The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Policies of the Great Powers

• The Ottoman Empire until the imperial reform edict

• The policies of the great powers

• From the reform edict to the Berlin Congress

• The population question

  • Armenian sources

  • Foreign Sources

  • Ottoman sources

  • The province of Erzurum

  • The province of Van

  • The province of Bitlis

  • The province of Diyarbekir

  • The province of Elaziz

  • The province of Sivas

  • Total Armenian population

• The 1877-8 Russian war and the Berlin Congress

The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Policies of the Great Powers

1. The Ottoman Empire until the imperial reform edict

The history of the Ottoman Empire can be divided into four parts: its rise, its Golden Age, its decline and its fall. It is generally accepted that the period of decline began in 1579, with the death of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, and that the fall began in 1699 with the treaty of Karlowitz. By the policies of the great powers we mean the policies followed during the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire. During the Golden Age there was no state greater than the Ottoman Empire, and even in the period of decline, Britain and Russia were only in the background. Even after 1699, it was another seventy-five years before the European powers became stronger than the Ottoman Empire, and were able to make their influence felt, when the treaty of Kuchuk Kaynarca was signed in 1774.

After this treaty, the Ottoman Empire bade farewell to its grandeur and might, replaced by Russia and Austria on the European scene. Initially only those two powers had a policy with regard to the Ottoman Empire, but after the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, Britain and France followed suit. In 1870, immediately after its unification, Germany came to be included in this group, and the fate of the Ottoman Empire virtually depended on the decisions of these five powers. Within this historical development, although its seeds were sown earlier, the Armenian question was raised as a European issue at the Berlin Congress (1878).

Now we shall try to examine the condition of the Armenians within and without the frontiers of the Ottoman Empire. We have previously stated that the Ottomans finally annexed in 1517 the area that had belonged to the old Cilicia kingdom, that although Sultan Selim I defeated Shah Ismail in Chaldiran in 1514 and entered Tabriz, the war having continued after his death, the truce was established only on 28 May 1555. The occupation of Georgia occurred in 1578 under the reign of Murat III. However, wars between the Ottomans and the Safavids continued after this date until the Kasri Sirin Treaty was signed under Murat IV in 1639.

Wars with Iran took place after 1639, in 1723-7, 1730-7, and 1743-6. But ultimately the frontiers established by the Kasri Sirin Treaty remained. This frontier was almost the present-day border between Turkey and Iran, with Erivan staying in Iran. In 1639, the Khanate of Crimea was legally under Ottoman rule, as well as the Black Sea shores and Georgia. The Russians had started to enter Caucasus towards the end of the l6th century by advancing towards the river Terek after dissolving the khanate of Astrakhan in 1556.

Theoretically the Caspian shores of Transcaucasia belonged to Iran, but the area of Azerbaijan was more in the sphere of influence of the Ottoman Empire. Some of the Turco-Iranian wars took place in the geographical area called Armenia. However, Armenians living in the area are not mentioned, either in Ottoman or Iranian history. It is only recorded in Armenian history that during the 1603-4 wars, Shah Abbas transferred Armenians of Erivan and Julfa to the interior of Iran (1). As to the Ottoman Empire, it is known that Mehmet II, the Conqueror, brought the Armenian bishop Hovakim from Bursa to Istanbul and gave him the title of Armenian Patriarch. Earlier, in 1453, after the conquest of Istanbul, Gennadius II was brought to the Orthodox Patriarchate, whereby two Patriarchates were established in Istanbul. The Patriarchate was the sole authority in the Armenian community, not only in religious matters, but in personal and family matters as well. The Patriarch had the authority to inflict both ecclesiastical and civil penalties on his people; he could imprison or exile clergy at will, and though the consent of the government was necessary to imprison or exile laymen, such firmans (imperial decrees) were generally easily obtained.

Those who believed in the dual nature of Christ were under the Orthodox Patriarchate. The Monophysites, on the other hand, comprising the Armenian, Syrian Jacobite, Coptic, and Abyssinian communities, while retaining their own autocephalous hierarchies, were made subject to the jurisdiction of the Armenian Patriarchate. Although the Catholicates of Sis and Akdamar were superior from the point of view of religious hierarchy, the Istanbul Patriarchate had considerably more authority from a legal point of view. The Catholicate of Echmiadzin, in Iran, could not have its presence felt in the Ottoman Empire.

The Armenians were leading a normal life in the Ottoman Empire, without any reason to complain.

“From the day that the patriarchate and a strong Armenian colony were established at Constantinople, that city gradually became the real center of Armenian ecclesiastical and national life. By the beginning of the nineteenth century the Armenians of Constantinople were numbered upward of 150,000, the largest Armenian community in the world” (2).

And there was no state which was interested in this community. Although the frontiers of Kasri Sirin were not changed despite the subsequent Turco-Iranian wars, and although there was no situation of interest for the Armenians living in Caucasus, the intention of the Russians to advance to southern Caucasus indicated that the future was ripe for new developments.

Russia for the first time invaded the khanate of Kuba, to the north of Baku, by transferring soldiers from the area of the Caspian Sea during the 1723-7 Ottoman-Iranian wars. However, the death of Peter the Great put an end to this. In 1768 a war broke out between the Ottoman Empire and Russia, because of events in Poland. During this war, which ended with the defeat of the Turks on the western front and with the Kuchuk Kaynarca truce in 1774, Russians came to southern Caucasus for the first time through the Darial pass. In collaboration with the Georgian forces, they conquered Kutaisi and besieged Poti. Another branch of the Russian army went on to Ahiska branch of the Russian army went on to Ahiska through the Koura pass.(3)

The Kuchuk Kaynarca Truce gave the area of Kabartay, to the south of Caucasus, to the Russians, and it also included a clause which gave the Russians the right to protect Christians living in Turkey. (We do not report the clauses concerning the western borders, as they are outside our topic of discussion.) After this truce, Russia followed a policy of invading the Ottoman Empire piece by piece, and the aim of protecting Christians increasingly gained importance. In 1783, Russia made a pact with the Eastern Georgian princes, and thus brought them under its patronage. In 1787, Catherine the Great and Joseph II, the Austrian Emperor, met in the city of Kerson in the Crimea, and discussed the division of the Ottoman Empire between them. According to this plan, known as the `Greek Scheme', an independent Orthodox state, ‘Dacia’, would be established in Moldavia-Wallachia and Bessarabia; the area between the Dnieper and Bug rivers would be given to Russia; Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina would be given to Austria; the Mora peninsula, Crete and Cyprus would be given to the Republic of Venice; in the event of the conquest of Istanbul, the Empire of Byzantium would be restored as an independent state (4).

The Ottoman Empire declared war on Russia on 13 August 1787, because of this and similar events. Austria was allied with Russia. The war ended on 9 January 1792, with the truce of Yash, without any frontier changes.

After the Iranians attacked Tiflis in 1795, Russia invaded the southeastern Caucasus, Kuba, Baku, Derbent, Shirvan, and the Karabagh principalities, but took its armies back after Catherine the Great died and Paul became Tsar. Russia annexed Georgia in 1801.

In 1806 another war broke out between the Ottomans and the Russians, because of the Moldavia-Wallachia events. The Bucharest Pact in 1812 gave the area of Rion, to the west of Souram in the Caucasus, to the Russians. In 1813, by the Treaty of Butistan between Iran and Russia, Russia annexed the coast of the Caspian Sea. Abbas Mirza, Shah of Iran, wanted to annul this treaty. The subsequent war ended on 18 February 1828 with the Turkmenchai Pact, and Iran, in addition to the region she had lost in 1813, was forced to abandon the khanates of Erivan and Nahjivan to Russia. Thus, the present-day RussianIranian border was established.

Armenian volunteers fought in this war with the Russians. The Armenians living under Iranian rule in southern Caucasus were thus brought under Russian domination. The Catholicate of Echmiadzin was also now part of the Russian Empire. In 1828, Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire, which was in difficulty because of the Greek rebellion, started with the instigation and help of the Russians. The war, which began on 26 April, was fought on two fronts; General Paskevitch's forces, which were freed of their engagement after the Turkmenchai Pact, attacked from the east. During this war, the Russian armies advanced up to Erzurum.

The Truce of Adrianople, signed on 14 September 1829, gave, on the eastern frontier, all the forts (Anapa, Poti), as well as Ahiska, Ahilkelek, and the areas of Akchur, to Russia, and the Ottoman Empire thus recognized that Georgia was now under Russian rule. With this truce the entire Caucasus became part of the Russian Empire. The Armenians living in the area, who were well incited and had welcomed the Russians with open arms in their advance towards Erzurum, opted for living under Russian rule when peace was established. The Muslims living in the area left to the Russians in turn opted for living under the Ottomans. Thus, about 100,000 Armenians went to Russia from Erzurum and Alashkird.(5)

“...many thousands of Armenians... were settled in the newly incorporated regions of Erevan, Akhakkalaki and Akhaltzikhe. The Erevan province, later the core of S.S.R. Armenia, had at this period a majority of Turkish Muslims” (6).

After the truce of Turkmenchai, the Tsar had proclaimed the khanates of Erivan and Nahjivan as an Armenian province, and the entire population as `Russian'. At that time, the Armenians were hoping that t he province would become independent, and that the Tsar would assume the title of `King of Armenia' just as he was `King of Poland'. These hopes did not last long. In 1849 Caucasus was divided in two, with an administrative reorganization. The province of Georgia and the Caspian province were established. The former province of Armenia was brought under the jurisdiction of the Georgian province. This arrangement lasted for only four years. The Muslims of Caucasus did not want to live under Russian rule, and started a struggle under the leadership of Sheik Sh amil. After this, Prince Vorontsov was appointed regent in 1844 to Caucasus, which was reunited, to establish order in the region.

Vorontsov considered it more useful to form small provinces in Caucasus, and formed first the provinces of Kutais, Tiflis, Shemakh and Derbent. These provinces were further subdivided. The majority of the Armenian community was within the province of Tiflis. After a while, Vorontsov formed the province of Erivan, which corresponded to the former province of Armenia. In later years, the borders and names of these provinces underwent some changes (7).

After the Pact of Adrianople, the Ottoman Empire was struggling with the Mehmet Ali rebellion and could not contain it. While this struggle was continuing, Sultan Mahmut II had died, and Abdulmejid ascended the throne on 1 July 1839. On 3 November,1839, Foreign Minister Reshid Pasha read a firman in Gulhane Park, in which various reforms were announced:

“...It is necessary to formulate new laws for the satisfactory administration of our great state and country. The main points of these necessary laws are, to ensure the right to life, honour, and property, to establish the collecting of taxes, to fix procedures for the recruiting of soldiers and the duration of military service”.

The Constitutional Reforms envisaged were aimed at establishing a just tax system, strongly punishing bribery, making the courts public, abolishing unjust punishment, and reducing military service to 4-5 years. In addition,

the Sultan declared that the reorganization would be applied to all subjects of the state, without distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. It can be said that the first positive result of the Constitutional Reforms became apparent in Lebanon. Lebanon, all along, was a region administered in a manner reminiscent of the old feudal system. The population was comprised of Muslims and Christians.

The Muslims, who had very few Sunnis among them, were formed by small sects, such as the Druses, the Mutvhalis, the Nusairiye, and ' the Ismailiye. The Christians were formed by the Maronites, the Greek Malocites and the Greek Catholics. The main two groups were the Druses and the Maronites. The ‘mukataa’ system was prevalent in Lebanon. The ‘mukataa' was a system which consisted of leaving the farming of taxes to contractors through a kind of auction. The contractor would reserve one eighth of the collected taxes to himself, and the rest would be given to the governor of the region. This system was practiced in areas outside the `Timar' system (small military fief). Because the contractors in Lebanon were invariably members of the local nobility, they had been treating the local people like slaves for centuries.

From the beginning of the l7th century, two families became prominent, and they were the ones chosen to rule the feudality. The most renowned of them was the Ma'n o§ullari and the other was the Shihabi family. From the beginning of the l8th century, the Shihabis ruled the feudality. Mir Beshir Omer, who was the Governor of Lebanon during the Mehmet Ali rebellion, was dismissed from office in 1840, when the Egypt problem was solved, and his nephew, Beshir Ibni Kasim, was appointed in his place. Before the Egyptian events, the annual tax paid by Lebanon to the Treasury was 2,650 purses of gold. During the invasion, Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt had increased this sum to 6,550 purses. After Ottoman rule was established, the new Governor appointed to Lebanon reduced this amount to 3,500 purses. Nevertheless, the local people wanted a return to the original amount, but, the treasury being empty, this could not be granted. This situation led to the revolt of the Muslim Druses. On the other hand, as Governor Mehmet Selim Pasha abolished the ‘mukataa’ system within the framework of the Constitutional Reforms Edict, and instituted direct collection of taxes, the Christian collectors rebelled, as they were convinced that this new system would diminish their influence and authority.

Thus, in 1840, the Druses and the Maronites rebelled, and this rebellion gave rise to conflicts between the two groups. Under these circumstances, France, as the protector of the Catholics, and Britain who supported France, interfered at the level of the Babiali (the Sublime Porte, the Turkish Government), and consequently Mustapha Nuri Pasha was sent to Lebanon in 1840 with unlimited authority to deal with the situation.

Mustapha Nuri Pasha dismissed Governor Beshir and divided Lebanon into two districts, one Druse, the other Maronite, responsible to the Governor of Lebanon in Saida. He also reinstituted the `mukataa' system. However, this preventive measure was not effective because the population was not separated in a distinct manner, and the conflicts and the interference of foreign powers continued.

In 1843 Mustapha Nuri Pasha was called back, and was replaced by Admiral Halil Rifat Pasha. Rifat Pasha also concentrated on the matter of demarcating the boundaries of the Druse and Maronite districts, and established Ministries in areas where the population was heterogeneous. (The Minister was the person who would direct the collecting of the minority's taxes, instead of its being managed by the collectors of the majority).

However, the preventive measures were, once again, unsuccessful, owing to the conflicts within the population, on the one hand, and the provocation of the Christian population by the French Consul on the other, and 1843 was marked by constant incidents. The Lebanon events have no relation to the Armenian question, but they constitute the first occasion on which France, Britain, Russia, and Austria interfered to promote reforms for the religious minorities.

As the Lebanon topic was being taken temporarily off the agenda in 1846, the question of the `Holy Places' was appearing. The `Holy Places' are the church and the cave of Bethlehem in Jerusalem where Christ was born, Christ's tomb and its church, and other such places. While various Christian sects had the right of worship here, the Catholics had been given the right, during the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent, to keep the keys, and to maintain the `Holy Places'. Later, this right was given in 1634 to the Orthodox Church, as a result of some disagreements with France. From this date, the matter became a source of disputes between the two Churches. These disputes had nothing to do with either Muslims or the Ottoman Empire, but because Jerusalem was within the Empire, the Empire was indirectly involved with them.

In 1853, Catholics had been granted a right to repair the Bethlehem Church. This provoked an objection by the Orthodox Church and consequently by Russia, its protector. France, too, had been requesting the return of the rights previously belonging to Catholics. The Babiali decided, after having had a Commission investigate the situation, to have Muslims perform the services which the two churches could not share between them. At this point, the Tsar sent Admiral Prince Menchikov, Commander of the Baltic Fleet, General-Governor of Finland, Minister of Marine, to Istanbul on a special mission. Menchikov, who arrived at Istanbul on 28 February 1853, gave an ultimatum to the Babiali, demanding that the question of the `Holy Places' be resolved as soon as possible to the advantage of Russia, and that a sound and irreversible guarantee be given to Russia on the privileges of the Orthodox Church. It is known that the real intention of Russia was to divide the Ottoman Empire, which she considered the Sick Man of Europe, and that she had proposed this scheme to Sir Hamilton Seymour, the British Ambassador in St Petersburg. (The documents concerning this matter were later published by the British.)

The Babiali refused this demand, which would have meant the official acceptance of Russian protection of the Orthodox subjects. On 21 May, Menchikov left Istanbul, along with the Russian Embassy staff, and declared that diplomatic relations between the Ottoman Empire and Russia were broken off.

This incident eventually led to the Crimean War. We do not dwell on details irrelevant to our topic, but there is a subject which should be mentioned. It is reported in various Western sources that there were some clauses in the agreement signed by the Ottomans, the British, and the French against Russia on 12 March 1854, stating that Turkey would be granting certain rights to its Christian subjects. There is no such clause in the text of the agreement. We want to mention only the eastern front of the war, which began with the entry of the Russians into Moldavia-Wallachia on 3 July 1853, and then moved to the Crimea.

After the Ottoman Empire declared war on 4 October 1853, Abdulkerim Pasha attacked, in the east, in the direction of Ahiska and Gumru, but, having been defeated at Gumru on 14 October, retreated to Arpachay. As he could not take a hold in the battle of Bashgedikler on 1 February, he retreated to Kars, which the Russians besieged. Subsequently, the war offensives on the eastern front were limited to the siege of Kars. Alexander I, who ascended the throne after Nicholas died on 2 March 1855, wanted to put an end to the war, especially after Sebastopol fell on 9 September. He declared a general attack on Kars on 29 September, in order to have won a victory. Although the 15,000 Turks inflicted over 7,000 losses on the 40,000 Russians, Kars surrendered on 28 November 1855, because of famine.

In order to put an end to the war, a protocol was signed on 1 February 1856. The fourth article of this protocol showed that the sovereignty of the Sultan and his state's administrative integrity would constitute one of the bases for peace. The Sultan would automatically confirm the guarantee he had given with regard to the legal equality with Muslims of Christians living as Ottoman subjects.

A ceasefire was declared after a decision to have the peace conference meet in Paris in three weeks. On 18 February 1856, the Babiali declared the Imperial Reform Edict, which confirmed the decrees of the Gulhane Edict. The main decrees of the Reform Edict are as follows:

1). The carrying out of reforms will introduce a new and auspicious era, as the external situation is strengthened through the endeavors and assistance of the allies.

2). The inviolability of the right to life, property, and honor granted to every subject without discrimination on the basis of religion or sect, according to the Gulhane edict, is repeated and confirmed.

3). Privileges given since the reign of Mehmet II, the Conqueror, to non-Muslim communities, have been retained, along with spiritual immunities.

4). Special assemblies will be formed by the Patriarchates under the supervision of the government, to reconcile these privileges and immunities with the new conditions and needs. The decisions of these assemblies will be submitted to the Babiali, and will become definite by the approval of the government.

5). The election procedure of t he Patriarchs will be revised, and spiritual leaders such as the patriarchs, the Catholic, Greek, and Armenian bishops, and the rabbis to be appointed for life will take an oath of loyalty to the State.

6). The favors and revenues given by the congregations to their spiritual leaders will be abolished, and they will receive salaries instead. 7. Congregational matters will be transferred to assemblies comprised of spiritual and secular members.

8). Although the restoration of public places belonging to the congregations, such as schools, hospitals, cemeteries, will not be prevented if they are in accordance with their original form, to build them anew will be contingent on permission granted by the government.

9). In homogeneous areas inhabited by the congregation of one sect, outward and public worship will be permitted.

10). All sects, regardless of their size, will equally enjoy religious freedom.

11). Every expression and discriminating words, stating that a certain congregation is held in an inferior position to another congregation because of differences of religion, language, and race, will be for ever removed from official correspondences.

12). The usage of such expressions by officials and the people will be officially forbidden.

13). No one will be forced to change his religion.

14). Every subject can be a government official, regardless of his race or sect.

15). Every individual having the necessary legal competence and qualifications will obtain the right to enter the Military and the Civil Servants' School, regardless of his religion.

16). The establishment of schools for non-Muslims will be permitted, on condition that they are supervised and inspected by an Education Assembly, a heterogeneous body, which would also supervise and establish their program, and appoint their instructors.

17). Mixed courts will be established for commercial and murder cases occurring between Muslims and non-Muslims, or exclusively among non-Muslims, and the trials will be public.

18). Cases such as inheritance disagreements occurring among non-Muslims can be transferred, by request of the interested parties, to the Patriarchs and spiritual assemblies.

19). Laws exclusively concerning commerce and murder cases will be codified as soon as possible, and will be translated and published in various languages spoken in the Ottoman Empire.

20). Prisons will be reformed to reconcile the requirements of justice with human rights.

21). All treatments such as corporal punishment, torment, and torture have been abolished; officials who, in spite of this, engage in torture, or have others engage in torture, will be punished as required in accordance with articles to be included in the Criminal Law.

22). Legal equality being dependent on equality of duties, non-Muslims will be obliged, like Muslims, to do their military service. They will have the right to actively perform their duty, as well as the right to acquit themselves of their duty by paying the necessary sum.

23). A corollary regulation with regard to the method of employment of non-Muslims in the army will be published as soon as possible. (Two main possibilities have been proposed. Although there were some who suggested establishing a battalion for every sect, it was ultimately preferred to form mixed battalions.)

24). Regulations will be compiled to ensure the fair election of Muslim and non-Muslim members of the province and district assemblies, and to ensure that fraudulent elections do not occur.

25). Subsequent to procedural arrangements with the Powers, foreigners will be granted the right to possess property in Turkey, on condition that they conform to the laws to which the local people are subject.

26). The system of employing an intermediary in collecting public revenue (iltizam) will be abolished, and taxes will be directly collected by the State.

27). The application of the law compiled after the reforms, concerning the budget known as `the book of annual incomes and expenses', will be given serious attention.

28). Regular payment of salaries will begin.

29). In matters concerning all the subjects of the State, the spiritual leader of every congregation, along with its official appointed for one year by the government, will participate in the negotiations of `Meclisi Valay-I Ahkam-i Adliyye', a law court established in 1837 to deal with cases of high officials.

30). The members of this court will speak freely during the discussions, and the content of their speech will never be used against them.

1. Regulations concerning the prevention of bribery will be applied without exception to all officials (8). The Ottoman Empire wanted to prove that the Reform Edict was prepared with her own initiative, by publishing it before the Paris Conference. Moreover, it was explicitly stated in the Peace Agreement signed on 30 March 1856 that communicating this edict to foreign states by no means gave the right to those states to interfere with the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire.

But this was only to save appearances. In actuality the right to protect Christians was given to all the powers, instead of only Russia. It cannot be stated that the Reform Edict satisfied non-Muslims. The most important rights given to non-Muslims to please Europe, were their opportunity to enter civil and military schools, and to become civil servants, the possibility to transfer their inheritance cases to Patriarchates, the publishing of murder and commerce laws in the languages of the minorities, contrary to the official language principle, the representation of a11 congregations with two representatives from each, at the higher court, and finally, the extending of the right to property to foreigners. Among these, the right given to Patriarchates to administer justice, even if limited, was an infringement of the judiciary sovereignty of the State.

There are many regulations in the Reform Edict, to the advantage, as well as to the disadvantage of the non-Muslim minorities. The obligation to do one's military service, the reexamination of religious privileges and exemptions granted since the reign of Mehmet II, the Conqueror, the abolition of arbitrary fees exacted by priests all along from their congregations, and giving salaries, instead, to priests, and the obligation of all spiritual leaders to take the oath of devotion, were to the disadvantage of non-Muslims.

For this reason, Muslims as well as non-Muslims were against the Reform Edict. The ones who were afflicted the most were the priests, who after having plundered for centuries, to use Engelhardt's term, now had their income reduced with the abolition of the favours and revenues demanded from the congregations. As for the common folk, who were now freed from being robbed, they were displeased by the military service obligation. For, from the beginning of Ottoman history, it had been the Muslims, and especially the Turks, who had shed their blood, while non-Muslims lived comfortably by themselves. For this reason, it is even said that, after the Babiali firman (decree) was read, and when it was being put into the satin pouch, the Bishop of Izmir said:

“Let us pray to God, that this firman is never taken out of that pouch”.

The Orthodox Church attempted to portray the reexamination of privileges as interference by the Government in the affairs of the Patriarchate, even as its attempt to abolish them. Undoubtedly the `favours and revenues' question had a great deal to do with the Church's attempt to engage in negative propaganda through the newspapers, to open the way for possible European intervention.(9)

In this manner, after the Paris Truce, the four powers (Russia, Britain, France, Austria) began to intervene, on the pretext of protecting religious minorities. The first such intervention took place because of new conflicts in Lebanon on 27 May 1860. Approximately 500 Maronites had attacked a Druse village, and Sait Bey from the Janbulat family led the Druses and attacked the Maronites; thus, the confiict spread. The Ottoman Empire immediately sent Minister of Foreign Affairs Ketchejizade Fouat Bey to Lebanon to implement the necessary measures. As France attempted military intervention, other powers intervened, and a protocol was signed on 3 August 1860 between the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain, Austria, and Russia, with the aim of jointly sending soldiers to help Turkey and to facilitate the implementation of reforms. The French sent a force of 6,000 soldiers, while the others sent warships. Thus, 5 French, 5 British, 2 Russian, and 1 Austrian ship arrived at Beirut.

Because Ketchejizade Fouat Bey had taken all the necessary measures before the French soldiers came, their arrival was only a show of force. The Lebanon question was solved on 9 July 1861, with the organization of the country as a privileged and independent district. We have included this topic, irrelevant to our subject, as an example of how the great powers understood the Reform Edict.

These events occurring until 1856 show that, until then, Russia and other powers were not interested in the Armenian community within the Empire, that Russia aimed at having a say in the Empire by having the Ottoman Orthodox minority under her absolute protection, to ensure the superiority of the Greek Orthodox Church and consequently of the National Russian Church. French interest lay in the Catholics.

While these events were occurring, various changes were happening within the Armenian community, in the order established since 1461, and consequently some discontent was becoming apparent. This community constitutes the very life of Turkey, for the Turks, long accustomed to rule rather than serve, have relinquished to them all branches of industry. Hence the Armenians are the bankers, merchants, mechanics, and traders of all sorts in Turkey.

Besides, there exists a congeniality and community of interest between them and the Muslims. For, being originally from the same region, they were alike in their habits and feelings; therefore, easily assimilating themselves to their conquerors, they gained their confidence, and became and still are the most influential of all the rayahs. There is not a pasha, or a grandee, who is not indebted to them, either peculiarly, or for his promotion, and the humblest peasant owes them the value of the very seed he sows; so that without them the Osman could not survive a single day. This is a fact so well attested, that Russia, with the design of undermining Turkey, always endeavoured to gain over this part of t he population, and in 1828, when she took possession of Erzeroum, she enticed the Armenians of that place to acts of violence and revenge against the Turks, so that when the Russians retired, the Armenians were obliged to emigrate with them.(10)

These statements, attesting to the fact that the community had a certain place within Ottoman society, and that it led a normal life, were published in 1857. It is nevertheless useful to examine in an overview how and why this discontent came about. We have noted the attempts of the Vatican to bring the Gregorian Church under its sphere of influence during the rule of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, and the transferring of the Catholicate from Sis to Echmiadzin to avoid falling under the influence of the Catholic Church.

While there was no organic link between the Churches, many Gregorian Armenians were being drawn, or went, into the Catholic religion. In the beginning, these individuals did not sever their links with the Gregorian Church, and were using a given church for specific reasons. For example, they were going to the Catholic Church to confess, while this practice was not accepted by the Gregorians. But as, in the course of time, the number of Catholics increased, the Armenian Patriarch felt it necessary to take sides.

The Mekhitarists, who played an important role in the consciousness of Armenian nationalism, had been founded by a priest converted to Catholicism. Mekhitar was born towards the end of the l7th century, in Sivas... Hebecame a monk at the early age of fifteen... He became a priest when he was twenty years old... Soon he was preoccupied by an idea which he later tried to resolve, and he began his attempt to unify the Roman Church and the Armenian Patriarchate. In 1700 he left his native land with a few disciples, with the aim of founding a congregation whose difficult task was to bring the education necessary to Armenia. After he stayed for a while in Constantinople, where he published his first books, … was forced to leave, and chose as a meeting place with his companions, the city of Modon, then under Venetian rule... Because of an invasion by the Turks, the congregation was obliged to leave, and arrived in Venice in 1715. In 1717, the Senate conceded for ever the island of St. Lazarus to Mekhitar and his companions... The conquest of Italy by general Bonaparte called in question once again the existence of the congregation, for a decree had abolished all the convents. Saint-Lazarus escaped this measure, by transforming itself into an Armenian Academy, which was facilitated by the scientific direction given to the works of the order's members. Since this period, the Armenian Academy of Saint Lazarus of Venice has continued to exist and to develop along with the order itself. (11)

When the number of Catholic Armenians increased, despite the efforts of the Armenian Patriarch, the Armenian Catholics were recognized as a separate community for the first time on 27 February 1830, through the efforts of the French Ambassador, and Hagopos Chukuryan was appointed Patriarch of this community on 22 December 1831. The Patriarchate, which was established in the beginning at Adana, was later transferred to Istanbul.

We have mentioned the activities of the missionaries. Although missionaries claimed that they were not having anybody change their religion or sect, the number in the Ottoman Empire who were converting to the Protestant faith was increasing. This time, because of the insistence of the British Ambassador, despite the objections of the Russian Embassy and the Armenian Patriarchate, the Protestant Armenians became a separate community in 1859. Another source of discontent of the Armenian Patriarchate, which witnessed the gradual erosion of its community, were developments, which appeared especially after the Constitutional Reforms, in the organization of the Gregorian Armenian community. We will approach this subject by summarizing an article by Migirdich B. Dadian, because, in our opinion, we can follow these developments best through the writings of an Armenian author.

This religious leader with the title of Patriarch is not only the spiritual leader of the community, but its secular leader as well. He was given this religious authority, like all the bishops and archbishops of the Armenian Church, by the Catholicos of Echmiadzin. Approximately 50 regions were under the jurisdiction of the Istanbul Centre. Before the reorganization in 1860, the Patriarch could at will dismiss the Bishops he had appointed. He could annul their status as bishop, which they were given by the Catholicos, as well as take away their right to administer their areas. He even had the right to shave off their beards. As the responsible chief, answerable to the Babiali, he was responsible to ensure the collection of the land tax. Among his duties was to resolve various disputes as a judge. This dual authority could have produced useful, advantageous results in the absence of opposition by an adverse power. However, there was in Istanbul an Assembly, selected from among the Armenian aristocracy, called the `National Council'. This assembly was a constant source of intrigues and disputes.

This situation continued until 1839, without a major problem other than a few complaints. In 1844, during the time of Patriarch Matheos Chuhajiyan, the structure of the National Council was transformed. It was decided that it should be comprised of 30 members,16 of whom were to be selected from among the nobility and 14 from professional associations. The Patriarch would choose those representing the professional associations. Another change came about in 1847. It was decided that two councils should be formed, one dealing with religious matters, the other with remaining matters, and that the members of the Council should be elected. These principles became effective through a firman of the Sultan on March 9,1847. This was a blow to the noble class. When Matheos left the Patriarchate in 1848, Agob Serobian, who had previously been the Patriarch, replaced him despite the opposition of the nobility.

The Reform Edict of 1856 was decreed during Serobian's rule. Upon the declaration of the firman, the Armenians wanted to abolish oppression by the nobility, by drawing up a new `National Regulation'. In 1859, as the Council dealing with religious matters was being reselected, the majority of nobles were not included. The new Council formed a Commission to prepare a regulation. The activities of this Commission severed further the relations between the nobility and the other group. As a result of disputes, Gevorg Kerestejiyan, the Patriarch, was forced to resign. The election of Sergis Kuyumjiyan, who replaced him, gave rise to serious conflicts. Finally the Council accepted the draft regulation on May 24,1860, and presented it to the Babiali. The Babiali ratified it with some minor changes, with a firman on March 17,1863, and made it effective. (12)

This information, which we have summarized from Dadian, is in agreement with Ottoman records, and as a matter of fact was included in the same way in all the sources relating to this subject. The conclusion of Dadian's article is of particular interest. We shall quote it below. The point to be emphasized is that the Armenians had no problem with the State, that they could administer their internal affairs almost independently, without the Government intervening in the decisions they took concerning themselves, and that all this was taking place without the interest or the support of any foreign country.

More than a hundred years have passed since the article was written in 1867. Today, in various countries in the world Armenian communities of varying size are living. Not one of these communities has freedom to this extent. It is obvious that the privileges present in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy. A landless nation's autonomy was a practice unheard-of in international law, and these opportunities were officially given by the Babiali to the Armenian community, at a time when no state was interested in them, and there was no such subject as the Armenian Question'.

As a matter of fact, these very privileges opened the way to the emergence of this question. Dadian's article ends with the following statements:

“We have thus reported the changes undergone by this important Armenian sector subject to the Sultan's laws. With the approval of the Government, this community was provided with a constitution, whose main principle was the sovereignty of the people, and favourable initiatives were taken to revive national education. In these attempts at reform, the cooperation of the clergy was apparent, but it was not extensive. In many cases it remained detached from, or stranger to, the developments which were strengthening the nation. While everything around it was in motion, it was motionless. Consequently, the influence it previously had, without ever having to impose it, was now diminished. The new generation is not consenting to being directed by the clergy with the same docility, and does not go under its authority of its own accord, as previous generations had done. . Armenians... along with the Christian creeds, maintained their language, customs, and traditions, and did not lose their identity within the society they were living in, as was the case with many other communities…

East Asia commerce is in their hands, they travel continuously and have extensive contacts. They can well be an intermediary between Asia and Europe, if the expression is appropriate, the spreaders of Western civilization”.

Such is the opinion of an Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire about the situation of Armenians in the Empire, an opinion published in 1867, in a newspaper in France. It is necessary to keep this in mind, while evaluating subsequent events.

The statement which calls for attention here is the observation that the Church was distant from, or stranger to, the developing thoughts and events. It is not difficult to consider this as a polite statement, and to recognize that the Church did not actually want these developments. The Armenian National Regulation' made effective in 1863 had 99 paragraphs. An Assembly of 140 members was established; 20 members were to be selected from among the Istanbul priests, 40 members from the provinces, and 80 members from Istanbul.

The former 14-member religious assembly and the 20-member political assembly were maintained, but the regulation that their election be made by the national assembly was new. The election of the Patriarch, too, had to be performed by the national assembly. While the Religious Assembly could nominate candidates, the National Assembly had the right to appoint a Patriarch from outside the candidates. The appointment of the Patriarch would be definitive with a firman (decree).

The regulation also stated that the election of the Patriarch of Jerusalem was to be made by the National Assembly. The `Armenian National Regulation' constituted a change, not from the vantage point of the condition of Armenians within the state, but concerning the authority of the Patriarch. It did not consider this authority as absolute any more, but rather, meant the sharing of this authority between the Patriarch and the Armenian nation. Dadian's statements concerning the subject of culture are also worth quoting:

“The first newspaper written in Armenian was published in 1859. After the `Armenian National Regulation' was published, the number of newspapers increased. We should nevertheless confess that, while the press gained in importance, it did not fulfil the duty expected of it. However, there was no obstacle to restrain it or outside pressure to influence it. While some newspapers chose to defend the Church by giving priority to religious subjects, others began to shake the foundations of national faith, and did not hide any more their inclination towards Protestant ideas…” (14).

Even in Van, which was the most remote province, a newspaper was published. In Istanbul Armenian books were being printed during the l7th century. Mekhitar had printed his first books at the beginning of the l8th century in Istanbul. When an Armenian printing office in Marseilles was closed b Louis XIV (13) Armenians had no complaint about the freedomùof press in the Ottoman Empire, and this freedom was increasing.

These developments were laying the foundations of a serious problem for the Gregorian Church. On the one hand, the Armenian nation was converting to other churches, and Catholic and Protestant `Armenian nations' were emerging within the Empire, and on the other hand, part of the authority of the Gregorian Church was being transferred from the Patriarch to the Armenian nation. The Patriarch had no power to turn over to someone else the authority and privileges given to him through firmans (decrees). While the Babiali did not object to this situation, if the climate of freedom developing in the country were to bring about a situation which would not require having different status because of belonging to different religions, then these rights transferred to the people would be abolished, and the Patriarch would remain only as a religious leader.

In addition, the ambition of Russia to destroy the Ottoman Empire, to restore Byzantium by taking Istanbul, had become apparent. If this possibility were to be realized, then the independent character and existence of the Gregorian Church might be abolished, and Russia, which was much more powerful than Byzantium, might achieve what Byzantium was unable to do, namely, to incorporate the Gregorian Church.

Under these circumstances, something had to be done for the Church to be able to exist, to maintain its influence, and to regain the privileges it had lost. Pastermadjian commented:

“As far as the Armenian nation is concerned, its aspirations, as they were expressed by the national movement in the second half of the l9th century, could aim at neither the establishment of an independent Armenia, nor the annexation of Turkish Armenia by the Empire of the Czars. It was in fact evident that Czarist Russia was opposed to the creation of an Armenian State, because such a State would have been an inevitable attraction for the Armenian subjects of the Empire, and would have reinforced, by its very existence, the aspirations of the peoples of Transcaucasia for greater autonomy. As for the annexation of Turkish Armenia by Russia, its result would have been the extending to this region of the policy of gradual russification of the allogeneous peoples, which was the policy of the czarist government. Such an annexation would have therefore constituted a serious danger for preserving the Armenian cultural patrimony”. (14)

The only hope for the survival of the Church was the establishment of an autonomous Armenia bound to the Ottoman Empire. The constitution of this autonomous Armenia was ready anyway. The only thing that remained to be done was to demarcate the borders of an area. From 1856 on, this idea became more and more expressed. Patriarch Hrimyan was its most outspoken advocate. Undoubtedly this idea was shared by the Church of Echmiadzin, and was even spread by it. For, after the Turkmenchai Truce was signed, the Catholicos, who was hoping to become the ruler of an independent Armenia, had been disillusioned. To examine the developments in Russia will be useful in comparing the condition of Armenians in these two countries. We quote M.Varandian and E. Aknouni:

“The secular yoke of Muslims (Turks and Persians) was a terrible burden for the Armenian populations. Nevertheless, these populations were not losing their hope of a future resurrection. And, besides, the whole of Armenia was not enslaved and condemned to a dismal and eternal silence. There were some mountainous regions, - Zeitoun, Sassoun, Karabagh, etc. - which had been able to keep a semi-independence and where the spirit of rebellion was manifesting itself from time to time through audacious unexpected attacks against the foreign despots. At the beginning of the l8th century, some insurrections broke out in the vast region of Karabagh, in Persian Armenia. An Armenian Prince endowed with rare fighting abilities, David-Bek, led the movement and won brilliant victories. The struggle continued for many years”.

It was a perpetual guerrilla-type action with the aim of driving the Muslims out of the country. An important fact was encouraging the Armenians and was pushing them to the most brutal adventures. To the North, the great Christian Power, Russia, had expressed its project of descending towards Caucasus, and was assuming the role of protecting the small Christian communities. The despots of Turkey and Persia were beginning to tremble in front of the new colossus and Armenian expectations were growing.

It is only at the beginning of the l9th century that the armies of the Czar arrived at Transcaucasian Armenia, and little by little conquered vast regions there. In 182(r27, after a bloody war, Russia took two large Armenian provinces, Erivan and Nahjivan, from Persia. The entire Armenian population, headed by the Patriarch Nerses Ashtarak, participated actively in this liberation war.

A Russian Armenia was created. There is no need to dwell on the regime instituted by Czarist Russia. For approximately a century, Russian Armenians complained on many occasions of the crimes of this regime. Nevertheless, the changing of the yoke brought some relief to the Armenian populations, who, under the new regime, enjoyed a relative guarantee of their life and property. This minimum security was sufficient for the Armenians to engage in first-rate activity in Caucasus, to give free scope to their aptitudes in the field of commerce, industry, and intellectual life in the main centers: Tiflis, Baku, as well as in the provinces. Schools are being established here and there, books and periodicals are published. (15)

…And when, at the beginning of the l9th century, the gigantic struggle against very powerful Mohammedanism began, the Armenian Church, although it had suffered so much, rushed into the conflict, relying upon Echmiadzin. And it is then that the Russian army, representing the Russian people's anger against Muslim domination, went towards Caucasus. The Armenians took upon themselves to guide [them) in this country bathed with their sweat and which was unknown to the ruler of the future.

In Georgia, it was the nobility, bellicose by nature, which created the movement; in Armenia, it was the clergy. And it was the most valiant Armenian fighter of the time, Nerses Ashtarak, who was at the same time the most capable politican, who headed the movement. Regiments of Armenian volunteers appeared. Nerses, enraptured, made the following speech to his troops, in 1826:

“Armenians! The hour of the deliverance of the country of Ararat and of the Armenian people has come; Echmiadzin can recover its former independence. Rise and rebel brave Armenians! Shake off the Persian yoke, have old Ararat leap for joy, bathe your fatherland with blood, and you shall live for ever free and independent! The time has come! Go ahead! Now or never!”

Nerses was enraptured by promises, either official, or secret, coming from Petersburg in regard to the independence of the Armenian provinces of Ararat, which were filling up with Armenian refugees coming from the neighboring regions belonging to Persia. Independent Armenian provinces, a free Church, Echmiadzin saved from the Mohammedan yoke, how glorious all this appeared, how captivating was this delusion! But as their domination was solidly established, when the monarchical government no more needed either the Armenian clergy or the popular forces to crush the Mohammedans, the wind changed and one started to hear completely different speeches, and soon even threats(16).

It is mainly after 1863, after the insurrection of Poland, which was so audacious but so little successful - a new attempt of liberation by the generation which grew up after the movement of 1830 - that the policy of russification of the enslaved nations was born... 500 Armenian schools in Caucasus were closed, and thus, 200,000 children from both sexes who were being educated, were thrown into the street... Acts of an inconceivable tyranny happened then: threats, the whip and the bastinado were begun. (17)

On page 72 of Aknouni's book, the following statement is made: The obligatory study of the Armenian language had been for a long time abolished from Gymnasiums and state schools, for, according to Russian statesmen, an Armenian has only two obligations in this world:

1) to learn Russian language;

2) to hate his mother tongue.

And these two obligations are considered equally indispensable.

We have quoted above from two different books. The authors of these two books are Armenian. There is a difference of twelve years between their dates of publication.

In Russia, by the decree of the Tsar dated 11 March 1836, a regulation known as Polijenia, concerning the administration of the Catholicate was accepted. Through this law, the Catholicos could have authority only in spiritual matters, this authority would be checked by a Synod Assembly, a representative of the Government would be present in this Assembly, and no decision could be taken without the approval of this representative.

The Catholicos could correspond with churches in other countries only through the intermediary of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The election of the Catholicos would be made in Echmiadzin by choosing between two candidates selected by representatives coming from other countries too. This choice would be made by the Tsar himself. There was no question of the Catholicos or the other bishops having any kind of authority or privilege in secular matters. It is possible that Echmiadzin, facing an increasing russification policy, and very severe measures against the Armenian nationalistic movement, was convinced, as we have stated above, that one day it would be altogether abolished, and thus attempted to persuade the Istanbul Patriarchate to establish an autonomous Armenia in the Ottoman Empire.

Such a thought was not in opposition to the interests of Russia. We have thus brought the subject to the policies of the great powers.

2. The policies of the great powers

The policies of the great powers have not been established on a day-to-day basis, and they have not followed a fixed and uniform direction. Because it is impossible to set down in writing these policies one by one within the chronological development of historical events, we will attempt to summarize them as a whole, by looking at the period until the establishment of the Republic in Turkey.

We stated previously that the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire coincided with the Karlowitz Pact of 1699. This pact opened the way for dispossessing the Ottoman Empire, for the first time, of large areas of land. Moreover, it was during this period that Russia began to make its presence felt in Europe. At the beginning of the l8th century, the main power in Europe was, of course, the Austrian Empire. After the second siege of Vienna, Austria, who had not been able to achieve much with regard to the Ottomans for over two centuries, and had been dispossessed of many lands, now followed the policy of regaining the countries she had lost, which either belonged to her or were subject to her. Hungary, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Serbia were among these countries. Whenever it was possible, Austria allied herself with Russia, in order to reach this goal. Russia took part in the war which ended with Karlowitz in 1699. Austria expanded her Empire following the 1716-18 war. As the Ottoman State declared war on Russia in 1736, Austria entered the conflict in 1737 to gain more lands through this war. However, Russia and Austria having lost the war, she had to return the lands she had gained by the Pasarovcha Pact of 1718. Austria did not take part in the Russian War of 1768-74. But as Russia started descending towards the Balkans, she became concerned and felt the need to intervene to bring the war to an end.

Because Russia, too, felt that she would not be left alone in the Balkans, she decided to ally with Austria, and Austria then entered the Ottoman-Russian war of 1787. Austria was not successful in this war, either, and gained nothing when peace was declared in 1792 with the Zishtovi Treaty. This was the last war between the two countries, until both empires came to an end after the First World War. From this date on, Austria was concerned by Russia's expansion in the Balkans, and engaged in alliances with France, Britain, and Prussia.

When the German Empire was founded in 1870, Austria followed a policy parallel to Germany's, and Germany was the spokesman of this group. At the beginning of the l8th century, Britain was busy attempting to destroy the French and Spanish hegemonies, and to establish its independent empire at the expense of these states. For Britain, struggling with France, Russia was a state which could put pressure on France and its ally, Prussia. For this reason, Britain made various pacts with Russia. The most significant was signed in 1755. `With this pact, Russia would give 55,000 soldiers to Britain. When the troops were to go outside the Russian borders, Britain would pay oe500,000 sterling per year to Russia, and when they stayed in Russia, she would pay oe100,000 sterling per year... The two states signed a non-aggression pact in 1776; when Catherine the Great was sending the Baltic Fleet to Turkish waters during the 1768-74 war, she was renting boats from Britain, and the British Admiral Samuel Greigh was the commandant of the fleet which destroyed the Ottoman Fleet in the Tcheshme harbor (18).

Britain became interested in the Ottoman Empire after the Kuchuk Kaynarja Treaty of 1774. When the Ottoman-Russian War started in 1787, William Pitt, who headed the British Government, realized for the first time that the continuous advance of Russia towards the south would enable Russia to become a strong power in the Black Sea, and constitute a danger to Britain. He thus felt the need to support the Ottoman Empire against Russia. This policy, started by Pitt in 1783, continued without change for a century, until Gladstone became Prime Minister. Pitt succeeded in persuading Austria to leave the alliance with Russia during the Ottoman-Russian War of 1787-92, and began to put pressure on Russia, with the help of Prussia after the French Revolution, and went so far as to decide to enter the war in order to end it and to ensure the return of Odessa. In the event, Britain did not enter the war, owing to disagreements within the government, and Russia was forced to end the war.

From this time until 1814 there was almost continuous war between Britain and France. Because of this, Britain supported Russia in the Russian-Ottoman war of 1806, and even sent its fleet into the Marmara Sea, despite its policy, in order not to remain alone against France. But when Russia and France made an agreement at Tilsit in 1807, the Ottoman-British friendship was restored. When the Congress of Vienna met in 1814, Britain attempted to have the Ottoman borders guaranteed by the Congress, but despite the support of the Austrian Chancellor Metternich, who was beginning to be concerned by the Russian danger, Tsar Alexander did not accede.

During the Greek rebellion, Britain supported Greece. Nevertheless, it would be an error to see this attitude of the British Prime Minister Canning as an alliance with Russia. Canning was convinced that Greece would sooner or later win her independence, and it would be preferable that Greece owe this to Britain, instead of to Russia, for Britain would then acquire a friendly country in the Mediterranean.

Britain remained a spectator of the 1828-30 Ottoman-Russian war which started during this rebellion. However, Britain and Austria were seriously worried when Moldavia-Wallachia became subject to Russian rule. Britain became even more concerned when Russia began to settle in Caucasus, for this might mean a preparation to advance towards India. It is for this reason that Britain did not accept the suggestion made by Nicholas I, Tsar of Russia, to the British Ambassador in 1853:

“Well, we have here a sick man, a very sick man; it would be, I tell you frankly, a great misfortune if, one of these days, we were to lose him, especially before the necessary arrangements had been made” (19).

Britain was on the side of the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War. It is known that Russia offered Crete and Egypt to Britain, and wanted for herself Moldavia-Wallachia, Serbia, and Bulgaria. Russia, who came defeated out of the Crimean War, felt the necessity to turn now to the east, to Asia, and after having completed the conquest of Siberia by taking Vladivostock, began to conquer Turkistan. These conquests in Asia, especially the occupation of Turkistan, naturally constituted a danger for Britain's Empire of India.

The 1860s were the years of ‘unificatiori’ in Italy and Germany in Europe, and the years when Russia increased its policy of Pan-Slavism, which was begun after Russia invaded Poland in 1863. The Ottoman Empire was alone in the 1877-8 war, and signed the Ayastefanos (San Stefano) Pact, whose stipulations were hard on the Ottomans. However, both Austria and Britain objected to this pact. As Bismarck joined them, the Berlin Congress was held and the Berlin Treaty was signed. As a result of this agreement, most of Russia's gains were taken away. After the Berlin Congress, there was a major change in British policy. Gladstone, who became Prime Minister for the second time in 1880, changed the policy which had been followed for a century, which Pitt had initiated, and put an end to protecting the administrative integrity of the Ottoman Empire.

We have mentioned that the religious factors and Gladstone's conformist point of view as well as his hostility towards Muslims played an important role in this change of policy. Russia, who turned once more towards the Far East after the Berlin Congress, started again to compete with Britain in Asia, and returned to a friendly policy concerning the Ottoman Empire. But this did not last very long either. When Russia was defeated in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, Britain and Russia made an agreement in 1907, about their spheres of influence in Asia. Subsequently Britain began scheming to divide the Ottoman Empire with France and Russia, and this aim was achieved during the First World War. The close relations of the Ottoman Empire with France began, except for the time of Suleiman the Magnificent, under the reign of Napoleon. After Napoleon's unsuccessful Egyptian campaign, France had helped the Ottomans against Russia; however, after the Vienna Congress, Erance for some time was no longer in a position to play a significant role in European politics.

France began her policy of expanding in Africa by invading Algeria in 1830. After this date, she began to attribute more importance to the subject of protecting Catholics within the Ottoman Empire, and played the main role in the incident of the `Holy Places' which eventually led to the Crimean War. Napoleon III, who acted with the Ottoman Empire during the Crimean War, had been unable after 1856 to concentrate on other matters, because he had been struggling unsuccessfully with Germany and Italy, who were attempting to achieve unification after 1856, and he suffered a blow following his defeat by Germany in 1870. While France participated in the Berlin Congress, she did not play a significant role.

France, who was the cradle of philosophies of freedom and independence after the Revolution, had been closed to such thoughts in the period starting with Napoleon until 1870. She assumed this role once again after the Third Republic was proclaimed, and became a refuge for various classes in various countries, and those struggling against the State in the Ottoman Empire. France, who did not forget the defeat by Germany, began to get close to Russia, who had left the 1878 Berlin Congress offended at Germany. She also resolved her conflicts with Britain. After the `Entente Cordiale' had been established, and the relations between Russia and Britain were also improved, these three powers shared the same opinion concerning the Ottoman Empire, and France played an active role in the projects about dividing the Empire.

Germany entered the European scene with the Versailles Treaty in 1870. Although Prussia had played an active role until then in various matters, it had never possessed the weight of a unified Germany, and had often remained in Austria's shadow. After 1870, Germany became the strongest and most feared country of Europe. After the alliance with Austria and Italy, when Europe was divided into two groups, the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente, there was no subject left in which Germany did not have a say. Germany, who started her colonization drive after this date, saw the Ottoman Empire as a country which she could easily influence. The reason why she supported the Ottoman State during the Berlin Congress, and offended her ally Russia, was because she did not want the Empire to disintegrate before she could obtain some rights. As a matter of fact Ottoman-German relations became closer. Nevertheless, Germany was to take part in the projects carried out by Russia, France and England to divide the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence, and to claim her share. It is certain that the Ottoman Empire, which entered the First World War as Germany's ally, would have come under the absolute authority of Germany, if Germany had come victorious out of the war.

We come finally to Russia. We stated previously that Russia made her presence felt, starting with Peter the Great (1682-1725). It is recognized that Peter the Great fixed three goals for Russia: to expand to the Baltic shores and to the Black Sea, and to take Poland. When Peter died, only one of these goals had been attained: the Baltic shores had been taken from Sweden through the Nishtad treaty. Although Russia took possession of the Azak castle in 1699, she had to return it to the Ottomans in 1714. The culmination of this policy established by Peter, fell to the lot of Catherine the Great (1762-96). Under her rule, Poland was divided between Austria and Prussia, and was wiped out from the European map; after the Kuchuk Kaynaria Treaty of 1774, the Ottoman-Russian border was pushed up to the Dniester river, the khanate of Crimea came under Russian jurisdiction to be annexed shortly after, and Russia settled on the northern shores of the Black Sea, ready to descend towards the south, from Caucasus on one side, from the Balkans on the other.

The goal of Russia to descend to the warm seas is a subject recognized by all, but it is less well known that two directions were chosen to achieve this goal. The first was to reach the Mediterranean through the Straits, the other was to reach India by taking advantage of water routes. Projects and plans of this second direction were accepted during the reign of Tsarina Anna (1730-40) in 1734, and Krillov was entrusted with the realization of the plan. After this plan was put into effect, Russia decided to advance in the two directions, and chose as a principle to focus on one direction temporarily, if there proved to be difficulties in the other direction. This plan, which was made in 1734, projected taking the regions of Bukhara, Samarkand, and Badakhshan. Badakhshan is an area within the borders of Afghanistan, and Russia had to wait until the 1980s to obtain this region.

It is possible to summarize the policy of Russia, since the reign of Peter the Great, concerning the Ottoman Empire: to expand Russia, at the expense of the Ot toman Empire, to restore Byzantium by taking Istanbul, and to make the Tsar the undisputed leader of the Orthodox world. After Peter the Great, the Tsars never forgot this policy; the more successful included Catherine II (1762-96), Nicholas I (1825-55) and Alexander II (1855-81). Russia, until the reign of Catherine the Great, was far from having the power to struggle alone with the Ottoman Empire. However, the Kuchuk Kaynarca Treaty of 1774 demonstrated that Russia was now able to cause the collapse of the Ottoman Empire without the help of another country. But, from this date on, the other European countries made it apparent that they would not allow the Ottoman Empire to be absorbed by Russia, thus enabling Russia to become an uncontrollable power. It is for this reason that Russia began to make preliminary projects for distribution with the other powers, as she was getting ready for another attack. The offer made to Austria in the 1787 war, and to Britain in the 1853 war, are examples of this.

The main opportunity Russia had to attack the Ottoman Empire was to provoke and support the various Orthodox communities within the Empire to rebel, and then to declare war on the pretext of protecting them. The Serbian rebellion of 1806 was the source of the Russian war which started that year. The Greek rebellion gave rise to the 1828 war. The `Holy Places' issue started the 1853 Crimean War. The 1877 war started with the Herzegovina revolt. From 1774 on, Russia considered herself as the sole representative of the Orthodox and Slav subjects of the Ottoman Empire, and in the case of an insurrection or rebellion, considered immediate intervention as natural.

However, Austria, who had lost some areas to Italy as the unification of Italy was being realized, wanted, from 1870 on, to invade Bosnia-Herzegovina, and became interested in Slavs because of the existence of a substantial Slav element within her Empire. Russia, keeping this in mind, succeeded, as the three emperors (Alexander II, Kaiser Wilhelm and Franz-Josef) met in 1875, in having the non-intervention principle accepted in the event of a possible rebellion of Christian elements of the Ottoman Empire. The aim of `non-intervention' is to avoid helping the Ottoman Empire to crush the rebellion. However, when the rebellion which started in Herzegovina in 1875 and spread to Bulgaria and Serbia in 1876 was crushed by the Ottomans, Russia intervened on the side of the rebels, and the 1877 war started.

Russia obtained from the Ottoman Empire, through the Berlin Treaty, the maximum of what the other powers would accept. Rumania, Bulgaria, and Serbia obtained autonomy and later independence. It was obvious that after this Russia would have no opportunity to obtain more land. We have thus summarized the policies followed by the Powers concerning the Ottoman Empire. It is now necessary to examine the place of the Armenians within this framework.

In the 1870s the Armenians were not yet included in the policies of either Russia or the other powers. Even the Armenian authors of that time do not mention the existence of any dispute between the Armenian community and the Ottoman government. The interest of Russia, which was closely following the rebellion of the non-Muslim subjects in the Ottoman Empire, and of Austria, which adopted the same policy after 1870, lay mainly in the Slavic elements. No one was interested in the Armenians, who were living in their country without any complaint. These years coincide in Russia with the period when Pan-Slavism was at its strongest, when liberation movements were brutally crushed, and when the rights of the Armenians in Russian Armenia were taken away from them. The clearest proof of this is that when the Patriarch asked to be allowed to take part in the Conference of Ambassadors gathered in Tophane to discuss the subject of the 1876 Balkan rebellions, he was told that the meeting had nothing to do with the Armenians. We shall return to this subject later.

Until this date, the interest of Russia in the Armenians had been limited to taking advantage of them on the eastern front during the wars with the Ottomans. This cooperation started during the Iran war which ended with the Turkmenchai truce, and continued in the 1828 Ottoman war, and to some extent in the 1853-6 war. From the 1870s on, the Armenians began to seek the aid of the European powers, for the reasons we have stated above. These attempts were made by the Patriarchate (and Echmiadzin) and the clergy.

It must be accepted that they were successful, and the `Armenian question' appeared at the Berlin Congress. However, the factor which played a role in the emergence of this question, rather than the Armenians' attempts, was the fact that the political conjuncture necessitated taking advantage of them. As a matter of fact, after the Berlin Congress, almost the entire Balkans (except for Rumelia, which would be lost in the Balkan war), were separated from the Ottoman Empire, and these regions could no longer be used as an excuse to declare war on the Ottoman Empire. Besides, Russia realized that the Balkans would not constitute a passage for her advance to the Mediterranean, and later saw that these countries, whom she actively helped to gain their independence, did not remain grateful to her.

Then she recognized that in the East only the Erzurum-Iskenderun axis remained to permit her descent to the south, and thought of taking advantage of the Armenians to obtain this axis. For this reason, she was to turn to the Armenian question especially after the Berlin Congress. With this intention, Russia, just as she did in the Balkans, attempted to create incidents in Armenia, so that she could then interfere. She not only took advantage of the Armenian Church, but supported the revolutionary committees which were formed.

The Liberal Party and its leader Gladstone, who came to power in Britain after the Berlin Congress, were the main supporters of Russia in this matter, and appeared as the sole custodian of the Armenian question and almost as the tool of Russia's foreign policy. However, as Russia realized that Britain had the aim of actually granting independence to Armenia, and she engaged once again in a power struggle with Britain in Asia, she ceased being interested in the Armenians, even started to oppose their ideas of independence, and followed the same policy with the Ottomans.

As was the case with Greek independence, the British were hoping that if an independent Armenia was established, they would have first of all a country grateful to them, and thus create a buffer state which would prevent the descent of Russia to the south. While Russia abandoned its support of the revolutionary committees, this time, France and Britain continued this support.

Russia, after being defeated by Japan in 1905, and having made an agreement with Britain concerning Asia, completely put aside the question of Armenian independence, and started its policy of dividing the Ottoman Empire into spheres of influence, which would later result in the dismemberment of the Empire. During the First World War which started in this climate, she went to the distribution agreement with the Sykes-Picot treaty. Within these political developments, the Armenians would be nothing more than a tool, a means, and independence and autonomy would remain only as their wishes and dreams. The only ones who did not see this truth were the Armenians and especially the Armenian Church.

3. From the reform edict to the Berlin Congress

Now we can examine events in the Ottoman Empire until 1878. The struggle, from the 1856 Reform Edict on, among the Armenians and with which the Patriarchate too was involved, continued after the Armenian nation's regulation was accepted in 1863. However, this internal strife was confined to Istanbul, and there was no apparent discontent in Anatolia. Moreover, there were no known complaints to foreign countries in these matters. Actually there was a revolt in Zeitun in 1862. But this, as we shall explain later, had entirely different causes, involving non-Armenian elements and being due to the feudal system which prevailed in various regions in the east of the country.

This situation started to change after Migirdich Hrimyan was elected Patriarch in 1869. Pasdermadjian states that “On the eve of the 1877-78 Russian-Ottoman War, the situation of Armenians in Turkish Armenia was as difficult and even worse than that of Serbians in Bosnia, or that of Bulgarians in Roumelia and Macedonia”. Later he writes:

“Until 1876, the Turkish policy, although it favored the Kurds in Armenia, did not have a real anti-Armenian character. The often tragic situation of Armenians came from their position as subject people, and the general conditions of the Empire, rather than from a concerted action of the government. In fact, the interventions of Constantinople in Armenian matters during the last decades were chiefly characterized by the concern to protect the independence of the Armenian Church over against the attempts of assimilation coming from the Catholic or the Orthodox side” (20).

Pasdermadjian, just as he does not deem it necessary to state the extent of the influence of the Ottoman Empire in the 1870s in Bosnia-Herzegovina and even in Bulgaria, does not mention whether the condition of the Muslims, either in Europe or in Anatolia, was better than the condition of the Armenians. During this period, the fall of the Empire was almost declared by the government with the Reform Edict, and the necessity of implementing definite measures as soon as possible was created. The sufferings were the same for every subject, and were even worse for the Muslims who could not benefit from t he protection of a foreign country, and who did not have anyone to whom they could voice their complaints. It was a fact that banditry was prevalent in the east. But were the victims of the brigands only non-Muslim and especially Armenians? It must be remembered that Armenians and Greeks, too, had their own bands of brigands, and these would only attack Muslims.

Consequently, Muslims were being attacked from two sides, by Muslim and non-Muslim brigands. Moreover, one must not forget that the Armenians, who were complaining so much of these conditions were the richest sector of the population, having the largest opportunities.

According to the well-known book of Marcel Leart (21) if the numbers are correct,141 of 166 exporters in Anatolia were Armenian,12 were of other origin, and only 13 were Turks; 6,800 of 9,800 shop-owners and craftsmen were Armenians, 2,550 were Turks; out of 150 exporters, 127 were Armenians and 23 were Turks; of 153 industrialists, 130 were Armenians and 20 were Turks; of 37 bankers, 32 were Armenians. In the region which they call Turkish Armenia, they had in total 803 schools, 2,088 teachers, and 81,226 students.

The Armenian Church began to portray the Armenians, after Hrimyan became Patriarch, as a society moaning under continuous cruelty and torture, when the Armenians should be having at most as much right to complain as the Muslim majority, about the general administration of the country and the lack of order. At this point it may be useful to examine Hrimyan's personality. After the Gulhane reforms of 1839, and especially the Reform Edict, the main concern of the Patriarchate was the decline in its rights and privileges. Pat riarch Matheos Chuhajiyan had resigned in 1848 for this reason. In 1858, he was elected the Echmiadzin Catholicos. In the same year, Gevorg Kerestejiyan was brought to the Istanbul Patriarchate. Kerest ejiyan resigned in 1860 because of the disagreements which appeared when the Armenian nation's regulation was being prepared. Armenian newspapers of the period reported that his resignation was due to his opposition to the regulation (22).

In 1866, Kerestejiyan succeeded Chuhajiyan and became Catholicos of Echmiadzin. In 1869, Hrimyan became the Istanbul Pat riarch. In 1885, he was to become the Catholicos of Echmiadzin. As Hrimyan resigned, and left the Patriarchate, Nerses Varjabetyan replaced him. To a large extent, this Patriarch was under the influence of Hrimyan; it is even claimed that some of his actions were due to Hrimyan's pressure. Nerses Varjabetyan was a candidate in the election of the Catholicos in Echmiadzin in 1884, but the Tsar did not approve his election and consequently he did not become Catholicos. In contrast, the candidacies of Chuhajiyan, Kerestejiyan, and Hrimyan were approved by the Tsar, who also approved the candidacy of Matheos Izmirliyan to the Catholicate. Izmirliyan had been the Istanbul Patriarch between 1894 and 1896, and was brought once again to the Patriarchate in 1908.

Consequently, he left the Patriarchate in the same year and went to Echmiadzin where he became the Catholicos after Hrimyan. It is obvious that the Tsar acted only in the direction which was most beneficial to Russian interests in his approval of the Catholicos. It is therefore necessary to assume that those who could transfer to Echmiadzin from Istanbul were serving the interests of the Tsar and Russian national interests. Although the interests of the Armenian Church did not always coincide with those of Russia, at times they did coincide. While Russia maintained the influence of Echmiadzin within Russia at a minimum, she saw the continuation of this influence outside Russia as advantageous. At this point there was understanding with the Church. The Istanbul Patriarchate, .especially, was far from satisfied at the decline of its authority.

The Armenian Church was aware that Russia did not want an independent Armenia. The Russians were also aware that the Armenian Church knew this, and that they wanted autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. Russia had realized that the other powers would not allow the invasion of the area called Armenia, and for this reason saw advantage in giving autonomy to this region, which inevitably would come under her jurisdiction. The Armenian Church and Russia were conscious that if conditions were to improve in the Empire after the attempted reforms, the complaints which the Armenians made in the 1870s about administrative malfunctions could not be made any longer. After the declaration of the Constitutional Government, when the Armenians were included in the Constitutional Assembly, there would be even less excuse for complaint. Under these circumstances there was a sense of urgency; something had to be done as soon as possible. (The abolition of the Constitutional Government was a source of joy for the Armenian Church.)

The authority of the Patriarchate had to be strengthened, the interest of the great powers had to be secured in order to gain independence, and their intervention had to be obtained. And this necessitated above all a continuous voicing of complaints. In all these matters, the interest of the Armenian Church coincided with that of Russia. Hrimyan was the individual who made the most significant contribution.

Hrimyan was born in 1820 in Van, and visited Echmiadzin and Ararat in 1841. Later he came to Istanbul and became a teacher. The years in which he started teaching coincided with the period when Chuhajiyan was the Patriarch. In 1854 Hrimyan joined the Chur ch. During the time he was in Istanbul, he undoubtedly observed the problems of the Patriarchate. After he joined the Church he was appointed to Van. Later, he was sent to Mush. It is useful to remember that during this time, first Chuhajiyan, then Kerestejiyan was Catholicos in Echmiadzin, and both of them resigned because the authority of the Patriarchate was declining. Hrimyan started printing two newspapers in Van and Mush, entitled The Eagle of Van and The Eagle of Mush, and began to focus on the theme of the Armenians' plight in eastern Anatolia. In 1869 he was elected Patriarch when he was only forty-nine years old, and had joined the Church only fifteen years earlier.

It is not difficult to accept that he was elected because he knew of the problems of the Church, and tried to solve them. The Catholicos Kerestejiyan might also have used his influence in this election. As soon as he became Patriarch, Hrimyan brought the condition of the eastern provinces to the agenda of the National Patriarchate Assembly. He demanded in circulars he sent to all the bishops that they inform him of matters which could constitute a complaint. A memorandum based on these reports was submitted to the Grand Vizier in February 1872. The government formed a Commission, which had an equal number of Muslim and Christian members, to investigate these complaints. Hrimyan had also brought the subject of changing the Armenian National Regulation to the National Assembly; his aim was to expand the jurisdiction of the Patriarchy, to reduce the number of representatives in the National Assembly from 140 to 50 and to have the members who were not of the clergy elected in equal numbers from Istanbul and the provinces (23).

But all his efforts met the opposition of the political assembly. The representatives from Istanbul and the provinces in the National Assembly began to quarrel. Hrimyan resigned in 1873, as he realized that the Assemblies did not follow him, and that he could not impose on them what he wanted. He was replaced by Nerses Varjabedyan. Although the new Patriarch was not of the same opinion as Hrimyan, Hrimyan and his supporters continued their activities. When the 1875 rebellion in Herzegovina spread, and the great powers intervened, demanding the implementation of reforms in this area, the Armenian Church became convinced that, by taking advantage of the situation, it could obtain autonomy for the eastern provinces. A group headed by Hrimyan, and including Izmirliyan who later was to become Patriarch, increased their pressure on Nerses. Finally, Nerses felt the obligation to act with them.

When it became known that a conference was to be held in Istanbul to discuss the events in Herzegovina and Bulgaria, a memorandum prepared by Izmirliyan, requesting that the problems of Armenians, too, be included in this conference, was sent to all the great powers in September 1876. Echmiadzin supported these complaints by doing its share at the level of the Tsar. Actually the complaints were about isolated incidents, and the requests consisted of matters which the Babiali was already attempting to put into effect, such as the implementation of the decisions taken by the Babiali and the specially formed commission concerning the land administration, exempting the properties of the Church from taxation, the establishment of a commission in the Babiali in which representatives of the Patriarchate would take part, and which would prosecute cases of injustice and investigate matters communicated by the Patriarchate. The Patriarch Nerses was also contacting the Embassies in Istanbul and trying to attract their attention to the Armenian question. A meeting he had with the British Ambassador is of great significance. Henry Elliot, the British Ambassador, wrote as follows in the report he sent on 7 December 1876 to the Foreign Office:

“Yesterday the Armenian Patriarch paid me a visit. He expressed the hope, in the name of the large Christian community of which he is the leader, that the Conference would put pressure on the Babiali, that the privileges that are to be granted to the provinces which have revolted against the Empire also be granted to the provinces which remained calm, but which deserve equal treatment. I replied with caution. I told him that the object of the Conference was to ensure order in provinces which have rebelled, and which endanger the overall peace, and that I did not think that it would handle the topic of the overall administration of the Ottoman Empire.

The Patriarch replied that his nation was very upset, and that if a rebellion was necessary to attract the interest of the European powers, then there was no difficulty in starting such an action” (24).

The Tophane Conference met in such an atmosphere, on 23 December 1876, to discuss the Herzegovina and Bulgaria events. On the same day the First Constitutional Government was proclaimed in the Ottoman Empire. Despite all these efforts the Tophane Conference did not deal with the Armenian question. The proclamation of the constitutional government was very well received inside as well as outside the country. All the non-Muslims expressed their joy in an honest fashion. But, after a while, the Armenian Church came to the conclusion that the constitutional government would work to its disadvantage, that if the situation and the administration of the country were to improve, then it would have to abandon its hope for autonomy. It set its hopes on a Russo-Ottoman War. Russia declared war on the Ottoman Empire on 24 April 1877, as no decision was taken either during the Tophane Conference or in the diplomatic contacts initiated after the Conference was over.

An interesting point which showed the attitude of the Armenian commu