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 Caucasia 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 Etchmiadzin, 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 Caucasia, the intention of the Russians to advance to southern Caucasia 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 Caucasia 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 Caucasia, 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 Etchmiadzin 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 the 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. In1849 Caucasia 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 Caucasia did not want to live under Russian rule, and started a struggle under the leadership of Sheik Shamil. After this, Prince Vorontsov was appointed regent in 1844 to Caucasia, which was reunited, to establish order in the region.
Vorontsov considered it more useful to form small provinces in Caucasia, 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 practised 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, too, 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 endeavours and assistance of the allies.
2. The inviolability of the right to life, property, and honour granted to every subject without disciminating 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 nonMuslim 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 the 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 favours and revenues given by the congregations to their spiritual leaders will be abolished, and they will receive salaries instead.
7. Congregational m?tters 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 programme, and appoint their instructors.
17. Mixed courts will be established for commercial and murder cases occurring between Muslims and non-Muslims, or exclusively among nonMuslims, and the trials will be public.
18. Cases such as inheritance disagreements occurring among nonMuslims 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 batallions.)
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.
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 , 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 affiicted 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 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 confiicts 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 Musulmans. 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 pecuniarily, or for his promotion, and the humblest peasant owes them the value of the very seed he sows; so that without them the Osmanlis 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 the 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 Etchmiadzin 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 neccessary 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. . . . He became 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 companians, 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 Etchmiadzin. 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.