Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1977, Introduction, pp. 1-17.
The participation of the Armenian community in Ottoman public life in Eastern Anatolia and Syria has not as yet been a subject of particular research. There are numerous studies on the political, religious and cultural history of the Armenians of Anatolia and Syria, but there is no special study in any language on their participation in Ottoman public life.
In Turkish sources the role which the Armenians played in Ottoman governmental affairs has been intentionally ignored, and even Armenian sources have paid little attention to it. To the Armenian mind a churchman or a man of letters tends to be more appreciated and better remembered than a humdrum administrator in a district or province. This is the reason why the local histories of Anatolia and Syria, written by Armenian scholars, contain little material on the biographies of those who served in the different departments of the Ottoman Government.
In 1953, at Istanbul, Y. Cark published an illustrated book, "The Armenians in the Service of the Turkish State, 1453-1953", in which he recorded those Armenians who held more or less important positions in the Turkish state during those years. In point of thime this study covers a period of five centuries and, geographically, the whole Ottoman Empire up to 1923 and the Turkish Republic thereafter. Second, the book related not what the Armenians, taken as a community, have achieved, but what individual Armenians have done in the Turkish service. Moreoever, the author has not produced any new information, but has been content to compile only well-known printed material.
My main sources in writing the present work have been the provincial year-books of Eastern Anatolia and Syria. Although these are printed or lithographed books, the fact that they are scarce and not much explored gives them the character of unedited materials.
The service of the Armenians to the central government of the Ottoman Empire in and around Istanbul is known to some extent. This is the reason why I have chosen as geographical limits that part of Anatolia which was called in the West "Turkish Armenia" and which was considered in western diplomacy to be "provinces inhabited by Armenians"; and Syria, where the Armenians began to settle as early as the twelfth century, and which since the fourteenth century included the important See of Aleppo of the Armenian Cilician Catholicate.
Chronologically, this work covers the period between 1860 and 1908. The year 1860 is significant in Armenian-Ottoman history for several reasons: (a) on 3 November 1839 the "Hatti serif" (noble rescript) of Sultan Abdulmedic (which was reaffirmed on 18 February 1856 by the "Hatti humayun" = Imperial rescript), proclaimed freedom of worship and civil equality to all Ottoman subjects. As a result of these imperial edicts non-Muslims were admitted in greater numbers than before to employment in the Ottoman public administration.
(b)From 1857-8 onwards, the Armenians and other non-Muslim students were also allowed to attend the Turkish state high schools. Through this new arrangement Armenians enjoyed the opportunity of learning advanced Turkish and various professions and skills and were thus fitted to engage in public affairs. It must be mentioned here that, apart from Turkish schools, the Armenians had their own secondary schools, as well as others run by French Catholic and American Protestant Missions which did much to develop popular education. Many Armenians, after leaving the local high schools, went abroad, especially to Paris and New York, and, nearer home, to the two colleges, later universities, of Beirut, in order to continue their education. These two universities are the Syrian Protestant College which was founded in 1866 by the American Presbyterian Mission and became the American University of Beirut in 1920; and the Jesuit College founded in 1881 (run by French Fathers), now the University of Saint-Joseph. Most of the students returned home and devoted themselves to public service and the private professions.
(c) In 1860 the Constitution of the Armenian community was first promulgated. This stimulated a renaissance of education and literature in the national life and awakened the national conscience of the younger generation.
(d) In 1860 occurred the massacres of the Maronitse of Mount Lebanon by the Druzes, and consequently Jabal Lubnan became an autonomous territory guaranteed by international agreement.
(e) In October 1864 the Ottoman Empire was itself reorganized and divided into reconstituted provinces ('vilayet') under governors designated 'vali'. This territorial reorganization created employment for many new officials in public life, for which the Armenians and Greeks were now available.
My period ends in 1908-9 when the Young Turks came into power and pursued a nationalistic policy which had its result in the extermination of the whole Armenian population from Anatolia in 1915-20, bringing misery to Turk and Armenian alike.
There are hundreds of books on the Armenian Question and massacres but they emphasize one side of the story to the obscuring of the other side and, accordingly, one can hardly imagine after reading this type of literature that Ottoman-Armenian co-operation ever existed or that the Armenians had rendered a considerable service to Ottoman public life. My work has been, therefore, to demonstrate the great part which the Armenians took in the public administration of Eastern Anatolia and Syria in the period of the "tanzimat" (reforms). It should be understood how much the three million Armenians of Anatolia contributed to the economy and general development of the country, apart from official service, through trade, agriculture, handicrafts and the professions.
The Armenians' way of life had distinctive features and their cultural and educational affairs were carried out in the main by clergymen, assisted by prominent laymen. The Armenian communities in the Ottoman Empire up to 1860 were governed by the Patriarch of Istanbul through councils in which the ordinary people had almost no representation.
On 18 February 1856 the 'Hatti humayun' (Imperial rescript) of the Sublime Porte proclaimed personal safety and freedom of worship to all Ottoman subjects without any distinction and promised to non-Muslim communities restoration of all immunities and privileges in a new legislative form. Reform in the state suggested reform in the religious communities. The Armenians with all other non-Muslim communities were pleased and enthusiastic. Some intellectuals such as Krikor Odian (1834-87), Nahapet Russinian (1819-76) and Dr. Serovbe Vitchenian (1815-87) who were educated in the secular environment of Paris, urged the necessity of a new constitution for the Armenian community in order to restrict the arbitrary acts of the patriarchs, 'amirs' (high officials at the Court) and 'aghas' (chiefs, notables) and to give the ordinary people a say in the ordering of their communal life.
In the year 1856-7 a special committee led by Krikor Efendi Markosian drew up a draft regulation for the Armenian community. This was examined in February-March 1857 by the communal Supreme Assembly, and on 3 April 1857 was approved by the General Council. It was not, however, accepted by the Porte, because, it was said, "no state can be within another state." The Armenians were thus compelled to prepare a new constitution which was completed in 1860. These were its main lines:
1. "Each individual has obligations towards the nation ['millet' = 'community'] and the nation towards the individual". Every Armenian would participate in the elections of the patriarch and community councils through representatives and would pay taxes in order to preserve and defend his rights.
2. The patriarch is no longer an omnipotent authority in the community, but merely "the president of the communal councils", who also "administered the executive power of these councils."
3. The supreme communal authority is the General Council with the power to elect the patriarch, to organize the community, to oversee and inspect the activities of the directorship of the councils and to preserve the Constitution.
4. Next to the General Council are set up the Religious and Political Councils, the Boards of Education, Finance, Expenditure and Income, Social Litigation (concerning family disputes) and Parish Councils.
5. The task of the Parish Council is to administer the local community affairs of the district, to maintain the church and the school, to settle the disputes which arise between the members of the Parish and to help the poor.
6. In the provinces also, there would be Diocesan, Religious, Political and Parish Councils. Representatives of these councils and also other Armenians who held a respectable position in Ottoman public life, would form the General Council of each 'vilayet'. The duty of the General Council is to elect the prelate, to organize the Religious and Political Councils, and to oversee the activities of the councils.
On 5 June 1860 representatives of all classes of the Armenian community met in General Council in Istanbul where the new Regulation was approved and signed and at the same time provisional councils were formed. A copy of the Constitution was submitted to the Sublime Porte for ratification; in three months new councils were elected and community life suddenly began to be administered according to the new regulations until 27 August 1861, when the execution of the Constitution was forbidden by the Ottoman Government. Again a special committee was appointed, this time by the Sublime Porte, under the chairmanship of Dr. Serovbe Vitchenian (known as Dr. Servitchen) which revised the Constituion and resubmitted it to the government in January 1862. On the suggestions of the government once more certain changes were made and the people awaited anxiously the ratification of the Constitution.
It is of interest to note here the main points which were altered in the regulatoins:
1. Some terms such as the council of "National Adminstration", apparently regarded as suspicious by the government, were cut out or replaced by other words: e.g. in the "Fundamental principles" instead of "National Constitution" of articles iv and v, in the revised Constitutions the term is shortened to "nation". Again, in article v of the "Fundamental principles" it was suggested that the "National Administration" should not spare any labor for the reformation and progress of the nation; in the revised form it is said that "the nation should devotedly work for the national progress" and thus the dangerous word "reformation" was omitted. Article 27 also, "The POlitical Council is composed of 20 political laymen", because of the word "political", is altered to this: "The Political Council concists of 20 laymen well acquainted with the national affairs and with the laws of the Ottoman Empire."
2. In the revised Constitution all mention concerning the relations of the Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul with the Holy See of Etchmiadzin in Russian Armenia is eradicated. In article 8 it was said that the National Administration "in connection with the Araratean Mother See (=the Holy See of Etchmiadzin) would remain faithful to the same relations by which the Nation and the See were joined together from the gebinning" and in article 115 appeared this: "The patriarch should be ordained by the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin and should be an Ottoman subject." These parts of the Constitution are omitted from the revised form and it is stated that the patriarch should be elected from the bishops who live in the Ottoman Empire and who by birth are Ottoman subjects.
3. According to the revised Constitution the election of the patriarch and of the Political and Religious Councils must be "affirmed by Imperial order", whereas previously only the election of the patriarch was to be presented to the Porte for approval.
4. In the revised Constitution a special section is added concerning the election of the Armenian patriarch of Jerusalem.
The government did not immeidately confirm even the revised Constitution. The people, thinking that the Patriarchate was delaying the matter, organized demonstrations. Eventually by a decree dated 30 March 1863 the Sultan Abdul 'aziz approved the Community Regulation which was handed over to the patriarchal locum tenens, Bishop Stephan Maghachian, by the Grand Vizir Mehmed Emin Ali Pasa. It is worth nothing that, although the Armenians had their new Regulation called "National Constitution", the Turkish text was entitled "Regulation of the Armenian Nation, whereas in "Dustur" [the official gazette of the government] it was named "The Regulation of the Armenian Patriarchate". These differences in the title of the Armenian Constitution help us to observe the differences bewteen the Armenian and Turkish attitudes to the national status. While the Armenians thought that the new Constitution would bring secularism, internal freedom and saftety to their lives, to the Turks the Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire, like the other non-Muslim peoples, in spite of promised or written reforms, were still treated as a religious community, a "millet" and were recognized and treated only through their religious organization. However, it is a fact that the Constitution basically organized the Armenian community, limited the power of the patriarch and of lay despots, stimulated learning among the people, and thus became one of the main factors which resulted in a renaissance of literature among the Armenians of Turkey.
In the days of patriarch Malachia Ormanian, the Constitution was suspended from 1898 to 1906, because the Sultan Abdulhamid demanded a new revision of it. In 1923, in the creation of the Turkish republic, it became invalid, since all the Ottoman legislation ceased to be valid.
On 31 March 1877, the Powers drafted an agreed project of reform respecting the countries and peoples under the Ottoman rule and submitted it to the Sublime Porte. On 9 April 1877 the Ottoman Government rejected the project. Russia undertook military action and marched into the Ottoman territories. Turkey asked for an armistice to which Russia agreed and negotiations for a treaty were held at Adrianople [Edirne]. The Armenian prelate of Adrianople, Kevork Rusdjuklian, together with Yovhannes Efendi Nurian and Stephan Arslanian (both of them men of distinction from Istanbul), on the suggestion of the Armenian Patriarchate and "National Council" at Istanbul, presented the Armenian Question to the Grand Duke Nicholas, the Russian Commander, and to Count Ignatiev, a Russian statesman and former consul at Istanbul, asking them for reforms in the Eastern provinces. The Russians promised that the treaty in preparation would include the following clause in favor of Armenians:
"For the purpose of preventing the oppressions and atrocities which have occurred in the Ottoman Empire's European and Asiatic provinces, the Sultan guarantees, in agreement with the Czar, to grant administrative local self-government to the provinces inhabited by Armenians (Van, Bitlis, Erzurum, Diyarbakir, Elazig and Sivas)."
When the Russian delegates came to San Stefano (now Yesil Koy near the Istanbul airport, west of the city) and resided at the house of an Armenian notable named Araqel Bey Dadian, the Armenian patriarch Nerses Varjapetian went personally and besought Count Ignatiev to iinsist on the urgency of the reforms affecting the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia
On 3 March 1878 the Russians and the Turks signed a treaty of peace in San Stefano, granting favors to Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzogovina and especially to Bulgaria which would constitute an autonomous tributary under a Christian government and with a national militia. Article xvi of the treaty also was a gaurantee for the reforms in the "provinces inhabited by the Armenians", as follows:
"As the evacuation by the Russian troops of the territory which they occupy in Armenia and which is to be restored to Turkey, might give rise to conflicts and complications detrimental to the maintenance of good relations between the two countries (Russia and Turkey), the Sublime Porte engages to carry into effect, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by Armenians and to guarantee their security against the Kurds and Circassians."
The Armenians at that time were enthusiastic and hopeful that after long centuries they would again have, if not complete independence, a semi-independence or local Christian administration in their homeland, like the Christians of the Lebanon. It was, however, ingenuous of them to expect any independence or even reform, because, first, they lacked a resolute Power to protect them and, second, the eastern frontier of Anatolia, particularly the fortress of Erzurum, had great strategic importance. A Turkish document which survives in French translation in the Public Record Office, London, "Resume de differents memoirs speciaux concernant notre arrangement defensif au theatre de la guerre armenienne", illuminates the matter. This document is the report of the meetings of an assembly (1858-60), under the presidency of Selim Pasa, which planned in detail how to defend the Empire in case of a Russian attack. It is said there, that Armenia and Asia Minor are the body of the Ottoman State, while other Ottoman regions form its members, and that Erzurum is the most important center from which the body could be defended:
"Ce qui le centre du theatre de la guerre, le point auquel toutes les routes mentionees se reunissent, la ville d'Erzeroum, soit fortifiee a grande echelle, comme pivot et depot general pour toutes nos forces. La dite capitale, est, pour ainsi dire, la clef de l'espace a defendre, puisqu'elle domine toutes les communications importantes qui y aboutissent comme au point de noeud naturel."
From this statement it can clearly be seen that any demand for independence or reform by Armenians in or around the province of Erzurum would inevitably meet with the resistance of the Turks.
The European Powers, particularly England and Austria, wee discontented with the Treaty of San Stefano. The Prime Minister of Great Britain, Lord Beaconsfield, commented in the House of Lords that by the Treaty of San Stefano European dominions were put under the Russian administration and that the Black Sea was to be a Russian lake as much as the Caspian. Lord Salisbury also expressed his view on the subject that the Russian Government by the Treaty of San Stefano would be 'dominant over the vicinity of the Black Sea'; Armenians would fall under the immediate influence of Russia, while the extensive European trade, passing from Trebizond to Persia, would be 'liable to be arrested at the pleasure of the Russian Government by the prohibitory barriers of their commercial system.'
The Ottoman Government itself was not at all happy with the Treaty of San Stefano. The Armenians, being Christians like the Russians and having a part of their country under Russian domination, especially after the Russo-Turkish War, were much suspected of being Russian agents. For this reason Turkey strongly endeavoured to reject the Russian troops, who were to guarantee the execution of the administrative reforms in Eastern Anatolia.
From 13 June to 13 July 1878, Russia was urged by the European Powers to attend the Congress of Berlin to reconsider the Treaty of San Stefano. An Armenian delegation, composed of Meguerditch Kherimian (former patriarch and the archbishop of Besiktas in Istanbul), archbishop Khoren Nar Bey and the two lay deputies from the Armenian National Council of Istanbul, Minas Tcheraz and Stephan Papazian, went to Berlin and submitted a letter to the Congress together with a project for the reorganization of Turkish Armenia, in which they said:
"Nous ne reclamons donc pas de liberte politique et nous ne voulons nullement nous separer du Gouvernement Turc. Nous voulons seulement avoir dans une partie de l'Armenie Turque, c'est-a'dire dans les 'vilayets' d'Erzeroum et de Van et dans la partie septentrionale du 'vilayet' de Diyarbakir ou nous avons la majorite sur les Turcs, conformement aux documents statistiques ci-inclus, nous voulons avoir, disons nous, un 'vali' armenien nomme par la S. Porte avec l'assentiment des Puissances. Ce 'vali' sera charge de l'administration locale pour un temps determine; il devra disposer d'une police pour maintenir l'ordre et la securite, et d'une partie des revenus du pays, pour en assurer le developpment moral et materiel."
Apparently the Armenian Question was affected by the conflict between the Powers. Turkey was afraid of the partition of her dominions; the Western Powers were pursuing only their own interests, while Russia this time was not insistent in respect of the Armenian problem. Consequently article xvi of the Treaty of San Stefano was one of the articles tampered with at the Congress of Berlin in favour of the Turks. It was pushed back to the end of the new treaty, as article lxi, and direct Russian supervision was exchanged for the oversight of six Powers. This is the full text of the article:
"Improvements and reforms in favour of Armenians. Protection against
Circassians and Kurds. The Powers to be kept periodically informed.
Art. LXI. The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further
delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the
provinces inhabited by the Armenians and to guarantee their security against
the Circassians and Kurds. It will periodically make known the steps taken
to this effect to the Powers, who will superintend their application."
The Armenian delegates who were not allowed even to enter the building of the Congress, returned home dejected, having lost what was already gained through the Treaty of San Stefano. They realized that there was no room for any religion or pity in diplomacy and that in politics self-interest and strength are always triumphant. M. Kherimian on his return to Istanbul allegorically expressed his conclusions on the Congress of Berlin thus:
"All the dominions came to the Congress with iron spoons and took their share of the 'harisa' (an oriental dish, cooked with meat and wheat pounded together). Since our spoon (i.e. the letter) was of paper, we could not get any of it."
The Armenian intellectuals at Istanbul and in Anatolia were disappointed by the Treaty of Berlin, but the Armenian masses were enthusiastic and active. In 1880 the 'United Society' (Miatseal Enkeruthiwn) and other societies were organized to sponsor schools in Turkish Armenia and to stimulate education and literature in the new generation.
The administrative reforms, which by the Treaty of Berlin the Sublime Porte promised to the European Powers for the 'provinces inhabited by Armenians' in Anatolia, were not executed for more than fifteen years. The Armenians being disappointed protested and demonstrated, but this was unwise. The Porte, instead of fulfilling the promises, grew obdurate, and, as it were by a coincidence, massive massacres broke out in the Asian part of the Empire. The 'valis' and the army, aided by the Kurds, killed thousands of Armenians in Anatolia, and many houses, shops and other properties of the Armenians were destroyed or robbed. The first echo in England of the Armenian massacres was a short report in 'The Times' of 21 February 1894 on the troubles in Yozgat.
In March 1894 H.F.B. Lynch, who had just returned to England from his tour of Armenia, in a letter addressed to the editor of 'The Times', criticized the oppressive policy and the hostile treatment of Armenians by the Turks in Eastern Anatolia and concluded thus:
"Unless our diplomacy is able to persuade the Porte that in pursuing their present policy towards the Armenians they are digging the grave of their Empire in Asia, the consequences are likely to be momentous not only for Turkey but for ourselves."
The European States unfortunately could not stop the massacres which continued in the years 1895 and 1896 throughout Anatolia. The correspondent of 'The Times' in Turkey reported on the results of the troubles as follows:
"They (the Armenians) are considerably reduced in numbers; there are thousands of helpless widows among them, and tens of thousands of fatherless children; pillage and confiscation have stripped them of the greater part of their belongings, their trades and crafts are broken down, their markets disorganized, and in wide regions there is nothing left from which a man may earn his bread."
In England the Anglo-Armenian Association had many meetings under the presidency of F. S. Stevenson, MP, and besought the British Government to urge the Ottoman Porte to introduce reforms in the administration of Turkish Armenia. An 'Armenian Relief Fund' was organized in England in order to help the homeless and the poor in Anatolia. The president of this Fund was the Duke of Argyll, and the chairman F. S. Stevenson. The committee itself included such important persons as the Archbishop of York, Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, James Bryce, MP, John H. Kennaway, MP, and Charles E. Schwann, MP.
It must be noted here that Great Britain was the first among European States to intervene with the Ottoman Government to stop the massacres. Russia, France and America joined her in an inquiry to be made at the places where the massacres occurred. A special commission was organized with several representatives of the Ottoman government, England, Russia, France, and America.
During the very time in which the Inquiry Commission had gone to Erzurum and Bitlis to investigate the alleged outrages, massacres were actually being carried out systematically in other parts of Anatolia. On the demand of the commission the 'vali' of Bitlis Tahsin Pasa was deprived of his post and provisionally replaced by Omer Bey at the end of January 1895. On their return to Istanbul the European members of the commission presented to the Sublime Porte the necessity of applying a programme for the reform of the administration of Turkish Armenia. The Porte received the demands of the European States, but the Sultan Abdulhamid was apparently not yet satisfied with the blood already shed. In the following months of 1895 the slaughter was continued in all the principal towns of Turkey. These anti-Armenian outbreaks were crowned, in June 1896, by the atrocities of Van, and in August 1896, by the massacre of Istanbul. Thus in 1894-6 more than 300,000 Armenians perished during the assaults organized by the Ottoman Porte.
At the end of the troubles, on 11 October 1896 the Porte issued an Imperial decree which sanctioned some reforms respecting the administration of Eastern Anatolia which were suggested by the European commission. The reforming decree was composed of 16 chapters and 32 articles. Although it was dated 21 October 1895, this date was faked in order to cover the complicity of the Ottoman Government in the massacre. The note in reply by the ambassadors of Great Britain, France and Russia dated 24 October 1896 over a year later supports my conclusion. These were the main points of the reforms:
1. In Eastern Anatolia (or the 'provinces inhabited by Armenians') each 'vali' would be accompanied by a non-Muslim assistant.
2. Likewise, the governors of 'sancaks' and 'kazas' would be accompanied by non-Muslim assistants.
3. The governors of 'kazas' would be elected by the Ministry of the Interior from among the graduates of the civil school and appointed by Imperial decree. If there were not sufficient Christians graduated from the State school to assist the governors, then people experienced in Ottoman public life would be called to fill these posts.
4. The number of non-Muslim officials in political administration, police and 'gendarmerie' would be in accordance with the number of the Christian population and fixed by the permanent commission of control.
5. The governors of 'nahiyes' would be elected among the majority and the assistant-governors from the minority.
6. Each 'vilayet' was to be given a judicial inspectorate of about six members, half of whom would be Muslim and the others Christian.
7. The number of Muslim and non-Muslim policemen in the 'vilayets' would be in proportion to the number of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants.
8. The number of 'gendarmes' also would be in proportion to the number of the Muslim and Christian inhabitants.
9. In order to improve the collection of taxes, the tax-collectors whould hand over the tax-bills to the 'muhtars' of villages and quarters. These, after collecting the taxes, would remit the money to the State coffers.
10. A dignified Muslim functionary was to be appointed and sent as High Commissioner by the Sublime Porte to the Eastern provinces to oversee the execution of the reforms. This Commissioner would be accompanied by a Christian assistant.