 274, 280,
307-8

Revolt of, against Turks, 69-70
Russian invasions of, 63
Mollahs, position of, 194
Momcheta, 347

Monasteries, secularised, 378-9
Monastir, 357-8

Mongol, modern application of term, 80
Mongols—

Abbaside power destroyed by, 127
Alau-'d-din's defeat of, 88
Armenian alliances with, 427
Indian Empire of, 89

Mongols—continued
Language of, 78, 100
Seljuks defeated by, 87
Monophysite doctrine, Alexandria and
Antioch adherents of, 217 ; contro-
versy regarding, 222-5 > Asiatic ori-
gin of, 263
Monotheletism, 225-7
Montenegro—

Church of, 276
Geographical situation of, 57
History of, 383-4

Independence of, recognised by Treaty

of Berlin, 65
Language of, similar to Servian, 371
Servian occupation and rule of, 38, 44
Morea. See under Greece
Moslims. See Mohammedans
Mosque, form of, 202
Mount Athos—

Arsenius and Samuel banished to, 275
Chilendar monastery founded by

Stephen Nemanya, 38, 379
Cretan monks contrasted with inhabi-
tants of, 337
Females excluded from, 55
Life in, 378

Neophit banished to, 281
Russian interference in, 315
Saint Sava a monk of, 262
Mount Thabor, uncreated light of, 251-2
Muezzin, 203
Mulk property, 141

Murad I., Sultan, Bulgarian Czar a vas-
sal of, 37 ; death of, at Kossovo, 44 ;
slave-soldier system perfected by,
66 ; conquests of, in Asia, 88

---II., Sultan, Servia reduced by, 45 ;

Skanderbeg victorious against, 49

- III., Sultan, project of, against

Christians, 272

-III., deposition of, 132, 349

Musa Bey, 444

Namaz. See under Mohammedanism
Names, family, true Turks not possessed
of, 120; Albanian pride in, 120;
Bosnian peculiarity regarding, 380
Nationality, Levantine idea of. See
Race

Navarino, battle of, 319

Negroes in America. See under United

« States

Neophit Bozveli, Archimandrite, 280-1
Nestorianism, Alexandria and Antioch
adherents of, 217 ; condemnation of,
221; sphere of influence of, 222
Nicephorus, Emperor, Iconoclasm fa-
voured by, 230

-Phocas, Emperor, successes of, 21 ;

Bulgaria attacked by, 33; assassi-
nated by John Zimesces, 33, 240;
pomp and ceremony of, 121
Nicolas, Patriarch, 239
-I., Pope, 235-647°

INDEX

Nicolas III., Pope, 249
—- V., Pope, 257
Nicopolis, Turkish victory at, 44
"Night of power," 206 and note
Nihilism, rise of, 441
Nikon, influence of, in Russian Church,
288-9

Nish. See under Servia
Normans, 21, 241

Ochrida, See of, 260, 274-5, 308; lake

of, 358-9; town of, 360
Odoacer, 19

(Ecumenical, use and meaning of term, 218
Officialism as a profession, 95, 136
Officials, frequent change of, 86, 138,
« 309 ; Christian vice-governors, 151,
159-60
Oigurs, 84

"Old and New Bulgaria," 347
Old Servia—

Albanians in, 275
Geographical situation of, 58
Language of, 371
Turkish territory, 37
Ommiade Caliphate at Damascus, 126;

at Cordova, 127
Orkhan, John Cantacuzene the ally of,
41; slave-soldier system introduced
by, 66 ; conquests of, in Asia, 88
Orthodox Church—

Anglican Church compared with, 232
Armenians unwilling to unite with,
436

Bogomils persecuted by, 264-5
Bulgarians converted by, 28, 31, 235,
259, 262; relations with Bulgarian
Church, see under Bulgaria
Churches of, tabular list of, 286-7
Corruption of, under Turks, 268-72
Customs of, 333-4
Ecthesis, the, 226

Filioque controversy, 236, 249-50, 255
Government and constitution of,
215-16

Hellenic Church recognised by, 279
Henoticon, the, 223-4
Iconoclasm controversy, 228-31, 263
Influence of, estimated, 289-90; wan-
ing of authority in seventeenth
century, 274
Lethargy of, 231
Melchite schism, 277
Monophysitism, 222-5, 263
Monotheletism, 225-7
Name-days observed in, 372
(Ecumenical Councils, view regarding,
255

Patriarchate, sale of, 269-71
Patriarchs. See their titles
Paulicians persecuted by, 264-5, 3^4
Persecution of, by Pope Nicolas, 236
Roman Church—

Contrasted with, 232
Dissensions with, a cause of weak-

Orthodox Church—continued

ness against the Turks, 3, 21, 245,
272

Hostility shown by, 244-5, 256,

258, 272 ; shown to, 246, 277
Interference of, in case of Ignatius,
235

Separation from, 21, 229-30, 232-3,
240-1 ; considered schismatic by,
22, 246

Union with, established (1439), 255 ;
repudiated by Eastern Churches,
256; attempted (1451), 256-7;
abolished in Synod (1472), 258
Roumanian Church, relations3with, 280
Servians converted by, 231, 259, 262 ;

their adherence to, 27, 38, 262-3
Tosks adherents of, 392, 401
Turks' assumption of protection over,
121; their supremacy beneficial to,
266-8
Type, the, 226
Osman, 88 note

Osman, sword of honour presented to, 198
Osman Pasha, Field-Marshal, 116
Osmanli, wide application of term, 80
Osmanlis (Ottomans ; see also Turks)—
Advance of, 22-3, 87
Byzantine Empire, conquests in, 46
Caucasian type common among, 79
and note

Pre-eminence of, to other Turks, 89-90
Timur's defeat of, 89
Ostrogoths, 25

Ottoman Bank, attack on, 148
Ottomans. See Osmanlis

Panayoti the Phanariot, 307, 310

Papas Oglu, 315

Pasha, application of title, 120

Pas van Oglu of Widdin, 75, 311

Patzinaks. See Pechenegs

Paulicians, the (see also Bogomils), 228,

263, 364
Pavlikans, 363-4

Pechenegs (Patzinaks), 34, 363-4, 413
Pelagius, Pope, 225
Peloponnesus. See Greece, Morea
" People of Turkey, The," cited, 345
Pepin, 229
Persia—

Abbaside Caliphate at Bagdad, 21, 84,
87, 127

Armenians subject to, 426-7
Art of, borrowed by Turks, 94
Azerbaijan dynasty now reigning in,
102

Byzantine Empire at war with, 19, 83
Dervish connection with, 194
Language of, Turkish influenced by,
106-8

Mohammedan conquest of, 84
Sassanids in collision with Turks in, 83
Shiite Mohammedanism professed in,
170INDEX

47i

Persia—continued

Turkish tribes in, 102
Peter the Great, 288-9, 315
Phanar, Greek colony founded in, by

Sultan Mohammed, 269, 274, 306
Phanariots—

Bulgarian revolt against, 280, 348
Exodus of, 320

Hellenising policy of, 301; origin of

rival Churches, 285
National movement opposed by, 277
Roumania under influence of, 280,
307-8

Slavs under influence of, 308
Turkish employment of, 70, 73-4, 267,
274, 306-7; ecclesiastical abuses of,
274-6; discontinuance of employ-
ment of, 319
Venality of, 309
Phocas, Emperor, 218
Photius, Patriarch, 234-8
Phyletism, 285

Physical features, classification by, 292-4,

367, 387

Pius VII., Pope, 278

Police, interference of, with individual

liberty, 146
Polyeuctes, Patriarch, 240
Pomaks, 363

Porte, Dragoman of the, Phanariots ap-
pointed as, 74, 274, 307
Prisons, 447-8
Propaganda, 297-8, 357
Prophets, Mohammedan traditions re-
garding, 171
Protestant influences, Cyril Lucaris

under, 273
Provinces, number of, 57; evils of ad-
ministration in, 148, 150-1; no
Christian officials in, 151
Public funds, maladministration of,
IS5-6, 358, 385

Race, meaning of word in Turkey, 124,

144, 291, 297-8, 323, 354
Races, classification of, by language, 78,
295~6, 367; by physical features, 292-4,
367, 387; by religion, 124, 296, 354,
429

Racova, Turkish defeat at, 52
Radoslav, king of Servia, 262
Radu Negru, Wallaehia founded by, 51
Railways, effect of, 355
Ramazan, 200-1, 206
Rank, Turkish view of, 160
Rastko (Saint Sava), 39, 262-3
Real estate, 141

Recreation, Turkish idea of, 100
Reform, Turkish attitude towards, 164
Reformation, the, contrasted with sepa-
ration of Orthodox and Roman
Churches, 232
Religion, classification by, 296, 354, 429
Religious seasons, 206-7
Reshid Pasha, 407

Rhigas, political influence of, 311, 313
Robert College, 360
Romaic, 327-9
Roman Church—

Apulia detached from, 229; reunited
to, 241

Aquileia schismatic from, 225
Armenian adherents of, 435-6
Ascendency, growth of, 224, 227
Bogomils persecuted by, 47, 264
Bulgarian relations with, 259-62, 282-3,
285

Charlemagne's coronation by the Pope,

20, 230
Croatians adherents of, 27
Filioque controversy, 236, 249-50, 255
France and Austria the protectors of
adherents of, 125 and note, 392, 435
Ghegs adherents of, 392
Infallibility of papacy, 227 note
Mirdites adherents of, 390
Moustaches worn by priests of, in

Albania, 386
Nestorianism condemned by, 221
Orthodox Church, relations with. See

under Orthodox Church
Pavlikans adherents of, 364
Pepin appealed to by, 229
Political importance of, 19 ; rise of

temporal power, 216
Pre-eminence of, before 330 a.d., 216
Russian resistance to, 288-9
Servians originally adherents of, 38 ;
their preference for Turkish rule
rather than papal, 47; their rela-
tions with, 262-3
Vladislav incited to war by papal
legate, 45
Romanus IV., Emperor, 21, 85
Romulus Augustulus, Emperor, 19
Roumania (see also Wallaehia and Mol-
davia)—

Bulgarian suzerainty over, 51
Church of, connected with Patriarchate
of Ochrida, 260 ; autocephalous, 279;
contrasted with Bulgarian, 284-5
Development of, independent of the

Greek Empire, 50, 52
Extent of, 57

Factions among Boyards in, 69
Greek element in Euxine ports of,
299; attitude towards Greek insur-
gents, 317
Hungarian wars of, 51
Independence of, recognised by Treaty

of Berlin, 65, 71
Language of, 369 and note, 412
Phauariot influence in, 274, 280
Prosperity of, 69
Russian influence in, 64, 315
Slava, custom of, found in, 372
Union of, under Couza, 71, 280
Rtim, origin of term, 299
Russia—

Armenian preference for Turkish472

INDEX

Russia— continued

government to Russian, 314 note;
massacres not keenly felt in, 432;
represented on Commission of In-
quiry into massacres, 449 ; Armen-
ians in Transcaucasia taken over
by, 436
Bessarabia ceded to, 70
Bulgarian relations with. See under
Bulgaria

Church in, Isidore the representative
of, at Council of Florence, 255-7 and
note; history and importance of,
287-9

Crimean War. See that title
Greek element in Euxine ports of,
299 ; Hellenic Church recognised by,
279 ; Greek autonomy advocated by,

3*9 .

Imperial titles in use in, 32 note

Importance of, to Balkan States, 350-1

Muzhiks, characteristics of, 288

Nihilism in, 441

Roumania influenced by, 64

Sects in, allied to Bogomils, 265 ; Old

Believers, 288
Tartar settlements in, 101
Turkish Empire, intervention in, 63-4,
7°> 3I5 ; war with Turkey (1770),
3I5 ; (1877), 65, 349, 439
Russians—

Asen II. seizes Bulgarian throne by

aid of, 36
Conquests of, north of Black Sea, 63
Nicephorus Phocas seeks alliance with,
33

Timur's victories advantageous to, 89

St. Naum, monastery at, 379
St. Sava (Rastko), 39, 262-3
Salaries. See under Government
Salonica—

Constantinople compared with, 141
Hellenism strong in, 29
Konak at, 151

Montferrat made king of, 22
Sieges of, by Slavs, 29-30; by Kaloyan,
35; by Dushan, 41 ; Turkish capture
of, 23
Samanids, 84-5
Samuel, Patriarch, 275

-son of Shishman of Bulgaria, 33,

360

San Stefano, Treaty of, 439
Saracens—

Basil's attempted alliance against, 237,
242

Constans II. 's wars with, 30
Constantine's struggle with, 227
Crete occupied by, 21, 335
Latins contrasted with, by Petrarch,
247

Sart, application of term, 101
Sava, St. (Rastko), 39, 262-3
Selamlik, ceremony of, 115-17

Selim I., Sultan, period of, 63; project
of, against Christians, 272, 302

-III., Sultan, berats granted by, 312

Seljuks (see also Turks)—

Advance and rise of, 21-2, 85-6
Koniots dscended from, 102
Military fiefs granted by, 67
Mongol defeat of, 87
Rftm, title of, assumed by, 299
Semendria, castle of, 45
Serb, kindred names to, 26
Serbs, Maritime, 30. For other Serbs see

Servia, Servians.

Sergius, Patriarch, 240
Servia—

Belgrade, Hungarian rule over, 42, 47
note; recovered by Servia, 44; be-
sieged (1456), 47 ; bombarded (1864),
283

Bulgarian rule over, 36 ; Bulgaria de-
feated by, 36
Church in, undecided between Rome
and Orthodoxy, 259 ; recognised by
both, 263 ; autocephalous, 279 ; con-
trasted with Bulgarian Church,
284-5 I equivocal attitude towards
Bulgarian Church, 285; present
position of, 378
Cultivation in, 374

Empire of Stephen Dushan, 23, 40-42,
263, 301, 346; collapse of, after
Dushan's death, 42-4; dependency
of the Sultan, 44-5, 47 ; subsequent
history to 1830, 75
Extent of, 37, 57
Hungarian hostility to, 39
Independence of, recognised by Treaty

of Berlin, 64-5, 75
Nish, Servian conquest of, 38; cap-
tured by Turks, 43 ; Turkish defeat
at, 49; inhabitants of, formerly
called Bulgarians, 373
Phanariot influence in, 274
Sava's influence on destinies of, 39,
262-3

Semendria, castle of, 45
Slava, 372

Social conditions in, 374
Women, position of, 376
Servian, etymology of name, 26
Servians—

Christianity adopted by, 38, 262
Croatians hostile to, 373
Disunion of, 346, 373
Language of, 370-2 and notes
Literature of, 377-8
Physical type of, 367
Sheep-tax, 157

Sheikh-ul-Islam, office of, 131-3; su-
preme appeal in religious cases,
140-1

Sheri system of jurisprudence, 14q-1,

213
Shiahs, 126

Shiites, tenets of, 170, 207-8INDEX

473

Shishman of Bulgaria, 33
Shkyipetar (Albanian), 389
Siaset-name, 86

Sicily, Saracen capture of, 21; Albanian
emigrations to, 72; "Sicilian Ves-
pers," 250
Sigismund of Hungary, 44
Simeon, Czar of Bulgaria, 32,260,301,346
Sisinnius, Patriarch, 240
Skanderbeg of Albania, 48-9, 402
Sklavinoi, 30

Slav, etymology of name, 26
Slava, custom of, 372 and note
Slavs (for special races see their titles)—
Books and JVISS. of, destroyed by

Phanariots, 270, 276, 310
Bulgarians influenced by, 28; in com-
pany with, 30
Characteristics of, 27, 330
Clergy uneducated, 276
Disabilities of, in Turkey, 364
Greek influence on, 372; efforts for
emancipation from Greek clergy, 74
Invasion of Balkan Peninsula by, 22,
29; territories of, in seventh cen-
tury, 25
Moesia, seven tribes of, 31
Salonica besieged by, 30
Turkish rule, pitiable condition under,
74-5
Slovak, 26

Slovene, Slav akin to, 26
Slovenes, Sklavinoi identified with, 30
Sorabian, Sorbian, names kindred to, 26
Sofia, Kumanic origin of population of,
34 note 2

Softas, position of, 194-5; Mevlevi in-
fluence on, in Konia (1895-96), 199
Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem,
225-6

Spies, prevalence of, 13, 146-8, 152-3;
456

Stambulov, policy of, 350-1; assassina-
tion of, 364
Stephen, kings of Servia—

Urosh (First crowned), 38-9
Nemanya, 38, 379

VI.,	Macedonia taken by, 40

VII.,	Bulgaria crushed by, 40
Dushan, 40-2, 263, 301, 346
Lazarevich, 44

Stephen the Brave of Moldavia, 51-2, 69

-king of Bosnia, 47

Sublime Porte, European origin of term,
135-6

Succession, law of, 118
Sufi system, 193, 197

Suleiman, Sultan, period of, 63 ; race of,
87

Suli, Ali's conquest of, 404
Sultan, triple aspect of power of, 117
Sunna. See under Mohammedanism
Sunnites, tenets of, 207-8

Tajik, application of term, 101

Tamerlane. See Timur

Tartar, modern application of term, 80

Tartars, Bulgaria attacked by, 36;

Russian settlements of, 101
Tartar-Turkish language. See Language,

Turkish
Taxes—

Albanian attitude towards, 390-1

Ephors, work of, 333

Farming of, 156-7 ; system abolished

by Hatt-i-Sherif of Giilhane, 321
Kyopriilu - Zade - Mustafa's improve-
ments, 305
Severity of, 360; light in Constanti-
nople, 148
Sheep-tax, 157
Tithe in kind, 158
Telegraph, regarded as Satanic, 99;

Turkish appreciation of, 158-9
Terbel of Bulgaria, 31
Theodora, Empress, 231, 234
Theophylact, Patriarch, 239
Therapia, beggar of, 331
Thessaly—

Dushan's invasion of, 41; independence

of, after Dushan's death, 42
Great Wallachia, known as, 34, 414
Klephts and Armatoles numerous in, 304
Thrace, geographical situation of, 58 ;

Bogomils transplanted to, 263-4
Thracians, Vlachs descended from, 24
Timar. See Military fiefs
Time, Turkish method of reckoning,

142-3 and note
Timur, Bayazid defeated by, 23, 51, 88-9;

nationality of, 80
Tiridates, king of Armenia, 426
Toghrul the Seljuk, 85
Torture, alleged existence of, 147,
447-8

Tosks (see also Albanians), significance of
name, 389; religion of, 392, 401; cus-
toms of, 397-8 ; hospitality of, 398-9
Trade. See Commerce
Traditions, Mohammedan. See Moham-
medanism, Sunna
Treaties—

Berlin—

Armenian reforms promised by,
439. 458

Bosnia and Herzegovina, positions

of, defined by, 65, 379
Bulgarian independence recognised

by, 65, 350
Cretan reforms promised by, 65
Cyprus Convention, 440, 458
Eastern Roumelia separated from

Bulgaria by, 57, 65, 350
Macedonians, effect on, 65, 350, 352
Montenegrin independence recog-
nised by, 65
Roumanian independence recognised
by. 65

Servian independence recognised by,
37, 65, 75474

INDEX

Treaties—continued
Carlovitz, 63, 307
Kainardji (1774), 63, 312
Paris, 64, 323
Passarovitz, 63, 314
San Stefano, 349, 352, 439
Turco-Greek (1897), 340
Turkmenchai, 436
Troshak, 447

Tsar, Bulgarian use of title, 32
Turanian, application of term, 86 note
Turco-Greek War, 339-43
Turcomans, language of. See under
Turks

Turkey, word not used by Turks, 93
Turkmenchai, Treaty of, 436
Turks (see also Osmanlis and Seljuks)—
Central European power, 63
Characteristics—

Aristocracy and hereditary rank, dis-
like of, 69, 119
Caution, 58, 346

Christians, attitude towards. See

under Christians
Commerce, dislike and incapacity

for, 73. 94~5> 124, 145, 267
Courage, 90, 163

Discipline and obedience, instinct
for, 4, 82, 90, 99, 117-18, 129, 147,
189

Energy, 61, 90
Ferocity in fight, 96, 416
Good-humour and patience, 96
Government, ideas of. See Govern-
ment

Honesty, 96, 98, 162
Hospitality and courtesy, 97
Humour, 111
Industry, 98-9, 356
Loyalty, 117, 119, 129, 147
Military ability, 96, 189
Nomadic habit, 91-5, 332
Patriotism, 162
Pride, 99

Temperance, 90, 189
Tolerance, 17, 381, 441
Trustworthiness and truthfulness,
98

Unchangingness, 65, S6, 90, 94, 139,
32°

Union, capacity for, 163
Christians in alliance with, 37, 41, 44,

58, 64, 272
Isolation of, 91

Language of, 78, 94, 100-9, 327
Military character of history of, 62, 65,
81

Minority in their dominions, 90
Pre-Islamic civilisation of, 82-3
Young Turks. See that title
Tvrtko, king of Servia and Bosnia, 42
Tzintzars (Vlachs), 414

Uigurs, 84

United States—

Democratic equality of, compared

with Turkish, 120
Missionaries from, in Armenia, 442,
444

National and linguistic unity of,

compared with Turkish, 80 note
Negro services in, 196; negro types
in, 294 ; negro language in, 295
Urban II., Pope, 244

-IV., Pope, 248

-— V., Pope, 253-4
Uskiib, 354

Uzbek, application of term, 101

Vacouf property, 68, 141
Varna, Turkish victory at, 45, 256

Vassos, Colonel, Crete invaded by,
339

Vazov, excellence of novels of, 351
note

Velbuzhd, Bulgarian defeat at, 36
Veles (Kyopriilii), 355
Venaja (Slav), 26

Venelin, "Old and New Bulgaria" by,

347
Venetians—

Albania harassed by, 49
Capitulations with, 124
Crete ruled by, 335
Greece and the JEgean, possessions
in, 22, 47, 314; influence of, in the
Levant, 21, 243; Greek islanders'
descent from, 300
Latin Patriarchate conferred on,
246

Via Egnatia, 56
Vigilius, Pope, 224-5
Vilayet system, 283
Visigoths, 25

Vizier, application of title, 133
Vlacho-Bulgarian Empire. See Bulgaria,

Second Empire
Vlachs—

Dwellings and occupations of, 410
Greece, in, 300; share in Greek War

of Independence, 329
Language of, 411-13 and notes, 421-2
Origin and distribution of, 33-4, 4°9~
411

Religion and characteristics of, 418
Songs and fairy tales of, 416-17
Thessaly, in, Turkish rule desired by,

342, 416
Thracians identified with, 24
Vlad the Impaler, of Wallachia, 51-2,
60

Vladikas of Montenegro, 384
Vladislav, king of Poland and Hungary,
45

Voinik, 37

Vuk Brankovick, 44

-Karajich, 370 note \ 377-8

Vukashin of Servia, 42INDEX

475

Wallachia (see also Roumania)—

Early history of, 51-2
Insurrection under Michael the Brave,

69 ; in 1821, 71, 277-8
Phanariot rule in, 70, 74, 274, 280,

3°7-8

Russian invasions of, 63
Thessaly called the Great Wallachia,
34, 414
Wallachs. See Vlachs
Wend (Slav), 26

Western Church. See Roman Church
Wloch, Vlach identified with, 414
Women, position of (see also Harem)—
Armenia, in, 446
Bulgaria, in, 362
Byzantine court, at, 122
Mirdites, among, 397
Servia, in, 376

Turkey, in, seclusion pre-Turkish,

W omen—continued

190; public worship not attended
by, 202

Worship, public, 169-70,184, 202-6

Yakuts, ioi

Yildiz, palace of, 92

Young Turks, indefiniteness of pro-
gramme of, 117-18, 163 ; appeals of,
to European Powers, 149

Ypsilanti, 317

Yunan, origin and application of term,
299

Yuruks (nomad Turks), 102

Zadruga, custom of the, 375-6

Zakonik (Dushan's code of law), 40

Zeno, Emperor, 25, 223

Zhupa, 38

THE END

Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson & Co.
Edinburgh <5r» LondonThis book is a preservation facsimile produced for
the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.
It is made in compliance with copyright law
and produced on acid-free archival

60# book weight paper
which meets the requirements of
ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and binding
by

Northern Micrographics
Brookhaven Bindery
La Crosse, Wisconsin
2014