XI

THE OLD AND THE NEW RÉGIME IN TURKEY

REV. S. V. R. TROWBRIDGE, TURKEY

T

HE attitude of the Turkish government towards the pioneer missionaries who came from America in 1820 and the following decade was not uniform. Usually the officials ignored the newcomers as of no political consequence. Occasionally suspicions were aroused and interference resulted. In 1824 Mr. Bird was arrested in Jerusalem on the charge of distributing books which were "neither Jewish, Moslem nor Christian." But he was shortly released. And even during the disturbances which were caused by the war with Greece the provincial officials afforded protection and freedom of passage for the missionaries in their extensive pioneer journeys.

In 1834 Dr. Goodell recorded that it was gratifying to see the respect shown by high Turkish officials for American citizens. Their rights of residence and travel, however, were no more than were granted by various treaty agreements to Europeans.

When the mission work began to exert a wider influence, in the decade 1840-1850, there were repeated efforts to remove the missionaries from the country. The American minister, however, declined to take any such action and the attention of the Sublime Porte was turned to other matters.

The missionaries as foreign citizens were thus afforded

certain rights by treaty "capitulations." Although originally instituted by the Ottoman government for convenience in dealing with the rights of foreigners whose presence in the country was desired, these "capitulations" have in recent years become very distasteful to the Turks. There is a popular but mistaken idea that the "capitulations" have been forced upon the Turks by superior European authority. Undoubtedly from the Mohammedan point of view they are a reproach. They provide for residence and travel of foreigners, freedom in religious customs, inviolability of foreign dwellings and certain other privileges relative to arrest and punishment of foreigners.

But while the missionaries were thus to some extent free from the oppressive and arbitrary acts of Turkish officials, the inquirers and converts who gathered around them were subject to arrest, imprisonment and exile. From the beginning the chief activity of the missionaries was among the Greeks and Armenians. In 1846 a severe persecution of the newly formed community of evangelical Armenians was carried on by the Gregorian Patriarch. Turkish judges and police officers joined in giving effect to the Patriarch's orders. This persecution was finally checked by the interference of Sir Stratford Canning, the British ambassador. In 1850 the efforts of the ambassador culminated in the granting of an Imperial Firman recognizing the Protestant community as independent of the ancient Gregorian Church and giving it the same rights as had been accorded to the other Oriental churches.

At the same time Sir Stratford (afterwards Lord Stratford de Redcliffe) was exerting his whole strength to secure the annulment of the law inflicting death upon apostates from Islam. In 1843 an Armenian young man had been cruelly executed in the streets of Stamboul be

cause after having embraced Islam he had denied the Mohammedan faith. The immediate result of the ambassador's efforts was a written pledge from Sultan Abd ul Mejid that such an execution should not again take place. But it was not until 1856, after the Crimean war, that Sultan Abd ul Mejid issued the Hatti Humayoun or Imperial Edict. One of the articles reads: "As all forms of religion are and shall be freely professed in my dominions, no subject of my empire shall be hindered in the exercise of the religion that he professes, nor shall be in any way annoyed on this account. No one shall be compelled to change his religion."

It is very evident that this edict became known throughout the provinces and that it began at once to affect the work of the missionaries. Moslems felt themselves free to associate with missionaries and even to confess Christ. In 1857 Dr. Hamlin reported a family converted from Islam officially examined by the police and justified in their change of faith on the ground that no compulsion had been used. Mr. Dwight reported in 1859 that the governors at Sivas, Diarbekr and Cæsarea declared that Moslems who had become Christians should not be molested. In Constantinople Selim Effendi, a convert, became an evangelist and was permitted to gather around him a company of Turks who were inquirers.

But, perhaps as a result of the importation and circulation of Dr. Pfander's controversial writings, notably the "Mizan ul Hakk," there occurred in 1864 a reactionary movement which started in the government and spread among the people. The Turkish converts were arrested. What eventually became of them is not known. The mission presses and bookstores were temporarily closed by the police. And it was clearly understood by Mohammedans throughout the country that to forsake Islam was regarded by the government as a civil offense. This

Even the revolution of

attitude has not been changed. July, 1908, has scarcely modified it.

The political revolution of 1908 proclaimed a constitution guaranteeing equal rights for all subjects, inviolability of the person, authority of law over caprice of offi cials, freedom of the press, liberty of public meeting and freedom from espionage, bribery and torture. Liberty of conscience is implied in very guarded terms, but Islam is declared the established state religion and adherence to the usages and traditions of religion is demanded. The tenth article of the Constitution reads: "Individual liberty is inviolable. Except according to the forms and for the causes determined by the canon law of Islam, and by the civil code, no one can be arrested or suffer penalty, upon any pretext whatsoever."

It must also be remembered that while a minority of progressive Turks are striving to carry out the guarantees of the Constitution, the millions of illiterate peasants, all the eastern divisions of the army, as well as the rich landowners and pashas are at heart reactionary. They instinctively oppose nearly everything that Christian missions stand for.

Throughout the eighty years of mission activity in Turkey a considerable degree of toleration has been shown to the missionaries themselves; but churches, colleges and schools have been hindered and oppressed in every conceivable manner. Permission for new buildings, improvements of property, acquirement of title-deeds and privileges of travel have often been refused. The method has been procrastination and the placing of innumerable obstacles in the path. Young men's associations have been forbidden, and the censorship of the press has been most severe and capricious. Espionage, the imposition of illegal taxes, extensive and shameless bribery of officials and imprisonment without trial have been some of the

methods employed against Christian missions. While religious toleration has been repeatedly proclaimed, annoyance and forcible interference have been constantly taking place.

It cannot be said that the massacres have been employed by the government directly against Christian missions. The various massacres, of the Greeks in 1822, of the Syrians of Damascus and the Lebanon in 1860, of the Bulgarians in 1876, and of the Armenians in 1895, 1896 and 1909, have scourged the whole country and have profoundly affected mission work. These massacres have been with the consent and instigation of the government. But they have been directed against certain subject Christian peoples rather than against any organized mission work. The mission compounds have usually been the sole places of refuge. And with few exceptions the local government has instructed troops and officials to safeguard mission institutions against plunder and attack. In these dreadful events the Armenians have been the heaviest sufferers. We turn now to consider present conditions.

The attitude of the government has at no time been officially defined. Nor can it be fairly judged by unofficial interviews such as have recently been granted to foreign travellers. The magnanimous generalizations uttered by the Sheikh ul Islam and by members of the Cabinet are intended more for publication in the foreign press than for the actual administration of interior provinces. Compare, for example, the eloquent declarations of justice and mercy in the promises for Macedonian reforms with the awful massacre perpetrated by the government at Ourfa in 1895. The real attitude of the government must be learned by patient observation and by personal experience. Therefore we attach more weight to the evidence given by rep