This dissertation has been microfilmed exactly as received 68—15,328 GUCKERT, John Cecil, 1921- THE ADAPTATION OF ROBERT COLLEGE TO ITS TURKISH ENVIRONMENT, 1900-1927. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1968 Education, history

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE ADAPTATION OF ROBERT COLLEGE TO ITS

TURKISH ENVIRONMENT, 1900-1927

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By John Cecil Guckert, B.S., B.S., M.A.

* # # * * *

The Ohio State University 1968

Adviser ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The cooperation, assistance, and encouragement of it.any persons have aided the writer in bringing this research to its completion. To all these persons, this writer is sincerely grateful,

To my major adviser and committee chairman Professor

Robert B. Sutton, I wish to express my sincere appreciation for his continuous assistance, invaluable suggestions and insightful criticisms which greatly aided the development, organization, and completion of this investigation. I am moot grateful to Dr. Sutton for his generous assistance, excellent counsel and sustained interest.

I am particularly indebted to my adviser Professor

Sydney N. Fisher, who first suggested the research topic,

P'ovided assistance in locating much of the resource material, and who devoted considerable time and energy to

Its fruition. Without his learned counsel and historical

’« f:f. -v : v

Almost as import ant as Professor Fisher's foresight in per­ suading the family of Professor Edgar J. Fisher to dcp the I at. ter1 s diaries in The Ohio State Uni vers, tty Library are the vicarious evper ?. encer , pleasures and problems of

11 living and working at Robert College through the many troubled years which come alive in the pages of these diaries.

To Professor Robert E. Jewett, appreciation is ex­ pressed for his direction in the writer's minor area as well as for his knowledgeable and inspirational counseling through the years.

I am grateful to Professor Anthony Riccio who gener­ ously devoted time to reading and appraising the dissertation as well as providing friendly inspiration throughout my graduate program.

To Professor Bernard Mehl I express thankfulness for the confidence he gave me and for enlarging my scope of the teaching profession.

To my friend Dr. Henry Lenz, I owe a special debt of sincere gratitude and appreciation for his constant encour­ agement and continued support.

Many thanks are extended to my typist Mrs . Eleanor

Sapp for her fine services.

Most of all, to my wife Joyce and to our daughters

Karen and Lisa, I wish to express my special thanks for their patience, motivation, enthusiasm, and sacrifices generously given throughout this doctoral program.

iii VITA

September 22, 1921 Born - Sandusky, Ohio

1339 ...... Diploma, Sandusky High School

1942-1945 . . . World War II, United States Naval Offi cer

1545-1951 . . . B.S. (Commerce), B.S. (Education), M.A. (Education) from The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1951-1954 . . . Korean War - United States Naval Lieutenant, Instructor In Naval Orien­ tation, United States Naval School Pre- Flight (Annapolis of the Air), Pensa­ cola, Florida

1954-1962 . . Real Estate sales and appraisal, Columbus, Ohio

19 6 2-1964 , . Teacher of American Qovernment and Problems of Democracy, Westerville High School, Westerville, Ohio

1966-1967 . . Admissions Counselor, Office of Admissions, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1967-1968 . . . Administrative Assistant, Department of Business and Finance, The Ohio Spate University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field:

History of Education. Professors Robert B. Sutton and Bernard Mehl Minor Field:

Middle East History. Professor Sydney N. Fisher

Minor Field:

Social Studies Education. Professor Robert E. Jewett

v CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

VITA ...... lv

Chapter

I. OTTOMAN BACKGROUND ...... 1

II. THE FOUNDING AND EARLY YEARS OF ROBERT COLLEGE ...... 23

III. THE COLLEGE UNDER THE REIGN OF SULTAN ABDUL HAMID II - l8?6-1908 ...... 45

IV. THE COLLEGE UNDER THE REIGN OF THE YOUNG TURKS 1908 TO 1 9 1 8 ...... 67

V. ROBERT COLLEGE UNDER THE ALLIED MILITARY GOVERNMENT...... 113

VI . ROBERT COLLEGE UNDER THE NEW R E P U B L I C ...... 132

VII. CONCLUSION...... 168

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 182

vl CHAPTER I

OTTOMAN BACKGROUND

Robert College is located In Constantinople or

Istanbul, as It was called when It became the later day c ?pltal of the Ottoman Empires Constantinople has been a center of learning for over fifteen-hundred years and is considered by many as the crossroads of Europe and

Asia. Because of the h'"t;oric location of the College,

brief background of the Ottoman Empire is presented to set the stage and place the institution In its proper per­ spective. By having a clearer comprehension of the origin of the Ottoman state and the forces which motivated It, one can better understand its later history especially as it related to Robert College.

The first American scholar to study the origins of the Ottoman Turks, Herbert A, Gibbons,-*- points out that

‘i Turks who founded the Ottoman Empire were driven out o'* Khorassan by the barbarous military activities of

Gc-nghu Khan arcund 1219 A.D„ According to tradition, some fifry-thousand Turks under the leadership of Suleiman

^Herbert A, Gibbons, The Foundation of the Ottoman 'ftpire : Oxfords Clarendon Press , 1916 , ~pp'« 19-21. 2

Shah moved west before the advancing armies of the Mongols into the lands of the Seljuks of Rum. Upon Suleiman's death by drowning while enroute, two of his sons and their followers turned back to their homeland while another son,

Ertogrul, with about four-hundred nomad families pushed farther into Rum. On this march Ertogrul, with his force of four-hundred and forty-four horsemen, came upon the

Seljuk Sultan Alaeddin who was being defeated by a band of

Tartars. Ertogrul and his warriors gave aid in battle to the beleaguered Sultan, and together they defeated the

Tartars, As a reward for his services, the tradition says further, the Sultan gave Ertogrul and his people the land of Sogut as a fief. Upon the death of Ertogrul in 1288, his son Osman became the leader of the fief and its people.

It appears that Osman, through his marriage to a Muslim, became a Ghazl dedicated to the moral code of the futuwwa.

The ghazis or march warriors, who were constantly attacking and overrunning the frontiers of the Byzantine

Empire, became the rulers of the amirates which were estab-

1 in the newly conquered territories. In the second half of the thirteenth century, much of Byzantine Anatolia woe composed of many ghazi amirates. Among these amirates was that of Osman which was destined to be the nucleus out of which the Ottoman Empire was later formed.'

^Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 153&, p^ 3**• 3 In dealing with the formation of the Ottoman state,

it is Important to consider what transpired in the Byzan­

tine Empire In the early years of the thirteenth century.

In the year 1204 the Latins of the Fourth Crusade conquered

and occupied Constantinople. As a result, the Byzantine

Empire was forced to retreat to its provinces In western

Asia Minor where it established a new capital at NIcaea.

Meanwhile, in Constantinople the ravaging forces of the

Fourth Crusade were in full swing; and, as a result, the

great works of art and the libraries were destroyed, the

university was closed, ana many original works of the

ancient Greek masters were lost to the world forever.

Even though in 126l the Greek general Michael Palaeologus

reestablished the Byzantine Empire once more in Constanti­

nople, It never regained its former vigor and viability.

One Middle East historian recently described the

dissolution of two empires and the establishment of the

new Ottoman state later to become an empire with these

words:

From 1261 to 1^53 Byzantine rule held in Constantinople; but It cannot Justly be regarded as a restoration of the Byzantine Empire. It was never more than a Greek kingdom, and for the final half century nothing more than the capital city Itself. The old empire was broken beyond repair. Furthermore, simultaneously with the expulsion of the Latins from Constantinople the invasions of Genghiz Khan and his grandson Hulagu destroyed the Seljuk Empire of Asia Minor. Thus, this sector of the Middle East was groping for new leadership, and adjustment of the balance of power to new con­ ditions became inevitable. Upon the ruins of these two empires a new Ottoman state arose.3

The Ottomans from the beginning felt themselves to be

a community of ghazis, champions of Islam or Muslim march warriors, dedicated to constant battle with the infidels.

The ghazi society was governed by a canon of rules, the

futuwwa, by which might be lived the virtuous life with mystical elements. It was not unlike the code of chivalry

among the European knights with all of the dignity, honor

and valor that was so much a part of the lives of these

gallant and distinguished gentlemen of feudal times.

Unlike the knights, however, the ghazis were socially and

politically equal, and any aristocracy among them was

determined by deeds of courage and acts of leadership

rather than from the blood line.^ The ghazi ideal gave

social and economic strength to the state; and when it

was faithfully adhered to, the state grew and prospered.

Conversely, as in the time of Bayezid I in the four­

teenth century when the leadership strayed too far from

the ghazi ideal, disaster, defeat and decline set in.

This was especially the case after the reign of Suleiman

the Great two centuries later, when the Ottoman Empire

again departed from the ghazi futuwwa, and as a result,

^Sydney Nettleton Fisher, The Middle East A History. Mew York; Alfred A. Knopf, I9 60, p~I '15 &:

^Ibid,, p. 169. 5 a decline and decay sapped the strength and vitality of the body politic until in 1922 the Empire ceased to exist.

Osman, a ghazi and the founder of the Ottoman state which bears his name, began an unbroken line of rulers in the male lineage which was to last for over six-hundred years,^ His expansion of the state by conquest and alli­ ance was continued by his son Orhan whose forces first crossed into Europe. Orhan's conquest of Macedonia and

Thrace was made easier because the Black Death was sweeping

Europe at the time, and his armies found many cities of the

Infidel lightly defended. He organized his army into a potent fighting force by separating It Into efficient units of ten, one-hundred, and one-thousand man groups.^

Orhan's complete religious toleration attracted many

Christians, not only to his army but also to his state and to Islam as well. This process of race assimilation was encouraged by Orhan who established a system of rewarding converted Christians for military service by granting them small fiefs and then restricting participation in the military service to Muslims alone. This process of race assimilation once started grew rapidly and could not be arrested. This, along with the Idea of complete religions

^The Turkish name Osman was identified with that of Uthman, 3rd Caliph and companion of the Prophet, and the name Uthman was in turn corrupted by the Italians who changed it Into Ottoman.

^Fisher, op. clt., p. 175. 6 toleration followed by Orhan, in a large measure explains the rapid development of the Osmanli into a powerful state.

The Balkan expansion was continued by Murad I

(1360-1389) who took most of Bulgaria and Serbia. He was also aided by the Black Death and Balkan disunity. Actually the Balkan people as a whole were for Murad who permitted them religious freedom and, therefore, had only the Balkan nobles to contend with in battle. With Murad the devshlrme

(tax in young Christian boys) began. These young men were

trained as first class Muslim fighting men, janissaries, whom Murad used successfully in his Anatolian campaigns where his ghazis were unwilling to fight against Islamic

soldiery. The janissary corps played an important role

in Ottoman victories for several centuries and was known

for Its excellent discipline and esprit de corps as well as an outstanding ability with all the weapons of warfare.

As the number of Ottoman victories began to mount, vast numbers of volunteers were attracted from remote dis­ tricts to join the ever victorious forces; and the snowball ef"nct began. Murad I took Adrlanople and made it his

European capital so that it became known as the ''city of

the Ghazis." At the Battle of Kossovo in 1389, Ottoman

arms decisively defeated the Serbs and firmly established

the Osmanli position In the Balkans. This battle, however,

cost Murad I his life; and on the field, he was succeeded

as Sultan by his son Bayezid I. 7 Bayezid I immediately departed from the ghazi way by having his brother executed at Kossovo. This action con­ solidated his position as Sultan by eliminating all doubt as to who would succeed his father. Thus was initiated the practice of fratricide which was to be carried out in the

Ottoman royal family for more than two-hundred years.

Bayezid I knew what bitter and destructive rivalries had done to the Byzantine imperial family and decided that the

Ottoman family would not be similarly plagued. He even attempted to legalize the practice of fratricide by

Koranic reference. One cannot help but conjecture at this point as to what turn the Ottoman Empire might have taken if Bayezid I had remained true to the ghazi ideal; for whatever picture history might paint of him, he did have the potential of a great conqueror. Under his leadership, the Ottoman forces had avenged his father's death at Kos­ sovo and followed this victory by further Balkan conquests which caused King Sigismund of Hungary to call for a

European crusade against him. The result was the Crusade o‘ Ficopolis in 1396 which was composed of knights and nobler from Burgundy, England, France, Flanders, and Germany.

Bayezid's brilliant military leadership again was obvious when, after breaking off his siege of Byzantine

Constantinople, he mot and utterly defeated the beet knights of Europe at the Battle of Nicopolis. Apparently he errou at this point when he did not follow his victory with a deep penetration into Europe. The ghazi ideal, which always found strength in constant warfare with Christian states, would have had him drive his armies forward to the north.

Instead, however, he turned his attentions south and again broke with the ghazi tradition by conquering the ghazi amirates of Asia Minor.

Bayezid*s action lost for him the following of a large portion of his people who became convinced that he was forgetting the ways of the futuwwa and taking on the ways of

Christian, Balkan noblemen. His own people even called on

Tamerlane to punish him and many disenchanted Ottoman sol­ diers joined Tamerlane's forces which left Bayezid I with only his Janissaries and his European nobles when the battle was joined at Ankara in 1402. Bayezid I was defeated at this battle, and he died on the way to Tamerlane's capital of Samerkand.

At this point in time, the Ottoman state could have passed from history; but for some unknown reason, Tamerlane did not occupy the land, and he divided in ghazi fashion the lands among Bayezid*s sons whom he made governors. The sons of Bayezid, as governors of the divided Ottoman state, paid tribute to Tamerlane until his death in 1405. The

Ottoman state remained thus dismembered for a twelve year period, but it became clear that the European provinces needed the provinces of Asia Minor and vice versa in order to maintain political and economic strength as well as dynamic growth. In 1414, the Ottoman possessions in Europe and Asia Minor were reunited under Mehmed I, one of the sons of Bayezid I. Mehmed renounced the European manners of his father and once again strongly adopted the old ghazi way of life. During his short reign from 1414 to 1421, he experienced no pressure from either Europe or Asia, and his state could become better organized and more secure.

Murad II became Sultan at the death of his father, and he consolidated the state and reinstituted the devshir- meh to swell the ranks of the janissary corps. This prac­ tice became a regular five year ritual of military recruit­ ing in the Balkans. The Christian boys were forced to become Muslims and were sent to special schools with the sons of the Sultan where they were Turkicized and trained mostly for the janissary service; however, those who proved to have exceptional talent and merit were further educated to become officials of the state.

The Idea of the special school along with the devshlr tneh became one of the strongest pillars of the Ottoman state

I l. produced faithful and devoted servants as well as effi­

cient and outstanding leaders of the government. The Ironic

twist to this situation was the fact that the indigenous

Christian population of the Ottoman state furnished its

greatest statesmen and military commanders,^ In this same

7 Wittek, o p . cit., p. 50. 10

manner, many centuries later, Robert College, during the

first fifty years of its existence, would develop the

leadership potential of the Christian youth of the Ottoman

Empire, many of whom served with distinction in high

governmental positions in the Balkans.

In 1*151, at the death of Murad II, his son Mehmed II

(The Conqueror) became Sultan; and under his reign the idea

of empire became a reality. This great ghazi conquered

Constantinople In 1*153 and welded the cultural traditions

of the old Byzantine Empire and the traditions of old

Islam into a dynamic Ottoman Empire. Thus, the city

wherein Robert College was later to be established became

not only a part of but the capital of the Ottoman Empire

in 1*153 and that of the Islamic world in 1517.

The College was enabled to provide a major cultural

and educational function within the Indigenous millets

and helped to produce a much needed cultural fusion in the

Empire. It was this permissiveness of Mehmed II, and the

later Ottoman sultans, which imbedded liberal Ideals in

governmental thinking and eventually allowed Christian

Robert College to take root in this foreign land.

Constantinople was the geographic and economic center

of the area and without the power emanating from its stra- Q tegic position, the empire could not have existed. Q Fisher, op. cit., p. 185. 11

Mehmed II realized this full well and magnificently rebuilt the city, repopulating it with Balkan noble families; also, he used Istanbul as a naval base for his expanding sea p o w e r , ^ He gave the Patriarch the responsibility for govern­ ing the Christians of the city and made him the liaison between the Greek people and the Ottoman government. This was the beginning of the millet system as a state-sanctioned fact of allowing the three religious groups (Christians,

Jewish, and Armenian Gregorians) to function as independent religious and cultural communities within the Ottoman

Empire. The millet system, however, was both an advantage and a disadvantage to the Empire as this dissertation will later show In relation to the College and the problems to which It fell heir. Mehmed II, being an educated man, realized the need for enlightened leadership in government. Building on his father's educational program, he establishedTTfhe” Palace School of Istanbul to train the leaders of the Empire. In this school, captive Christian boys between the ages of ten and fourteen years, selected for their Intelligence, were given twelve rigorous years of training in law, language, science, mathematics, philosophy, finance, government, and

^Krltovoulos, History of Mehmed the Conqueror (Charles T. Riggs, trans.) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1^5^. (This reference should be seen for a full account of the first seventeen years of the thirty-year reign of Mehmed II including his conquest and rebuilding of Constantinople as seen by a contemporary Greek in the ser­ vice of the Ottomans.) 12 social skills„ The students who were able to complete this program successfully were given administrative posts in governmental departments in direct relation to their proven abilities, This entire educational system, based upon merit alone, was certainly a ghazi-like idea and the source of

Ottoman strength.

The Palace School was situated behind Ayia Sophia and I inside the Grand Seraglio. It was the only school in the

Impire under the control of the sultan or the Ruling

Institution, as all other educational institutions were controlled by the Muslim Institution,

Under this system of merit, high birth was of little consequence, for educational attainment became the important criterion for governmental, occupational and military selec­ tion and placement, as well as for social advancement. An educator of our own time describes the intriguing paradox of Eastern as opposed to Western qpportunities in social mobility in the fifteenth century:

Aha;., a rather open pattern of recruitment v ;ould sake place in an Oriental absolutistic society is especially interesting, for Western European education was enmeshed in the aristocratic matrix . ■ rigid social classes with few, if any, doors o p e for 1 ow iy people to rise in the socle : "1 n nierarc1 .y - - -

The Palace Echocl was original and bold In its concept If ■ , as wo 1 i -as pr3. mar: iy -•ecu i ar in its purpose arc character.

■ Andreas — -,i as . Education and the Qirm t, for Moclernlby in Tur A ey \ cage : The Univi rs i v of (in capo Press, 191 c , p . 2"8 „ 13 The curriculum was comprehensive and its training was long, exacting and severe. The Palace School appears to have been less intellectual in itr approach than was its European counterpart, but it was far more practical. The primary objective of this Ottoman school was to produce cultural leadership for the body politic portrayed as a ". . . man of letters and a gentleman of polished speech, profound courtesy, and honest morals.

The process of selecting future leaders thrqugh educa­ tion was, in fact, strikingly similar to Plato's system as outlined in the Republic„ One writer indicates that he and two Middle Eastern historians see a close parallel between

Plato's Republic and the Palace School in the following words:

The Palace School = . . was one of the great educa­ tional experiments of history. . . . Professors Lybyer and Miller both refer to the close resemblance between the teachings of Plato’s Republic and the practice of the Palace School. Briefly, the points where Turkish practice seems to have coincided with Greek precept are the following: 1. Life-long education 2. Equal training of body and mind 3. Separation into soldiers and rulers k. Relative freedom from family ties 5. Rigid control of the individual 6. Government by the wise ^2 7. Selection and training of women as well as men.

^Barnette Miller, Beyond the Sublime Porte: The Grand Seraglio of Stamboul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1931, 6 3 - 12 John Kingsley Birge, A Guide to Turkish Area Study. Washington: Committee on Near Eastern Studies--American Council of Learned Societies, 19^9, p. 120. 14

The Palace School was carried on for a long period of time and continued to be a vital force as long as It was able to adapt Itself to changing circumstances and to meet the challenges conditioned by advancing innovations and the progress of the Westo^-3

In 1481 Bayezid II became Sultan and, like his father

Mehmed II, he was also a scholar exceedingly interested in the Palace School,. Under his reign, sea power was strongly established; and his armies probed the Balkans and plundered

In true ghazi fashion. It is significant to note that while he was Sultan, Bayezid permitted 100,000 Jews, who had been driven out of Spain in 1492, to establish new homes In

Istanbul and other cities of the Otterman Empire. This act is vivid proof of his great tolerance toward other 14 religions.

Upon the death of Bayezid II In 1512, his son Selim I became Sultan of the Ottoman Empire. At this time a balance of power existed among the three Muslim states of Iran,

Egypt, and the Ottomans. This balance was soon upset by

Selim's military actions which crushed the Mamluks of

Egypt and the Shah of Iran, leaving the Ottomans as the dominant power In the Middle East. In his short reign of

■^Barnette Miller, The Palace School of Muhamined the Conqueror» Cambridge: Harvard University Pressj 1941. (A detailed explanation of the Palace School is given in this reference.)

■^Fisher, op. clt., p. 203. 15 eight years, he greatly increased Ottoman lands, hut it was his unfortunate and un-ghazi-like lot to wage war almost exclusively against his fellow Muslims.

When the Memluks were defeated in 1517, the Caliph

(successor of the Prophet) was captured in Egypt and taken to Istanbul where sometime later he was said to have trans­ ferred his caliphal authority to the ruling family of the

Ottomans. Future Ottoman sultans then claimed the right to use this title and the authority and honor that accompanied it.

At the early death of Selim I, his only son Suleiman I

(or the Magnificent, as he was often called) became sultan to rule over the Ottoman Empire for forty-six years as one of the leading monarchs of his day.

During the first half of the sixteenth century, Europe was deeply involved in the spirit of the Renaissance, a gold­ en age of science, art, letters, philosophy, exploration, and religious emotion. England, France, Spain, and Austria had strong monarchs who were eager participants in the movements of the Renaissance and all were anxious to expand their territories. Suleiman I, with his excellent training and education, and truly ", . . a refined gentleman of the

Renaissance caused his great empire to share In this rebirth of classical art and learning, which marked the transition from medieval to modern times.

l5Ibid, , p. 219. 16

Under the enlightened reign of Suleiman, the Ottoman

Empire reached Its pinnacle of power and its highest glory.

Unlike his father Selim I, Suleiman I directed his interests and attentions primarily toward Europe rather than the Middle

East; and his campaigns were almost exclusively in Hungary,

Serbia, and Austria. Under his reign, the Ottoman Navy became the primary naval power in the Mediterranean,

Suleiman I conquered most of Hungary and moved west into Austria with great speed. His westward penetration of

Europe was stopped before the walls of Vienna by a force of

German and Austrian professional soldiers about a third the size of his own. The day was saved for the Austrians by heavy rains, which prevented Suleiman's large cannons from reaching Vienna, and also by the greatly extended supply lines of the Turks, Because he failed to take Vienna, his prestige suffered a serious blow and Suleiman became convinced that there was a point in Central Europe beyond which land campaigns could not be pursued profitably. In any event, he never again attempted an all-out attack against the Austrians.

It was during the reign of Suleiman that the system of Capitulations, begun in the fifteenth century, were further extended to promote foreign commerce. The

-'-^R. b . Merriman, Suleiman the Magnificent, 1520-1566, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19^, p"» 130 . (A de- tailed examination of the life and campaigns of Suleiman I can be found in this reference.) 17 Capitulations were a gesture of good will on the part of the sultan accorded to Western countries, whereby their nationals were permitted to live in the Ottoman Empire under their own laws, to enjoy special privileges and favorable trade relations.

The Capitulations and the millet system of national- religious autonomy in time were greatly extended and greatly abused, but they gave foreign missions and institutions such as Robert College a strong foothold in this Muslim land.

George Washburn, the second president of Robert College remarked:

It (Constantinople) Is still an Asiatic city, still wonderfully beautiful, still the place of all others where I would choose to live, so long as I could enjoy the exceptional privileges of ex-terri- toriality secured to foreigners by the capitula- ti ons„17

In recent years a Turkish journalist has observed,

When Suleyman the Magnificent concluded the first Capitulation with the French in 1535 he was granting privileges, not surrendering rights. The Capitulations concluded with Venice in 15^0, and I'flth England in 1579, and renewals or confirmations of these in 15&1 and 1593, were similarly not con­ cessions surrendered under .pressure, but conces­ sions given by the free will of the Sultans who ruled the most powerful empire in Europe. It is paradoxical that the European and other powers which obtained these concessions used the Capitula­ tion treaties to shackle and humiliate Turkey economically and politically when the Ottoman Empire

1 7 George Washburn, Fifty Years in Constantinople. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1909 » p~* xvii. 18

decllnedo It was then that Capitulations assumed the connotation of ’capitulating.'

The Ottoman government during the reign of Suleiman I slowly transformed from an aggressive, dynamic ghazi force to a stagnant and corrupt body politic controlled by a narrow and selfish bureaucracy* This Is quite evident In the fact that Suleiman I allowed governmental Intrigue and corruption to induce him to have his brilliant grand vizir

Ibrahim Pasha strangled and the same fate meted out to his two well-qualified sons. This left his weak, pleasure- seeking son, Selim the Drunkard, to succeed him.1^

It might be added that Suleiman I and all the Ottoman sultans before him were a constant Inspiration to their armies by always being with them in the midst of battle.

From the time of Selim II, however, the supreme command of the army was delegated to the grand vizir or someone else so that the sultan would not have to undergo the hardships of campaign!ng in foreign lands, This abandonment of per­ sonal leadership in the field and the intrenched bureaucracy, among many other reasons, can be sighted as causes of milx- u-"v and 'nperlal decline.

he decline of the empire was temporarily arrested during the reign of Selim II because the Grand Vizir,

I p "'A'temur Killc, Turkey and the Worid. Washington P u d jo Affairs PreTc""^ 1959, p~I 85

■*■9Fishe r , op - e ‘ t. , p, 227- 19 remaining from Suleiman’s reign, might well have been called the actual ruler so that the governmental policies were changed very little= One writer points out:

The death of Selim II in 157^ ushered in a century and a quarter of disgraceful and despicable Ottoman history, A dozen sultans ruled during the period. Four were under sixteen years old when they succeeded to the throne, and most of the rest were undisciplined young men. The wealth, splendor, and ease of the court sapped their energy and morals. The Ottoman political system, which had developed with an absolute sultan as the keystone of the arch of power, sagged badly and began to crumble.20

He further goes on to say:

The sultans of the eighteenth century were weak figures. They were not vicious, but they lacked the strength to meet the vicissitudes facing the empire. To cope with the corruption, inefficiency, incompetence, harem Intrigue, vested interests, and indolence of the court, will power was required; to comprehend the policies of state, training and education were important. Each one of the sultans, however, came to the throne after decades of con­ finement; none had opportunity to learn the art of statecraft or to develop an effective personality. Usually his mother or the harem favorite dominated the government; and, though clever and forceful, these women lacked the experience to conduct the business of government.21

Such advances and triumphs as the Ottomans were to win in the 350 years following the death of Suleiman in 1566

oared chiefly due to the energy of the grand vizirs, especially the KiJprtilil’s in the seventeenth century. The

Turks, in fact, did not come into their own again until the twentieth century in days of the republic and Mustafa Kemal.

20Ibidc , p.

21Ibid,, p, 20

During the period of stagnation and decline, it quite early became apparent that an ever-widening scientific, economic, and cultural gap existed between the vigorous West and the Ottoman Empire. The millet system had segregated

the various Christian sects of the Ottoman Empire into semi-

autonomous communities, and these groups turned toward the

West about a century earlier than the Ottomans themselves.

The Empire had been fighting a losing battle against the

West for a hundred years; but it took a military defeat, at

the hands of the once backward Oriental Christian Russians,

and the subsequent Peace Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarja in 177^

to make a deep impression upon the Oriental Christian sub­ jects of the Ottomans as well as upon the Ottoman themselves.

The Ottomans and the Oriental Christian subjects

realized the fact that the Russians had long before adopted

the ways of the West which was the secret of their military

success in this w a r . ^ The West was being constantly

revolutionized in the field of science; and the changes were reflected in its entire philosophy of life, its mili­

tary, its government, and its culture. Change came Into the

Ottoman Empire, not only though the Turkish-Russian War, but

primarily through the Balkans where the Christians were in

the majority and could be constantly observed by the indig­

enous Christian communities elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire.

22/vrnold j, Toynbee and Kenneth P. Kirkwood, Turkey. London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1926, pp. 30-1. 21

Halide Edib, a leading Turkish authority on the history of those years, has pointed out,

The effect of this new life of thought and change upon the stability of the Ottoman Empire was disintegrating and disastrous. And the disaster was due to the fact that the Ottomans became aware of it later than the subject races.23

The ideas of western nationalism with its attendant ideals of equality and independence found ready ground among the Christians in the millets of the Ottoman Empire.

The Christians did not serve in the army and had a distinct advantage over the Turkish section in the economic, commer­ cial, and educational areas. They were, however, made to feel unequal by the Ottomans, as Halide' Edib remarked,

They had to wear a special kind of dress, they were not allowed to carry arms. The most serious one was that the word of a Christian witness was not valid in court against that of a Moslim. Such drawbacks had irritated them though not acutely until the nineteenth c e n t u r y , 24

In the nineteenth century the western powers, who were engaged in constant rivalries with each other, turned their attentions to the Middle East and began to capitalize upon the differences between the Ottoman Muslims and their

Christian subjects.

This historic survey of the Ottoman Empire sets the stage and describes the political, social, and economic

^Halide' Edib, Turkey Faces West. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930* p"* 49 •

2^Ibid. , pp. 68-69. 22 climate at the time of the entrance of Robert College on the scene in 1863- The students who attended Robert College, It should be remarked, came almost exclusively from the Greek,

Armenia!!, Bulgarian, Jewish and other non-Muslim groups. CHAPTER II

THE FOUNDING AND EARLY YEARS OF ROBERT COLLEGE

Robert College was founded in 1863 as a result of the prodigious efforts of Cyrus Hamlin who had worked for nearly a generation in Instanbul under the American Board of

Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Congregational).

Instanbul was the ideal location for a college In the

Ottoman Empire for it was not only the capital of the Empire but also it had been a center of learning and culture in that part of the world for a millennium and a half. The

College was established In accordance with the Christian ideals of Christopher Rhinelander Robert, an American mer­ chant and philanthropist who had visited Instanbul during the Crimean War a decade earlier. The actual idea of founding a college at Instanbul was first presented to

Mr. Robert in 1857 by James and William Dwight, the sons of Reverend Dr. H. G. 0. Dwight, a missionary of the city.2^

T.e Dwights were grandsons of Timothy Dwight, president in earlier days of Yale College, from which they had graduated before proceeding to Union Theological Seminary. Their own views coincided with the general move toward secularism

25washburn, Fifty Years in Constantinople, p, 3.

23 24 prevalent in America at that time, and they proposed to make the college strictly secular, Mr, Robert, Dr. Hamlin and

others felt that it should be decidedly Christian but non­

sectarian in its philosophy. This attitude was to be expected since Mr, Robert had deep religious convictions, having served almost thirty years as superintendent of the

Sunday School and as a ruling elder of the Laight Street

Presbyterian Church in New York, The Christian missions

and the American Board had maintained missionaries in

Instanbul since the early nineteenth century.

The Christian missions found that they were quite unsuccessful In converting Muslims, so their major concen­

tration was on the indigenous Christians of the millet

communities. They did, however, carry the message of

Christianity and the Western conception of society to the

Muslims of the Middle hast in the hope that they would

Christianize the people by first Westernizing them. The

number of millets in the Ottoman Empire grew from the

original three, as established by Mehmed the Conqueror in

1453, to seventeen by 1914. The millet communities had

reri: '::*d at three until the early part of the nineteenth

century when an accelerated increase in their number began.

The millets seemed to grow out of the encouragement give,,

by the foreign missionaries and the increase of their

26nenry Elishp Allen, Ph. D, , The fnurk3sh Transfor­ mation . Chicago ^ The Univ. of Chicago tress' 19 35, p T';6. numbers led to an identification of religious creeds with 27 nationalism . '

In the Ottoman Empire, foreign philanthropic enter­ prises in religious, educational, and medical fields had been actively engaged in for decades by the missionaries of

P fi the leading nations of Europe and by America. The millet system and the Capitulations sapped the power of the

Ottoman Empire, and as a result of the ensuing weakness, these foreign missions enjoyed extensive freedom to devote to their special endeavors and enterprises. Actually, from a religious point of view, the Muslims believed their faith to be superior to Christianity and even though they were annoyed at the soul-hunting activities of the missionaries, they were little concerned over the future solidarity of the

Islamic society.

The missions themselves were motivated by genuine

Christian ideals, but their own governments were often guilty of political conniving behind this religious facade.

The Americans and the English were competing for* the

Armenians and so were the Russians, so that problems arose when the founding of flobert College, an American institu­ tion, became a reali r y * The millet svs tern become the instrument of political and economic imperialism, and : v. fro s. 26 agitation resulted when one nation was thought to have gained an advantage In Influencing the minds of the Christian millet populations of the Ottoman Empire, such as through the found­ ing of an institution of higher learning.

In 1850 the Protestants In the Empire had received a moral uplift ,when they were recognized, through the efforts of the British Ambassador, as a millet with all the privileges of this status. This recognition was considered a decided advantage to the Protestant British since the

French influenced the Roman Catholics and the Russians guided the Orthodox people of the Empire. 29 ^

The actual plan to found Robert College was conceived, matured and finally approved between 1859 and i860 by a group of wealthy philanthropists at the home of Mr. Robert

In New York. At this time, temporary trustees were appointed to account for the funds and to make plans for financing the undertaking. Original financing of the Institution was begun with a substantial donation by Mr. Robert along with

funds obtained by Dr. Hamlin through subscriptions In

America. The subscription drive was successful until the

Civil War broke out which "... killed the college movement as dead as a doornail.Eventually, almost the entire

^Fisher, op. cit. , p. 302.

3^Cyru3 Hamlin, My Life and Times. Boston: Congrega­ tional Sunday-School and Publishing Society, 1893, second edition, p. ^26. 27 financial burden of supporting the institution became the willing responsibility of Mr. Robert who "... was not a man to put his hand to the plow and then turn b a c k . "31

"he Americans in Turkey felt that this was an oppor­

tune time to found a college in Instanbul for the Crimean

War had focused the attention of the Christian world upon the

Ottoman Empire. Through contact with the West, the Ottomans

themselves had been made aware that a better life and oppor­

tunities for greater power awaited the nations that were

scientifically and intellectually advanced; and, In this

regard, education was realized to be the key to a brighter

tomorrow =

Even Sultan y.bdul Me j id appeared to be a liberal when

he issued the Hatt-1 Humayun (Imperial Words), a new reform

document which re-endorsed the previous reform measures of

the Hatt-i Sharif of lulnaneh and the Tanzimat. The new

reform was enacted primarily for the benefit of the semi­

nal nnomous , nat lonalis tically inclined Christian millet

comm jn i i es of the Ottoman Empire. In essence, it provided

rights and privileges to the Christian population of the

C . • Empire- The millet communities were then legally

permitted t: worship freely in their own faith, to have mere

equitable court proceedings, to have equality of taxes -nd

military c-r rvicc , and to have a Patriarch as h cad of their

communities; Foreigner'- were also permitted 'to own,

31lbid. 28 purchase, and dispose of real property in the sultan's realm."32 Even though the Hatt-i Humayun was destined to

fail because of the political climate of Europe and internal

complications within the Empire, it nevertheless was instru­ mental in making it possible for the founders of Robert

College to purchase in 1862 the site at Roumeli Hissar where the college was later to stand.

"There is no more beautiful site for a college any­ where in the world, and no place on the Bosphorus to equal

it."33 Robert College is located near the massive stone

"towers of Europe," or Roumeli Hissar, erected four centur­

ies before by Mehmed the Conqueror and is constructed of

stone taken from the same quarries which supplied building material for the towers,3^ The excellent quality of this

solid limestone is evidenced by the fact that the neighbor­

ing towers built in the fifteenth century showed little if

any deterioration when observed by Dr.Hamlin in 1869.35

Construction on this lovely site was not permitted, however,

by the Turkish government until December, 1868, because of

3^Fisher, op. cit., p. 319*

■‘^Washburn, op. cit. , p. 8.

3^Caleb Frank Gates, Not To Me Only. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19^0, p. 163.

35Harr.lin, op, cl t. , p. ^52. 29 the pressure brought to bear by the French, the Russians,

and the Roman Catholic Church, It would seem that all three powers were anxious at that time to prevent the spread of

Protestant and American ideas as well as the use of the

English language in the Middle East.

Abbe' Bore', the chief of the Jesuit mission, had started the opposition to the enterprise— he had long endeavored to obtain leave to build a college at some conspicuous point, but had failed. Now that a Yankee should accomplish what he, with the power of France behind him, had been unable to do, was naturally intolerable— he could find many and powerful opponents to join with him in securing this prohibition. All the Catholic embassies were hostile to all our efforts. But the active and vigorous opposition of Russia was more effective with the Turks than all the rest put together,36

As a result of this action, the site remained unim­

proved; and Robert College began its career in 1863 In the

vacant mission building at Bebek, a suburban village on the

Bosphorus just below Hissar. The American Board at Boston

owned the building and offered It rent free to Dr. Hamlin

who spent approximately three thousand dollars repairing and

remodeling the structure in order to adapt it for college

use. The fact that Dr. Hamlin had formerly taught for

tw.nty years in this old mission building established a

precedent so that no further permission was needed from the

Turkish government to establish Robert College at Bebek,

much to the consternation of Abbe' Bore' and the Roman Church

who had plotted to prevent Its opening.

36Ibid., pp. 431-432. 30

A Board of Trustees was legally created and,

In 1864 they were formally Incorporated by act of the Legislature of New York, under the name of ’The Trustees of Robert College of Constantinople,* and the College was Included with other state in­ stitutions in the University of the State of New York. This established the legal status of the College in A m e r i c a . 37

Mr. Robert suggested that the Institution be called the

American College, but this was objected to because of its political connotations. Dr. Hamlin finally proposed, over

Mr. Robert's protest, that it be called Robert College, a name which could be spelled in all the languages of the nations of the Middle East and offensive to none of them.33

Although Robert College was never under missionary control, It always had a missionary for its president until

1932, which explains its strong religious commitments both in its constitutional prescription and in actual practice. The

trustees of the College adopted a constitution which clearly

set forth the religious philosophy of the institution. It was to be nonsectarian in its scope, open to all faiths with no attempt at proselytization, and administered under the

laws of God and the principles of the Bible. The constitu­

tion further specified that prayers were to be said and the

Scriptures read every day the College was In session, and

37 Washburn, op. cit., p. 9,

38Hamlin, °P ■» cit. , p. 4 34. 31 that the faculty and students were expected to attend divine worship each Sunday.

Even though Mr. Robert, Dr. Hamlin and later Dr.

Washburn, the second president of the college and Dr.

Hamlin's son-in-law, were all devoted Christian men,

They did not want to win the students away from their national churches, but they did want to give them the religious principles and the foun­ dation of every Christian education. Although the opposition was fierce in the beginning, it gradually died down, and the College won the sympathy of leaders in the national churches. It became evident that the success of the College in forming men of good character was in large . measure the result of its religious atmosphere. 0

The curriculum was in keeping with any other American, scientific and literary institution and was developed to meet the needs of the community In which it was located. In

1869, Latin was added to the curriculum chiefly to secure recognition by the European universities of the degree granted by Robert College. English became the language of

instruction because it was imperative to have a neutral,

common language for such a linguistically diversified student body. This could only be one of the European languages;

ai’ce the founders of the College were American and the

English language offered a rich literature with available il i textbooks, the choice was a foregone conclusion.

39washburn, op. cit, , p. 16.

^Gates, op . cl t, , p. l65.

^Hamlin, op . cit. , p. ^37. 32 It was no part of the plan, however, to es­ trange the students from their own peoples, or to Americanize them. So It was decided that throughout the course every student should study his own language and its literature.42

This requirement, of course, caused an additional operational expense, since it required teachers for the various vernacu­ lars; but it was felt by the College to be imperative in the interest of obtaining the good will of the Ottoman govern­ ment and its people.

The size of the student body for the first year was indeed modest, with only four students in attendance. The growth of the College was slow during the first two years; only thirty-five students were enrolled at the end of the second year and those were almost exclusively of foreign extraction. One explanation might have been that the

Christian institution was regarded with suspicion by the native population and the $200.00 for board and tuition was more than most local Protestants were able to provide. The fourth year of Robert College witnessed a substantial increase in the student body to "96 students of whom 19 were

Armenians, 13 Bulgarians and 18 Gred.'s,"^

The fourth year of Robert College, 1866, was the first year of The American University of Beirut which was known at that time as The Syrian Protestant College.

42 Gates, op. cit., p. 164.

^Washburn, op. cit., p. 21. 33 Washburn asserts that

It was the first fruit of the influence of Robert College in leading to the foundation of similar institutions in all mission fields and it was Incorporated in the state of New York in the same act with Robert College. ^

The Syrian Protestant College at Beirut began as a missionary school while Robert College, though Christian in philosophy, was never, In fact, a missionary school, although it was initially directed by a former missionary in a former mission school building. In the l860's the American

Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions was slowly developing missionary work In Lebanon. This commission was composed of representatives of both the Congregational and the Presbyterian churches. By this time these American missionaries, in their efforts to evangelize the people of the area, had founded at least thirty-three primary and secondary schools. The excellent training received at these schools and the country's great need for college trained leaders almost forced the American missionaries to consider providing a college. The country desperately needed a col­ lege to train its citizens in theology, arts, sciences, and particularly in the field of medicine.

In the year 1862, the members of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions asked Dr. Daniel Bliss to resign from the Mission in Lebanon in order to found an institution of higher education In Beirut. It was agreed

^**Ibid. , p . 2 4. that the college should have an American character with an

American board of trustees since it was felt that this would lend prestige to the undertaking and making the rais­ ing of money in America or England easier. Actually, the people of Lebanon agreed that it would be safer to have

American control than to have natives compose the Board of

Managers and a native as the president of the proposed college. A Board of Managers was thought to be a necessity, however, since the Board of Trustees would be some thousand miles away in the United States. The Board of Managers continued to serve in Lebanon until 1902, when it was made unnecessary because of the great improvement of communica­ tions . ^

The language of instruction to be used in the college was to be Arabic because this was the native tongue to most of the prospective students. The Board of Managers followed this plan until the college student body became so diversi­ fied in the number of languages represented that it was necessary to establish a common language of instruction, which was English. Robert College, it will be remembered, was foresighted enough to envision at its inception the future language complication and thereby avoided this

li c ^Material in this and succeeding paragraphs is con­ densed from the material of Stephen B. L. Penrose, That They May Have Life. New York: Princeton University Press^ 19^1 • 35 disruptive change in the teaching medium after the college became an established institution.

The American Board gave support to the plan with the

understanding that the establishment of the college at

Beirut would not put in Jeopardy the program of training

for the Christian ministry. It had to also be careful that

it did not denationalize the students. The college was to

allow Arab educators to take over administrative and teach­

ing positions as fast as possible, and to follow the prin­

ciple of self-support as much as possible.

With all of these proposals in mind, in the summer of

1862, Dr. Bliss traveled to the United States where he raised

the sum of $100,000 for the new college by 1864. The Civil

War caused these dollars to be Inflated so he left them in

the United States until they regained their normal value.

Meanwhile, Dr. Bliss proceeded to England and raised a large

enough emergency fund to start the operation of the College

in Beirut in 1866.

The College actually opened Its doors and began its

first class with sixteen students on December 3, 1866, in a rented house. Dr, Bliss, who In a large measure was respon­

sible for the effective establishment of the College, became its first president. Penrose points out:

It must have been a devoutly thankful as well as a solemn occasion that third of December. Presi­ dent Bliss presided at the opening exercises, and read the third chapter of First Corinthians. Paul's 36

famous phrases, ’I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the Increase,' and 'other foundation can no man lay than that which Is laid, which Is Jesus Christ' must have seemed particularly appro^ prlate to the opening of this Christian venture. °

The College made every attempt during its first few years to use native teachers on the faculty. This proved difficult, however, for very few of them had sufficient training to properly handle the position. This made it necessary for the College to look to America and Europe for trained teachers.

For the first two years the College was housed in five rooms of an insignificant building. For the next three years, the College moved to a larger house with two small buildings attached in which a clinic and a four bed hospital were started. The College then moved to a still larger building, but the hospital and clinic were disbanded under an agree­ ment with the Prussian Order of the Knights of Saint John.

The situation in which the College found itself in those early years is nicely stated by Dr. Bliss' son:

During these seven years we scarcely had a name to live up to, although we were very much alive. A college on wheels does not impress the East with the idea of stability. We were not anxious to appear great, but we were anxious to lay. foundations upon which greatness could be built.

^ Ibld. , p . 20 .

^Frederic1, J » Bliss, The Remlnlscencer, of Daniel Bliss. London: Fleming H. He veil Company, 1920, p~! TTTF7 37 The beautiful site where the College now stands on the shore of the Mediterranean Sea was first located by

Dr. Bliss and the Reverend D. Stuart Dodge, the President of the Board of Trustees and it was purchased for far more

than its market value. This property, at that time, had

little market value; for it was the home of jackals and was used as a dumping ground for the garbage and trash of the

city of Beirut. More and more land was purchased with time

to accommodate the growth. The final move, however, to the present campus of The American University of Beirut was made in 1873.48 Two years before this, in 1871, Robert College with

135 students was finally able to leave its narrow quarters

at Bebek and move into the spacious new stone building at

Hissar, which also became its present campus; but the

planned move had met great opposition, especially from the

French.

French influence was dominant in the Ottoman Empire

after the close of the Crimean War in 1856, and concomi­

tant in the educational field in Instanbul was Jesuit

Influence culminating with the opening in 1868 of the great

Lycee of Galata Saray» This national Institution, staffed

by Napoleon III with French educators, and using French as

the language of instruction, was supported by Sultan Abdul

^Penrose, op. cit., pp. 10-20. 38

Aziz. It offered formidable competition to the development of Robert College at Hissar.

The French at that time were especially concerned with maintaining their balance of power in the Middle East, as well as strengthening their political and cultural influence in the area. The increasing activities of the American missionaries were distressing to France who envisioned the

United States as new competition in the balance of power struggle. Robert College appeared to the French as a pawn

of the United States in the field of education, but their

fears were somewhat abated when the "... Ottoman leaders

looked to France for inspiration and guidance."^9 With this endorsement, France made every effort to have French educational views pervade the Ottoman educational system.

The implementation of this effort resulted In the estab­

lishment of the Imperial Lycee at Galata Saray. This Lycee was a government controlled, secularly oriented, educational endeavor, free of the traditional Islamic influence and backed by the Western oriented Ottoman elite. The function

of this school was to prepare civil servants, scientists,

and governmental leaders to meet the political, scientific,

and cultural needs of the Empire. It is apparent that the

Turkish leaders could and would encourage young men of the majority to attend the Lycee Galata Saray, where they could

^Kazamias, Education and the Quest . . ., p. 62. 39 not and would not encourage the Muslim majority to send its sons to Robert College.

As a direct aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War in

1870, however, the competitive pressure between the two institutions was eased by the resignation of many French educators, the decline of enrollment at the Lycee, and in general by a replacement of French influence with Russian influence, and later with that of Germany in the Ottoman

Empire. It must be noted, however, that,

The Galatasaray lise [sic ], an ambitious experiment in fusing the various nationalities of the Ottoman Empire, became the prototype of the later U s e s ,-q and, In many respects, of the modern Turkish lise.

Turkish leaders, after the Crimean War, found a need in Turkey for trained bureaucrats, civil servants and leaders of society C'uch as they had observed In the societies of

France and the other advanced European nations. The Intro­ duction in Turkey of the Lycee of Galata Saray was a pro­ gressive step in the direction of producing these useful types of citizens. The use of the French language as well as French trained educators was complementary to that nation arid a vivid Indication of the high esteem in which the

Ottoman Empire held France. The Turkish leaders felt this

Institution would produce useful, competent citizens for the

Empire, which it did.

5°lbld., p . 68. 40

With the passing of time, as will appear in the sequel, this goal of producing useful,competent Turkish citizens slowly became the mission of Robert College also. The trend of the College in accepting this role will be seen more clearly from 190 8 on, when the government was in the hands ol' the Young Turks. It Is especially evident in 1968 when one observes the number of high Turkish governmental offici­ als who are graduates of Robert College, although, of course,

this latter development is beyond the scope of this disser­ tation .

The move to Hissar became possible in 1868 when Dr.

Hamlin was given notice from the grand vizir that he had

received an imperial irade/ which granted him the governmental authorization to begin construction of Robert College at the new site. Drt Hamlin's Joy at this pleasant turn of events

Is expressed in his words:

It was nev/s too great and good to be true! It filled me with great exultation. . . . I had never dared to ask for an imperial irade'l It Is the most sacred title to real estate ever given In Turkey, and emanates personally and directly from the sultan himself in his character of infalli­ bility .

.'hit i rade given by Sultan Abdul Aziz placed Robert

College under the protection of the United States and grants

tee Institution the right to fly the American flag. For

ever four-h.rdred years no such privilege was granted to any

^Hamlin, op. cit.,, pp. 448-449- 4i

French, English, German, or Russian institution along the historic Bosphorus. America was granted this great honor because the Ottoman government felt that the United States had no political aspirations.^2

Dr. Hamlin personally supervised every detail in the construction of the $60,000 building "which was the ornament of the Bosphorus^ ^t its new quarters, Robert College had its formal opening on the Fourth of July, 1871, with

Blacque Bey, the Ottoman Minister to Washington, present and with Ex Secretary of State Seward making the opening add- ress. The presence of Mr, Seward on this occasion impressed the Ottoman government that the College was under the patronage and protection of the United States government.

In the following year, 1872, General Sherman, while a guest of Sultan Abdul Aziz, addressed the students of

Robert College, giving the Ottoman government a further in­ dication of the great honor accorded the institution by the government of the United States. The fact that General

Sherman was accompanied by the son of President Grant was an

Invaluable enhancement to the prestige and status of this new college in a foreign land. In the same year, Dr. Hamlin

52Ibid. , p. 450.

53Ibid., p. 467.

^ Ibid. , p. 469.

55washburn, op. cit. , p. 48. 42 left Instanbul for America to raise an endowment for Robert

College and, at the direction of Mr. Robert, never returned; and Dr. Washburn, his son-in-law, replaced him as president.

By the year 1873 there were 257 students registered at Robert College with the student body being composed of mostly Greeks, Bulgarians, and Armenians of whom the last named were in the majority. A serious conflict between the

Greeks and the Bulgarians over the church question* in which the Turks had decided in favor of the Bulgariansf resulted in the Greek Patriarch excommunicating Bulgaria as a nation of schismatics. This event in turn was reflected In the hostile feeling between Greek and Bulgarian students on the campus of Robert College, and only by skillful handling of the situation by faculty and administration was open battle averted. The position of the administration in this matter was observed by both the Greeks and the Bulgarians who thereafter respected the College as neutral territory.

For years the great majority of the students who remained to become graduates of Robert College were Bulgar­ ians who were interested in seeking enlightenment to further their nationalistic purpose and break the yoke of Turkish rule. The Bulgarian government In later years bestowed honors upon successive presidents in recognition of the

56Ibld. , PPo 69-70. services rendered to her by Robert College in providing her with statesmen of the highest caliber.

In 1873, coincidental with the Greek-Bulgarian con­ flict, the Armenian students exhibited their own brand of rebellion by demanding of the College that all religious education in the institution, including mandatory religious services and Bible classes, cease. This, of course, was a requisite which would never be met by a Christian oriented institution such as Robert College was from the chy of its founding. The Armenian students were simply given the choice of conforming to the regulations of the College or of severing their relationship with It. As a direct result of this trouble, the number of Armenian students dropped from seventy in 1873 to a low of thirty-two In 187^. Dur­ ing this time, of course, the Armenian press In Turkey was writing extremely adverse copy portraying this Protestant- oriented college as violating the students' freedom of con­ science by its undemocratic demands.

The continued and bitter attack by the Armenian news­ papers "probably had some influence in stirring up the 57 Turkish government to adopt hostile measures. . . . against Robert College in general and Protestantism in particular, This animosity against the American institution and the religion which It espoused delighted the Orthodox

57 Ibid., p . 86, HU

Russians who were eager to advance their sphere of influence in the Middle East.

A former teacher of Robert College wrote a series of articles for an Istanbul newspaper in which he implied that while the College did not engage in proselytizing as such,

Its training did cause students to lose their devotion to their churches. Robert College made no reply to this accusation, but as Gates reports:

The Greek patriarch sent a representative to express the sympathy of His Holiness with us, and his appreciation of our work. He said that Robert College had a unique mission in the Levant: to „ teach the Christian brotherhood of all mankind.

The faculty of Robert College epitomized the ideal of nonsectarianism for:

. . . there were represented in the faculty Armenian Gregorians, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Moslems, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Church of England adherents, and Moravians. We had no clashes on religious grounds; we all believed that the College had a special mission, and we were devoted to it.59

Robert College gradually engendered a growing acceptance of its mission to develop the character as well as the Intel­

lect of Its students regardless of their religious affili­ ations. This was accomplished by the College through its practice of non-involvement In the political affairs of the

Empire and by not attempting any form of proselytizing.

•^Gates, op . ci t. , p. 185.

59Ibld.. pp. 179-80. CHAPTER III

THE COLLEGE UNDER THE REIGN OF SULTAN

ABDUL HAMID II - 1876-1908

The entire reign of the weak, and weakly liberal,

Sultan Abdul Aziz (1861-1876) was one of disappointment to those seeking modernity for Turkey. The concepts of modernization and development, which were Just beginning to take root in the Ottoman Empire due to its recent contact with Western culture during the Crimean War of 1853-1856, were suppressed. It might even be said that these ideas were inundated by corruption and mismanagement of state affairs which caused even further political and intellec­ tual stagnation of the Empire.

To meet the rising cost of governmental extravagances,

Turkey borrowed extensively from the money markets of West­ ern Europe only to approach bankruptcy late In 1875 when she wo: unable to honor her financial obligations in full. In order to avert this catastrophe, the Ottoman government increased taxes in her Balkan provinces to the extent that the ensuing unhappiness led to open revolt in Bosnia and

Herzegovina.

^°Fisher, The Middle East . . . , p. 321. At that time, Bulgaria was completely domlnanted by the Ottoman Empire; and when insurrection broke out there in 1876, it was so brutally suppressed by the Sultan’s forces that the world was shocked.

In these first massacres and the reign of terror which followed fifty or sixty thousand men, women and children were massacred In cold blood, sold as slaves or Judicially murdered.61

The Bulgarians, who thought of Robert College as a neutral friend in this their hour of trial, communicated the grim details of their plight to the College officials on a week to week basis. This information was in turn passed on to the British Ambassador Sir Henry Elliot as well as to powerful newspaper friends in the hope that their writings would bring such pressure of world opinion to bear that th

Turks would be forced to cease their mistreatment of the

Bulgarians.

It would appear in this Instance that Robert Colleg was exercising a great degree of political maneuvering in dealing with this extremely delicate situation. Even though the underlying sympathies of Robert College were

1 1 i Bulgarians, tne institution had to reside among the Turks and, therefore, was not at liberty to openly state its position. Robert College was not neutral in regard to her feelings; for as has been remarred, many

Bulgarian leaders had received their training at tne

f. i Washburn, Fifty Years in Cons t ant inop le , p. 1 3 . 47

institution. There was, in fact, an ever growing feeling of

strong mutual friendship and respect between the College and

Bulgaria. At that particular time, however, It was seem­

ingly necessary that Robert College feign neutrality In

order to be permitted to carry on her educational mission in

the Ottoman Empire.

Apparently Robert College employed discretion In

communicating the Information concerning the Bulgarian massacres to the outside world through the British Ambas­ sador rather than through the American Legation so that no justifiable complaint could be voiced against the College by a sensitive Turkish government. If Robert College had utilized the American Legation as the Intermediary, it would have implied commitment to the Bulgarian cause. The strategem employed by Robert College seemingly resulted in the successful accomplishment of two essentially diverse objectives. The first objective was that of aiding the

Bulgarians in the only way open to her, and the second objective was to effectuate such assistance without alien- al xr,g Vie Turks .

The opening months of 1876 found Turkey In a politi­ cal crisis which kept the faculty and students of Robert

f iP College in a state of perpetual anxiety. Dr. Washburn tells of an "unpleasant incident" in which he and Dr. Long.

^ ‘• Ib1d . , p. 10 7. 48 who were both unarmed, faced and turned back a large band of armed Turkish youths who had come to kill the Bulgarian stu­ dents of Robert College on the campus. There was a general feeling of fear and insecurity in the city of Instanbul because of the frequency of such terrorizing incidents along with the fact that vicious, undisciplined, and irregular troops roamed the streets of the capital at will.

The government of the United States reacted to the political troubles in Turkey by dispatching ships of the

United States Fleet to the area. The presence of those ships, as well as the sight of the American flag in the

Bosphorus, lent a sense of assurance, Joy, and protection to the faculty and students of Robert College .^3 During this time of crisis, the officials of Robert College did their best to follow the advice of Mr. Robert by not becoming involved in the political affairs of the Ottoman

Empire.

The undisciplined troops that had disturbed the calm of the Robert College community were apparently a radical element reflecting the extreme view of governmental policy toward the Bulgarians. It might be further assumed that they were under strict orders not to molest physically the

College or its people. The Sultan, during his bloody reign, had perpetrated many atrocities so that the destruction of

63ibld., p. 113. 149 Robert College and the confiscation of Its laqd would not

have troubled his conscience if that had been his desire.

It seems, however, that Abdul Hamid did not want any diffi­

culties with the College. This assumption is substantiated

by Dr. Washburn in later years when he admitted that:

Robert College has reason to be grateful that for the last forty years the Turkish government has never interfered with our work in any way, or refused any of the requests that we have made for new buildings or for the protection of our students, and It has freed us from taxation. In return for this It has always been our purpose to respect its laws and its wishes. We have taught our students to do the same thing, and have never tolerated any seditious movements among them.°^

This long period of amicability between Robert College and

the various Turkish governments it lived under was not cir­

cumstantial but ostensibly was the result of the excellent

training, diplomacy, deportment, character, and loyalty

exhibited by the College to the satisfaction of the Ottoman

Empire as well as to the people of Turkey. Some of the

numerous actions by the College which endeared it to the

Empire have been mentioned throughout this dissertation.

Relief from governmental corruption had seemed to be

in sight when the proven liberal provincial leader and

devoted reformer Midhat Pasha brought about the deposition

of Abdul Aziz and the installation of Murad V. Several months later, however, Murad V had a nervous breakdown and was replaced by his brother Abdul Hamid II. The new Sultan

64Ibid., p. 227. 50 was thought to be a liberal because he had toured Europe with his liberal-minded uncle Fuad Pasha supposedly to study the methods of operation of the progressive regimes on the Continent.

Fuad Pasha, during the reign of Abdul Mejid, had attempted to organize education and formalize it to the extent that its benefits would reach a greater number of people. In 1851 under his direction, a special council had been formed to study the needs of secondary education.

Upon the recommendation of the council, in 1851 six schools practiced "universal, compulsory, and free education with 65 free textbooks." ^ This advanced approach to education had been abandoned because of the return of a reactionary government which withheld necessary operational funds. The liberalism of Fuad Pasha, especially In educational matters, was still fresh in the minds of all educators at least, after the passage of a quarter century.

The liberals of the Empire were delighted at the sudden turn of events which brought Abdul Hamid II to power, especially when he instituted in 1876 the constitution of

Midhat Pasha. This charter provided for proportional representation of all nationalities, a duly elected parli­ ament, a cabinet, a condition of equality among the Sultan's subjects regardless of race, as well as freedom of religion,

^5pisher, op. clt. , p. 317. 51 press and education. This experience with liberalism was all too brief, however, for in the very next year it came to an abrupt end when the war with Russia allowed Abdul

Hamid II to ignore the constitution, assume despotic control of the government, and to exile Midhat Pasha in Europe.

The constitution appeared in the official register each year; but for all Intents and purposes, it remained

Impotent and ignored until its restoration in 1908 by the

Young Turks. As Sir Edwin Pears points out,

If Midhat's Constitution had not been suspended it would have been a valuable aid in the devel­ opment of the reforms already Initiated, and an effective arm for native workers and ambassadors for bringing about that reform which was more greatly needed than any other— religious equality between Moslems and Christians.66

As has been remarked, the strength and advantage of the Galata Saray Lycee waned with the defeat of Prance in the Franco Prussian War which brought with it a decline In all French influence in the Ottoman Empire. In 1876 the

Galata Saray Lycee was further downgraded when Sultan Abdul

Hamid II moved the school from the Christian quarter to the

Muslim area of Instanbul with All Suavi, the strong, unpre-

6 *7 djctable Turco-Mus11m from the provinces, at its head.

^ S l r Edwin Pears, Life of Abdul Hamid. London: Constable and Company, LTD” 1917, p. 215. f) T R. D. Davison, Reform of the Ottoman Empire; 1856- 1876. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19&3, pp. 250-251, p. 310. 52

All Suavi was a member of the ulema and very much

opposed to any Western reforms which would lead to the

Westernization of the Ottoman Empire. As a result of his

leadership, the French language no longer occupied a fi fi privileged position in the schools' curriculum. French,

however, did continue to be prominent during the reign of

Abdul Hamid although Latin was abolished; more emphasis was placed on the Turkish language.

The early Hamidian years were not entirely a period

of political reaction and imperial stagnation for many of

the ideas of Westernization, as well as the reforms of th€

Tanzimat, were incorporated into the Ottoman society. One recent author has even seen Sultan Abdul Hamid as a "will­

ing and active modernizer, the true heir of Sultan Abdul Aziz and the statesman of the Tanzimat."^9 Abdul Hamid had con­ siderable faith in the value of education and enlightenment.

The Sultan viewed educational reform as a necessity for political, legislative, judicial, administrative, as well as military upgrading and advancement of the Ottoman state.

It was obvious to Abdul Hamid II and any other think­

ing Turk that the Ottoman Empire had been fighting a losing battle against the Western European Powers In almost every area of human endeavor for over one-hundred years. This

^Kazamias, Education and the Quest . .__L, p. 67. 69 Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: Oxford University Press, 1961, p"i 17 . 53 relatively Inferior position in which the Ottomans found themselves was made painfully clear when they were soundly defeated in 187^ at the hands of the Russians, who only a century before were considered to be one of the most back­ ward of the Christian peoples. Upon closer observation of the situation, it would appear that the Russians began to adopt the ways of the Western Powers decades earlier when the Ottoman Empire first began to suffer military reverses at the hands of the West. The salient fact that the Rus­ sians, about a century earlier, had turned toward the West and began to adopt Western ways

. . . was realized to be the secret of their victory over the Osmanlis, and so the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-7** and the Peace Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarja made a deep impression both upon the Ori­ ental Christian subjects of the Osmanlis and upon the Osmanlis themselves.70

The superiority of the once backward Russia was again felt by the Ottomans in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877. In this war Russia, acting in her traditional role as protector of the Christians in Turkey, allied herself with Rumania,

Serbia and Montenegro to defeat Ottoman arms. The war was concluded on March 3, 1878, at the signing of the Treaty of

San Stefano with the Russians at the very gates of

Istanbul. This Treaty resulted in the independence of

Montenegro, Rumania, Serbia, and the creation of the large,

^Toynbee and Kirkwood, Turkey, p. 30. 54 autonomous Christian principality of Bulgaria as well as in a financial loss of considerable size to Turkey in the form of degrading indemnity payments to Russia.

The Treaty of San Stefano did not have the confirma­ tion of the European powers who viewed it as a threat to their special interests in Turkey and the Balkans. This

Treaty possibly would have served the world better than the subsequent Congress of Berlin in 1878 which replaced it. Of the many momentous results of the Congress of Berlin, the one that relates to the subject of this dissertation is expressed by a later president of Robert College who said:

Russia and England assumed a rival status as the protectors of Christians in Turkey, and this rivalry while adding to Turkish irritation at foreign interference, made any real protection impossible. Intervention is not helpful unless supported by effectual measures for execution of the reforms projected. And in this case the sultan was left free— except for occasional dip­ lomatic pressure applied by one or more of the powers— to disregard the reforms to which he had agreed in the Treaty of Berlin, and to undertake a new policy of oppression culminating in the Armenian massacres of 1895 and 1896.71

Abdul Hamid's reign has been characterized as being autocratic, despotic, reactionary and extremely suspicious to such a degree that his network of spies permeated the

Ottoman realm. The Sultan ruthlessly destroyed pockets of rebellion by Armenians or any other group that appeared to oppose his rule as caliph and sultan. Abdul Hamid came to

7lGates, Not To Me Only, p. 25. 55 regard the Armenians as a threat to the well-being of the empire and took drastic action to suppress this Christian minority. This action had almost direct effect on Robert

College since the vast majority of its student body was composed of Greeks, Bulgarians and Armenians.

Christian Robert College always maintained an excel­ lent working relationship with the highest authorities of these three national churches. The leaders of the Armenian, the Greek and the Bulgarian churches warmly supported the religious efforts of Robert College, for they clearly recog­ nized that the College was interested in strengthening the spiritual and moral lives of the students with the objec­ tive of making them better Christians rather than better

Protestants.^

In this regard, Robert College had a deep interest in the Armenians and viewed with disappointment their abandon­ ment by England who was supposedly committed by the Congress of Berlin to maintaining their security and well being.

England's sympathy, expressed at the Congress, had encour­ aged the Armenians to the extent that they envisioned the establishment of an autonomous Armenian province in the northeastern portion of the Empire. England's position was not predicated entirely on empathy for a fellow Christian people but rather for the political advantage tv be gained

72washburn, o p . clt., p. 77. 56 by having an autonomous Armenia serve as a barrier in the path of an advancing Russia, England even attempted, but failed; to convince Abdul Hamid that his empire would be stT,engthened in the process ,

Unfortunately, some radical revolutionary Armenians mi I interpreted the lesson of history when they reasoned that

England would come to their aid militarily if the Turks

,r as sacred their people Just as Hussia had previously gone to the aid of the beleaguered Bulgarians. The Armenian revolutionists with this vision before them perpetrated atrocities against the Turks which culminated in the

Armenian m,-tssaeres of 1888-1889 and again in 1895 and 1896 wherein thousands of Armenians were put to death, violated and sold Into slavery by the silence of Abdul Hamid II who evidently condoned the work of their extermination.

England, of course, did not intervene to make them independent as the Armenian situation was strictly an

:r t ! ■ .. - "ic: e, f t. n< ft t oman Empire and not "r all simi­ lar to the Bulgarian Incident. The terrorist agitations of

‘ : 0 1 .u i # on : " 1. r. did, however, give the Turks a supper1: v . c e . - :■ :: t ■ • a -.re t n e /,-• .-.nians throughout ;.ne k 'i ‘ 'Tr h i ! o t 1-:r. of the government p re nip : .; e d u1! r-. of fear in the Armenian corrnr.ni 11 es a n d was n f lC'- ten at Robe rt (‘ o 1 ge ft. a reduct i : 1 of v..= A.--r oat an j-t'i-d-j ‘ s : / re- r-a.i .9 pore tat , It wgs Oi.^f t :• * •- 57

expected that this prolonged political agitation which was

revolutionary in its nature was unfavorable to sound edu­

cation since it caused abnormal excitement among the millet

communities of the Ottoman Empire.

It was during the decade of the nineties that the

Greek students outnumbered the Bulgarian students for the

first time in the history of Robert College. With their

nationality composing the majority of the student body, the

Greeks for the first time came to the realization that this was not a Bulgarian college dedicated to the weakening of

the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greeks also recognized the

fact that the Greek Department of Robert College offered

students the means of attaining mental and moral discipline.

This same appreciation led the Greeks to more clearly under­ stand that the religious instruction of the College was far more concerned with the building of the students' character than with their proselytization.^3 The Greeks became so

impressed with the work of Robert College, feeling that It had rendered invaluable services, especially to the Chris- ti ,.n boys of the Empire, that they established on the Island 7 U of Halki a kindred Institution, and much later established another In Athens.

^ dp i d . , p . 236 .

^Pears, op. cl t, , p. 387. 58

The Bulgarians, too, owe much to the influence of

Robert College in educating their young men to become leaders in building a free nation in the Balkan Peninsula.

When the Bulgarian Constituent Assembly met in 1879 to form a constitution, it was the Robert College graduates who had the knowledge of parli­ amentary procedure, the ability, and the character that enabled them to take the lead. During subse­ quent years numerous graduates of Robert College became leading men in Bulgaria— as prime minister, as diplomats and statesmen, as head of departments, and as businessmen of large affairs. . . . Sir Edwin Pears, Constantinople's most distinguished barrister, and for many years correspondent of The London Daily News, said: 'I know of no other Instance in history where a single institution has so powerfully affected the life of a nation as Robert College has affected the life of Bulgaria.'75

The Bulgarian government has long and officially recognized the invaluable service rendered to their nation by Robert College both in time of war and peace. Concern­ ing the services rendered by Robert College to the students of the other millet groups, Washburn points out:

We have done what we could for the other nationalities of the College, and they understand that we take a deep interest in everything which concerns their prosperity and progress. They have not had the opportunity to distinguish them­ selves in statecraft, but they have won honor and success in other fields of labor, both in the East and in other parts of the world.76

In 1895 the Sultan apparently tested the spirit of the possible Intervention of the European Powers in the

75lbid. , pp . 167-168.

7^Washburn, op.. clt. , p. 299. 59 Armenian Affair by a cold-blooded massacre of over eight- hundred Armenian petitioners and innocent bystanders on the streets of Instanbul. The resulting inaction of the

European Powers dispelled the Sultan's fear of intervention and signaled the general slaughter of Armenians throughout

Turkey, The faculty and students of Robert College were painfully aware of what was happening to the Armenians in the interior but they ", . . had no fear of any massacre in Constantinople or any serious danger for the College."77

This statement proved premature, however, for in 1896 the

Armenian population of Instanbul was reduced by some seventy-five thousand persons after a threat by an Armenian terrorist band to dynamite the Ottoman Bank resulted in the massacre and deportation of 75 percent of the Armenians of the city. At that point, the Sultan sent a company of

Turkish soldiers to the grounds of Robert College for its protection.

During the four months that the soldiers were quar­ tered at the College, a condition of constant anxiety pre­ vailed since there were some sixty Armenian students enrolled at the time, and the real mission of the soldiers was always in question. It appears that the soldiers, un­ doubtedly under orders, respected the College grounds as a

77Ibid., p. 240. 60 sanctuary for Armenians. Strangely, neither Washburn?® nor

Gates?9 nor Pearsnor Morgenthau®^ even mention the fact that the Armenian students were not molested by the soldiers, when other Turkish soldiers were killing Armenians by the thousands in the streets of Instanbul.

It may be conjectured that the security of the Armenian students on the campus was maintained because Robert College was always held in high respect and was above suspicion by the Turkish government which was anxious to continue this

Ideal relationship. Along with this reason, it might be further conjectured that the soldiers were present to keep the Armenian students under close surveillance as well as to prevent any revolutionary activities which they might initiate. It would appear that perhaps a combination of both possibilities was present with a marked degree of emphasis on the former.

The autocratic hand of Abdul Hamid was ever present in the field of Turkish education. The Darushshafaka, a school similar to the Galata Saray Lycee, came under the direct control of the Sultan in 1888 and was subsidized by

?®Washburn, Fifty Years in Constantinople.

?^Gates, Not To Me Only.

^Pears, Life of Abdul Hamid.

^Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau*s Story. New York: Doubleday, Page and Co., 1919. 61

the government. In 1903 the students of the Darushshafaka

demonstrated for more food and better lodging whereupon

Abdul Hamid responded by ordering the school closed and all students deported to Tripoli. The Sultan rescinded that order but exiled the director of the school and incorporated

the institution into the system of government education. In addition, students held responsible for the Incident were dispersed to schools outside of Istanbul; potential student trouble-makers were kept under constant surveillance, and rigid discipline was imposed over both the students and the school. The disposition of this situation clearly shows that Abdul Hamid would not tolerate any type of protest, dissension or student disrespectfulness. The Darlishshafaka remained a government school until 1509 when, with the Young

Turks in power, It reverted to and continues to be a private

Lycee ,

Abdul Hamid actually supported the M&lkiye, a civil service training school established in 1859 for the purpose of providing civil servants for the empire's expanding bureaucracy, This institution of higher learning, as well a; the military schools, was supported by the Sultan even though many of the students and faculty members were criti- t • cal of his repressive policies. The Mulkiye, the

Darushshafaka, the Galata Saray Lycee, and other institutions

82 Kazamias, op - c i t ., p. 87. 62 of this type were attended mostly by Turks. This was not the case with institutions such as Robert College and the missionary schools where Turkish students were forbidden to attend by Sultan Abdul Hamid II. As a result of his policy, these schools catered almost exclusively to non-Muslim stu­ dents during the Hamidian regime. It was only after the ascension to power of the Young Turks in 1908 that

- . . a special fund was set aside to educate five young Turkish men each year at Robert College— but it was not until the period of the republic that schools like Robert College became favoured R places for the non-Christian inhabitants of T u r k e y . 3

Even though Abdul Hamid had restricted Turkish stu­ dents from attending Christian schools, those regulations were never rigidly enforced against Robert College and a few

Turks did attend. As has been remarked, Sultan Abdul Hamid v;;.u; tunning, suspicious and noted for having spies in al­ most every part of the Empire, The Sultan's despotic nature was felt : very.-. ;r rc— in the Civil Service, in the press, in

“ h - m ' t .err.":! *■' o s , i n education and " a n y *•’! th an

: dci f r - government al improvements was more than vko y to

i ••• = gr - r sank in the Bosphorus . " u The brans

■" ■ i .t .. ■ c ;■;. ‘ ;• law j orb nilng Turks 'h'om attonc-

lb - 1 -v - i an c*■ 1 •' a v ‘•■h / institutions like Robert Co.. I e • ' 'v

•" ; uc ; -r.. no r a py the ; c t ' vc srloreg" system.

1 t 1 d , P : 9C

^11 Fisher, op. cit , , p . 3 c i - 63 It would seem that Sultan Abdul Hamid held Robert College in

high esteem, for neither the Turkish students nor the

College was ever punished for its public Insubordination.

The Sultan’s apparent willingness to ignore this flagrant

violation may be construed as a negative compliment to

Robert College of the highest order.

The very existence of the Sultan’s regulation, how­

ever, accounted for the paucity of Turks in the College

during his reign. In the year 1903» out of 320 students,

only six were Turks; and up to this time, only one Turk

had graduated, Vice-President Gates had this interesting

remark to make about the first Turkish graduate of Robert

College:

He was thf grandson of the Sheikh of Bektashi Order of lervishes which had a tekke, or monastery ofl the hill above the College. This student - Huseyin Bey - graduated In 1903 and Joined the faculty of the College. Later he became the head of the Turkish department, and vice-president of the College. A man of eminent ability, speaking French and English fluently, he was chosen by Prime Minister Tsmet Pasha, chief of the Turkish delegation to the Lausanne Conference, to accompany him as his secretary.85

Httseyln Bey’s accomplishments did not stop there for he wont cjj to occupy other important positions.^ From the

^Gates, op, ci t. , p. 1 8 2 .

^’ditiseyin Bey became a Deputy from Malatya, an admin­ istrative division of Turkey, while still serving in the capacity of Professor and Vice-President of Robert College. From 19^7-1950, he was the Turkish Delegate to the V,’omen's R1 ghits Commission of the United Nations. Hliseyin Bey was 64

turn of the century on, more and more enlightened Turks, who

were cognizant of the fine reputation of the College, found

the courage to enroll their sons.

The Turkish Department of Robert College in 1900 was

the least in importance and size, but it was destined to

become the largest and most important of the vernacular

departments. In 1900 Tevfik Fikret Bey, a journalist whose

works greatly influenced political and social reform in the

Ottoman Empire, became the head of the Turkish Vernacular

Department of the College. It Is significant to note that

this Influential Turk concomitantly held the position of

/ Director of the Turkish Galata Saray Lycee in Instanbul

while maintaining his position with Robert College.87

It might be conjectured that the dual capacity of

Tevik Fikret Bey in holding high positions simultaneously

in the leading Turkish Lyc^e and in Robert College was

"de facto" governmental recognition and approval of Robert

College. If this were not the case, it would seem highly

unlikely that the Sultan would have permitted the director

of one of the most respected governmental schools in the

also the founder of Etiler Ata College. Osman Nebioglu, Who's Who in Turkey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept, of Commerce, Office of Tech, Services, Joint Pub. Res. Service, Aug. 5, 1963, pp. 705-6.

87Ibld. , p. 18 3. 65 Empire to also head the Turkish Vernacular Department of a

Christian oriented American college. A further conjecture might imply that the hiring of Tevfik Fikret Bey by Presi­ dent Washburn was a wise, diplomatic move to further develop and solidify the amicable relationship between the College and the Empire. Seemingly, other linguistic scholars could have done justice to the position without filling the vacancy with a Turkish journalist, poet and reformer of note who was also the Director of the Galata Saray Lyc^e. Per­ haps the fine relationship enjoyed by Robert College with the Turkish government was in part conditioned upon the skillful art of properly managing affairs between them.

The facts would seem to indicate that Robert College occupied a privileged position even under the tyrannical regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid. This was unusual at a time when the autocratic Sultan went to such reactionary lengths to prevent the importation of printed books into

Turkey as well as to impose a general censorship on the press. The Sultan realized that many western ideas were taught at American Robert College, but he was also appar­ ently satisfied that these ideas would not be in any way seditious. Such security was not the case in the Western education of his military cadets, however, as Arnold J.

Toynbee indicates in this remark:

Hamid could not discontinue the training of military officers in the Western art of war without placing his hard-pressed Empire entirely at the mercy of covetous neighbours; but the young men, on their part, could not learn their tactics and strategy without learning Western languages, and these gave them the key to the universe of Western thought. Hence It was a young officer, Enver Bey, who raised the standards of revolution against Abdul Hamid In 19O8.08

^Toynbee and Kirkwood, op. cit. , p s 3 8 . CHAPTER IV

THE COLLEGE UNDER THE REIGN OF THE YOUNG TURKS

1908 TO 1918

The closing years of the regime of Abdul Hamid II rekindled the flame of revolution and signaled the rejec­ tion of his absolute, corrupt and oppressive government.

A process of enlightenment and growing Westernization had unfolded in Turkey to the degree that the despotic and depraved reign of the Sultan could no longer be tolerated.

Thirty years before, the constitution of Midhat Pasha with its liberal, modernist tendencies regarding freedom and equality fired the Imagination of the Ottoman intelligentsia.

Even though the actual constitutional government in Turkey at that time survived only several months before being sus­ pended by Abdul Hamid, the liberal, modernist movement

Inspired by It lingered on and finally was Instrumental in the disintegration of the reactionary government.

The liberal minded reformers of Turkey viewed the past record of the Sultan with dissatisfaction when they recalled the disastrous wars with Russia and Greece, the controlled press, the abrogation of the constitution, the

t massacre of the Armenians, the network of spies, the

67 68

governmental corruption and the loss of Egypt to England.

Paradoxically, the older generation of Turks felt that Abdul

Hamid was doing a splendid job of keeping Western ideas out

of Turkey; but unfortunately for the Sultan, they were not

In the majority. The young dissenters, however, soon put

their revolutionary theories into practice and secret

societies sprang up in various sections of the Empire. One

of these societies, The Committee of Progress and Union, was begun at the Istanbul Imperial Military Medical College by a group of students subscribing to nationalist ideas and re forms„

Subsequently, membership in the society spread to

the Ottoman Military Academy, the Naval Academy, the Artil­

lery and Engineering School, the Veterinary School, and the

Civil College. The society flourished and gathered new members in the various schools even though Abdul Hamid, through his secret police, made reprisals against them.

The program of the Committee of Progress and Union

. . . was reduced to the simple formula that all evils of the Middle East stemmed from Abdul Hamid Remove him, restore the constitution, and all would be well, °

Even though the Sultan was able to crush this particular

society in 1897, other similar societies immediately

^Fisher, The Middle East , , . , p. 339 . (Herein­ after this will be referred to as S 3 N. Fisher, ojs. c\ L* ^ 69 emerged to take its place and continued the work of prop­ agating revolutionary ideas.

In 1905, Mustafa Kemal received his commission at the General Staff Academy; and on the same day, he was arrested as a revolutionary agitator. Upon his release, he organized the secret, revolutionary society Vatan

(Fatherland). The Vatan gathered new recruits among the officers of the Fifth Army Corps in Syria as well as among the officers of the Third Army Corps in Salonika where it became known as the Fatherland and Liberty society.

In Salonika, the Ottoman Society of Liberty was founded, and early members included Talat Bey (later called

Talat Pasha), Rahmi Bey, Fethi Bey, and Colonel Jemal Bey

(later Jemal Pasha), The Ottoman Society of Liberty was composed of all the liberal minded Turks; and in 1907, it merged with the Fatherland and Liberty society of Mustafa on Kemal under the name of Society of Union and Progress.

Mutinies and rebellions became more numerous In 1907 throughout the Empire, but the real revolution occurred the n-'/t year =

Late in July, 1908, came the fateful telegram from Serres announcing that the Third Army Corps would march on Istanbul to enforce the reprocla­ mation of the constitution which the Society of Union and Progress had demanded the preceding day. The army threat was the telling blow. On that evening, July 2*4, 1908 , Abdul Hamid restored the

9°Ibid., p. 3*40. 70

constitution and ordered elections for members of the Chamber of Deputies. A liberal grand vizir was appointed; and on the 25th, the Istanbul press and citizens rejoiced over the good, though unex­ pected news.91

To some degree, the Sultan himself had inadvertently contributed to his own downfall by Instigating the rapid progress of enlightenment among the Turks for the previous thirty years. He had advanced education in Turkey by founding many schools. He had staffed his military schools with German officers and his medical schools with German doctors who Inspired the Young Turks with liberal, Western ideas. Ironically, what Abdul Hamid expected to become strength for his government actually became the medium of revolutionary thinking that ultimately resulted in his depos ition.

Robert College was not isolated from those events of profound significance taking place all about them.

Dr. Caleb F. Gates, president of the College from 1903 to

1932, pointed out during this time of revolution in Turkey that »

. . Cooperation among the students, and be­ tween the student body and the faculty, had to be achieved m spite of grave political unrest beyond the walls of the College. . . . The College took no part In political events, but it was inevitable that both faculty and students should be vitally Interested in the momentous affairs of state that were bound to concern

91 Ibid , , pp , 3^0- 71 themselves, their families, and their national communities. It is the more remarkable then that our work went forward in h a r m o n y . 92

The Young Turks, thinking that they had brought about the downfall of a despotic theocracy, were overly optimistic in their expectations of reaching their lofty goal.

For the authors of the Revolution, the breakdown of despotism and the establishment of constitutional government meant a panacea capable of changing everything at a single stroke. They thought that all the complicated problems arising from the existence of a mixed and unassimilated population could be settled by their formula of unification of races, on the common ground of equal Ottoman citizenship.y

The rosy, idealistic dream of the establishment of a corporate body politic, wherein equality for all Turks and members of the millet communities regardless of their diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds would become a reality, was soon shattered. The dream of the Young Turks failed for the moment since Turkey was not ready to break with the conservatism and traditionalism firmly entrenched through past Ottoman Islamic education. The common people saw a glimmer of hope in revolutionary ideas of Liberty,

Justice, Equality and Fraternity, but the upper classes saw little luster In the idea of surrendering their privileged positions in society.

02 Gates, Not To Me Only, p. 187.

^Ahmed Emin (Yalman), Turkey in the World War. New Haven; Yale University Press, 1930 * P » ^1. 72

The millet system had engendered a sense of national­ ism so that soon the various national groups realized that it was not social and political reform that they desired but the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. With such forces working against them, along with the fact that Abdul Hamid and his followers were secretly plotting their destruction, the Young Turks discovered that they were too inexperienced in the art of government to prevent the counterrevolution of April 13, 1909.

Abdul Hamid regained his power, and the leaders of

Union and Progress quickly went underground to continue the struggle, The Society of Union and the Progress acted swiftly and caused the Third Army Corps in Macedonia to march on and to occupy Istanbul on April 25, 1909. The constitution was restored; and Parliament deposed Abdul

Hamid and proclaimed his weak, sixty-five year old brother the Sultan, Mehmed V, who had lost all initiative because he had been a palace prisoner of his brother for over thirty years, ", , . was the perfect constitutional monarch for the Young Turks."9^

During all the excitement of the counter­ revolution Robert College Students remained quiet, studying their lessons even while the booming of cannon bombarding the barracks sounded in their ears,95

94S. N= Fisher, op. clt. , p, 3^2.

9^Gates, op. clt., p. 193. 73 This remarkable conduct attested well to the training and character of the studentbody at Robert College, consider­ ing that the spirit of revolution was in the air and "...

Revolts against authority broke out in Turkish and

Christian schools, and discipline was maintained with difficulty . 1,96

It was also in 1909 that Robert College received one and three-quarter million dollars at the bequest of John S.

Kennedy, president of the Board of Trustees for the past fourteen years. The trustees decided to utilize this large sum of money for the growth and development of the College so that it would increase Its usefulness to the countries of that part of the world. To best accomplish this ser­ vice, President Gates felt

. . o that courses In law and medicine should be ruled out because the government had law and medical schools, and we should be considered as competing with them. What Turkey needed was a good school of engineering. Her resources were undeveloped and she had need of engineers to build railroads, bridges, and highways; to develop her mines, and to construct plants for Irrigation, sanitation, and the development of electrical power. . . . Talaat Pasha seemed receptive to the idea. At the meeting of the board I therefore recommended that Robert Col­ lege open a school of engineering. They gave their approval.57

The construction work began and Professor Lynn A.

Scipio of the engineering faculty of the University of

96Ibid. , p . 19.

97Ibid., p. 198. 7 ** Nebraska became responsible for completing the buildings and organizing the curriculum. . To him Is due, in large measure, credit for the remarkable success of the Robert Q 8 College Engineering School."'7

The enrollment of Turks Increased significantly at this time, seemingly to take advantage of the new engi­ neering school. "The Turks felt greatly the need of tech­ nically educated men and our school offered an opportunity they did not want to miss."99

Turkey at this time was discernibly moving toward ideological Identity and nationalism as Is Indicated in these words:

The Young Turk Revolution and the deposition of Abdul Hamid In 1909 was a clear signal that the days of the old Ottoman political order were numbered. Henceforth, the destinies of the. empire were placed in the hands of a new type of leadership, mostly men who were schooled in the military colleges, and equally important, men fired by a Moslem Turkish patriotism.^00

The avenue to nationalism for Turkey, however, was not smooth in a land so long held back by political and religious traditionalism. As one author points out:

c , the period following the collapse of Hamidian absolutism can best be viewed as a

" ibid. , p. 199-

9^Lynn A. Scipio, My Thirty Years In Turkey. New Hampshire: Richard E. Smith Publisher, Inc. , I~9 5 5 > p. 90.

■^^Kazamias, Education and the Quest . . . , p. 106. 75 transitional stage In the reform movement which culminated in the Kemalist Revolution and the proclamation of the republic in 1923. As in most transitional phases of a country's develop­ ment, the Young Turk period was marked by con­ fusion, turbulence and groping. This was most saliently manifested in the cultural and intellectual spheres „ ^l

The Young Turks saw nationalism for Turkey as a means of providing the good life for the masses as well as in­ stilling in them a sense of pride, dignity and a national consciousness. The confusion came when various factions representing three types of nationalism (Ottomanism, Pan-

Islamism, and Pan-Turanlsm) each viewed their particular version as the solution to the problem.

Ottomanism, with its attempt to unify all the Otto­ man subjects under this name, was resisted by the non-

Turks in the Chamber of Deputies as an attempt to Turkify 102 all others. Those who favored Pan-Islamism saw religion as the basis of unity among the peoples of the Muslim states. Halide''Edib points out that Pan-Is lamisni,

, . . an old Ideal which had been revived by Abdul Hamid and consequently discredited, became the political Ideal of a limited but very convinced number of powerful Individuals In the Union and Progress group. Enver Pasha was at its head.103

Pan-Islamic elements in the Union and Progress Party were responsible for its adopting reactionary measure from

"^^Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey, p. 208.

„ No Fisher, op. ci t., p. 3^5.

1(^Ebld, pp. clt,, p. 123. 76

April, 1909, to July, 1912, that contributed in part to its 10 downfall„

Pan-Turanism was the third form of nationalism which

tended to federate a number of people of Turanian origin

such as those living in Azerbaijan, Bukhara, Turkestan and

Mongolia. It further sought the Turkification of all non-

Turks as well as inducing a strong nationalistic feeling in

the Turkish subjects of the Empire, It was this policy of

Turkifjcation pursued to a ridiculous degree that caused

dissension in the millet communities of the Ottoman Empire

and resulted in the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913»

For centuries Macedonia, with its heterogeneous population of Turks, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians, Albanians,

and Montenegrins, had been a province of the Ottoman Empire.

The general policy of Turkification in the Balkans gener­

ated such an intense feeling of nationalism that Greece,

Bulgaria, Serbia and Montenegro united in order to divide

Macedonia among the allies so that each would receive the ar^a where Its respective population predominanted, In the

19 ■ 3 war, the Ottoman Empire lost most of Its European poseesc1ons-

An Insight to the type of high character developed at

Robert College, which tended to lower the barriers or

1 . N Fisher, op, cit,, p. 3^5< 77 nationalism even during a war, may be seen In this remark:

As soon as war was declared, those of our students of military age, belonging to the five nationalities, were ordered to join their respective armies. This affected the whole college, since we had a number of students from each of those countries. We had not been there long enough to have absorbed the deeper spiritual significance of the place, but we were greatly impressed to see a Greek and a Turk, or perhaps a Bulgarian walk down the hill together to join their respective a r m i e s . 105

Also, In this same vein:

When a boy received tidings of the death of a relative, it was often a boy from an enemy country who was the first to console him.106

It would seem that the students of Robert College had an understood, unspoken agreement to dispense with their national animosities In the interest of making the campus a haven of peace in those troubled times.

This severe tes? was imposed on the students and teachers alike by these events. They were being called to military service in a conflict where their respective nations were at war with each other, and many were concerned about the fate of their loved ones in the battle zone. At times, the war was uncomfortably close.

Ore Sunday, during the attack that the Bulgarians were making upon the Chatalja fortifications only nineteen miles away, the booming of cannon could be heard all day long, and we were waiting in suspense for the issue of the battle. Yet there was not dist .chance in the College and we did not lose a single day of work.

10 5sclpio, op c c i t ,, p. 66, ^^Gates , op . cl t. , p, 20to Again, the splendid attitude displayed by the students and

teachers under such trying conditions displays the great spirit of this institution more than words could hope to portray .

The Young Turks in power were discredited by their military reverses; and a triumvirate of Young Turks composed of Talaat Pasha, Enver Pasha and Jemal Pasha came to power and ruled Turkey and the Society of Union and Progress with a strong hand. It would appear that the liberal movement that began with sincere intentions was unable to divorce itself from its past Ottoman experience; and, as a result, soon became as absolutist as Abdul Hamid had ever been.

President Gates of Robert College reported concerning his dealing with Talaat Pasha:

I had frequent occasion to consult with him regarding problems connected with the College, and he always treated me with exceptional kind­ ness. . . , He Intervened repeatedly to protect College interests and gave me a hearing when­ ever I needed his help. “

The friendly relations are substantiated, although only by inference, in the pages of the diary of Dr. Edgar J. Fisher,

Professor of History and later Dean of Robert College.10^

lo8Ibid., p . 190.

109The complete set of diaries, 1911-1936, Is pre­ served in the Rare Book Room of The Ohio State University Library, where they were placed by Dr. Fisher's family at the suggestion of Professor Sydney N. Fisher of the Uni­ versity. Although the two were colleagues at Robert College for a number of years, they are not relatives. 79 In Dr. Fisher's daily coverage of events of interest concerning himself as a man and Robert College as an insti­ tution, only one incidental reference was made concerning the government of the Young Turks in 1913 and 1914. The occasion was the annual dinner of the American Chamber of

Commerce of the Levant at Pera. The diary account is as follows:

The Standard Oil Companies launch 'Socony' came to Hissar at 5:45 P.M. to see who were going to the dinner and stopped at Bebek on the way to the city. The dinner was attended by about two-hundred men and women of all nationalities and proved to be quite an important function. It was also in the nature of a formal welcome to the new American Ambassador. . . . The chief address was by the American Ambassador, Mr. Morgenthau, the guest of honor. Others who spoke were Talaat Bey, the Turkish Minister of the Interior . . . and Jemal Pasha. . . .I10

Since the diary entry for the day closes without a remark about the subject of any of the speakers, it may be assumed that nothing affecting the present or future of

Robert College was even mentioned. It may further be con­ cluded that the subjects of that evening's dim: .r speeches were of a rather light nature since no mention at all of

Uv evening is made by Mr. Morgenthau in his memoirs

Along with the change In government in Turkey, there was a corresponding change in the educational afi’ai rs of

Edgar J. Fisher, Diary, Feb. 28, lb! 4. (Herein­ after this will be referred to as E. J. Fisher, op. c1t.)

-^-Morgenthau, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story. the Empire. Education under the Young Turks was directed by a Ministry of Education rather than by the caprice of the

Sultan. This proved to be advantageous in one respect and a source of agitation in another. The government under the

Young Turks became disturbed by the pluralistic nature of

Ottoman education wherein each millet community used its own language and taught its own literature and religion.

This, they felt, caused not only a lack of unity but a cul­ tural division among the citizens of the Empire. The

Ministry of Education sought to establish national unity with a coordinated, common educational program with a com­ mon language of instruction and a uniform course of study.

Strong protests were made by the Greek and Armenian patriarchs and by the Bulgarian exarch in opposition to a common educational program, which was viewed by them as an infringement upon their time-honored independence, since they had been given control over their own schools under the millet system established by Mehmed the Conqueror in 1^53.

Apparently the officers of Robert College feared that this governmental change in the educational program might be disturbing to them also.

There was a special Faculty meeting this after­ noon. The matter for consideration was the special body of instructions sent out to educational insti­ tutions by the Turkish authorities. Those instruc­ tions in many parts can not square up with the charter of the college and should the authorities seek to enforce them to the letter, the college must close or modify its original reason for 81

existence. . . . Dr. Gates made a brief statement concerning the present situation In connection with the new proposals of the Turkish government concerning foreign schools. Certain rather drastic and inconveniencing proposals have been made, but the authorities at present seem to be inclined to exempt American s c h o o l s . 112

This governmental acceptance of the neutrality of Robert

College evidently survived the successive changes in the imperial government. The new Minister of Education co­ ordinated the educational programs of the various communi­ ties so that the needs of the Empire might better be served, but apparently left Robert College untouched.

In 1915 a government rule specified that attendance at religious services in schools should not be required and that propaganda was forbidden in schools. The express pur­ pose of this rule was to protect students from any influ­ ences which might cause them to forsake the faith of their fathers. For a while, the government seemed satisfied with the procedure followed at Robert College where separate

Christian and Muslim services were held under the religious leadership of their respective teachers. Later, the government Intensified the restrictive pressure by elimi­ nating all religion from official schools and by holding that all foreign schools should be secularized; but this requirement was unpalatable to the officers of the College.

The administration of Robert College, however, felt that it must be loyal to its charter and

112E. J. Fisher, op. cit. , Dec. 1. 82

believed that the maintenance of a religious atmos­ phere was essential to the formation of good character.1*3

Thus wrote Dr. Gates in later years, and even then he re­ frained from admitting what eventually happened; but Dean

Scipio wrote more bluntly:

President Gates made strong objections to the Minister of Education because of the interference with our system. The reply, however, was that religion could not be taught in our public schools in the United States and that they could not under­ stand why we insisted on doing in their country, what we were not permitted to do in our own. Thus, the practice of many years came to an end,**^

It would seem, nevertheless, that a very friendly and work­ able relationship continued to exist between Robert College and the Turkish government, even under those trying condi­ tions :

The exigencies of war continued to take their toll In our College circle. In January, 1915, Professor Van Millingen was obliged to leave the country. Although a British subject, he and about a dozen others of like status who were connected with the College had been allowed to remain In Turkey, thanks to a remarkably lenient arrangement made with the government through the American embassy.**5

As was previously pointed out, the reins of govern­ ment had fallen Into the hands of a triumvirate of Young

Turks. The three men constituted the directorate of the

Society of Union and Progress; and of the three, Talaat

**^Gates, op. cit. , p. 196. T "I il Scipio, op. cit., p. 102.

*^Gates , op . ci t. , p. 212. 83 Pasha was the most influential leader of this secret organi­ zation which controlled the Ottoman Empire. The trium­ virate was composed of novices in the art of governing; and as a result of the crushing defeat Turkey had suffered in the

Balkan War of 1913, these leaders easily fell under the influence of Germany.

In November, 1913, in response to Turkey’s request, the Germans sent General Liman von Sanders with a sizable staff of German officers to reorganize the army of Turkey.

This stirred up an international storm. The animosity displayed was interpreted by Turkish leaders as so much opposition to Turkey’s assuming charge of her own national defense. It provoked a spirit of corresponding opposition in military circles and gave Enver Bey, the dashing young officer, now called a national hero, a pretext for seizing the Ministry of War In January, 191^, and carrying out the contemplated military reforms in more radical fashion. The army was again 'purified'; hundreds of generals and higher officers were put on the retired list, and such higher com­ mands were given to younger o f f l e e r s .

When the Archduke Pranz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated and war broke out between England, Prance,

Serbia, and Russia on one side and Germany and the Austro-

Hungarian Empire on the other, sentiments in Turkey regard­ ing the war were varied, A great majority of influential people sincerely felt that neutrality was in the best inter­ est of the Empire since economically and militarily it was

Impoverished to the degree that undertaking a world war

11^Emin, op . cit., p. 57, 84 would result In national disaster. The liberal element of the Empire trained In French and British intellectual circles naturally favored the Entente. They made this choice with reservation, however, for that alliance included the tradi­ tional Ottoman enemy, Russia. The group that had decision­ making power, composed of the triumvirate, the Society of

Union and Progress, and the hard core of army officers were strongly inclined toward the Central Powers.

On August 2, 1914, Enver Pasha, the Minister of War, and Baron von Waggenheim, the German Ambassador, persuaded the triumvirate to enter into a secret alliance with Ger­ many whereby each nation was to assist the other. Turkey, at this time, was undecided regarding actual participation in the war; but deeper involvement followed soon after the arrival of the German cruisers Goben and Breslau in the

Straits on August 9, 1914. The Turkish government was reported to have "purchased" the warships to strengthen her fleet but very few were deceived by this admission.

Conditions in Turkey are ominous indeed. . . . The German influence here is absolute and the Ottoman government appears to be under German control completely. The Goeben and the Breslau„ two cruisers supposedly Turkish, are being manned by German crews and supported by funds from the German Embassy.-^?

The German High Command, with Enver Pasha's permis­ sion used the two cruisers to bring Turkey into the war on

H ^ E „ J. Fisher, op. cit. , Sept. 27. October 28, 1914, by having them shell Sevastopol and Odessa.

A week later, Russia, followed by Prance and England, de­ clared war on the Ottoman Empire. "Even before the college opened in September, all-out mobilization had started, and this gave rise to much confusion in the school.

It is important to note that In Turkey at that time there were strong indications of disenchantment with the

Capitulations which had long extended extra territorial rights to foreign powers at the expense of the Empire. It must be remembered that the Capitulations were granted by the Ottoman government In the height of its power In the early sixteenth century to show favor to suppliant Western powers. They were also established to relieve Ottoman officials of the tedious and unworthy time-consuming task of supervising the conduct and judging the disputes of Incon­ sequential foreign Christians.

As the Ottoman Empire began to decay, the Capitula­ tions came to represent the dominating spirit of the Great

Powers who began to abuse their privileges to an unacceptable degree. The foreign powers, through the capitulations, even granted citizenship to Turkish subjects who then were under the protection of foreign courts and escaped paying taxes to

Turkey. The government of Turkey began to view the capitu­ lations as "= . . a curtailment of its sovereignty, a stigma 86 on its administrative capacity, a perpetual declaration, so to speak, of inferiority."11^

Under the Young Turks in October, 191*1» the Capitula­ tions were abrogated in order to free the Empire from

foreign domination and to establish a new Turkey based on the concept "Turkey for the Turks." This action was a further manifestation of the growing Turkish nationalism which affected not only Turkey’s relations with foreign powers, but with her subject peoples as well.

The abrogation of the Capitulations caused great apprehension among the foreigners in Turkey who foresaw unjust treatment in Turkish courts and imprisonment with no redress. The Great Powers were disturbed and protested the action because the abrogation meant the end of their profit­ able exploitation of the Ottoman Empire. Be that as it may, the Capitulations were gone; and time proved that the worries were unfounded, for the Turks did not abuse their position of authority.

Robert College was apprehensive as to what this newly acquired Turkish authority would mean to them. Ambassador

Morgenthau was assured by Enver Pasha that the American educational institutions would not be harmed. At Morgen- thau's suggestion, Enver Pasha even visited Robert College and was immensely impressed with ", . . everything he saw,

lib Sir Harry Luke, The Making of Modern Turkey. London: Macmillan and Co., Limited, 1936, p"I 87 and he even suggested that he would like to send his brother 120 there." Morgenthau later wrote:

My idea that this visit in itself would protect the colleges from disturbance proved to have been a happy one. The Turkish Empire has been a tumul­ tuous place in the last four years, 1915-1919, but the American colleges have had no difficulties, either with the Turkish Government or with the Turkish populace.1^1

By November, the significance of the magnitude of a first world war loomed large in the imagination of almost everyone. This was perhaps especially true at Robert Col­ lege in its remote location where information on the prog­ ress of the conflict was scanty, inaccurate and, at best, not authenticated. At this early stage of the war, the government already began to enforce a strict form of cen­ sorship even on oral expression:

Persistent rumours seem to indicate that the English are bombarding the forts at the Dardanelles. So far as real news is concerned we are practically isolated. A notice posted in the village warns the people not to mention or discuss the war. A viola­ tion of this injunction will result, it says, in the culprit being taken to the police and pounded with a broomstick.122

By this time, Turkey was fully committed and her in­ volvement delighted both Enver Pasha and Germany. Enver envisioned himself as a second Napoleon who would finally have the opportunity to reconquer Egypt from the English.

120 Morgenthau, op . cit ., p. 119.

121Ibid., p. 120.

-*-22E. J. Fisher, op. cit. , Nov. 6. 88

Germany was pleased, for she Identified Turkey with the in­ volvement of the entire Moslem world.

Although the Turks were unaware of it at the time, it became obvious after World War I was underway that the

Germans were using Turkey to further German world objectives with utter disregard of Turkish interests. Morgenthau re­ lates a significant conversation between the German Ambas­ sador Waggenheim and himself:

In the early days Wangenheim [sic] had explained to me one of Germany’s main purposes in forcing Turkey into the conflict . . . he unfolded Germany's scheme to arouse the whole fanatical Moslem world against the Christians. Germany had planned a real 'holy war' as one means of destroying English and French influence in the world. 'Turkey herself is not the really important matter,' said Wangenheim. 'Her army is a small one, and we do not expect it to do very much. For the most part it will act on the defensive. But the big thing is the Moslem world. If we can stir the Mohammedans up against the English and Russians, we can force them to make p e a c e . *123

In the Sultan's declaration of war Issued on November

13, 191^, he appealed for a Jihad, or a Holy War, against the infidel. This action was reinforced by the Shaykh al-

Islam (Leader of Islam) in his published proclamation summoning the entire Moslem world to arise and destroy their

Christian oppressors. The following extract of the conclu­ sion of this document will fairly well portray its spirit:

'Oh, Moslems!. . . Ye who are smitten with happiness and are on the verge of sacrificing your life and your goods for the cause of right, and of iraving

^^Morgenthau, o p . ci t. , p. l6l. 89

perils, gather now around the Imperial throne, obey the commands of the Almighty, who, in the Koran, promises us bliss in this and in the next world; embrace ye the foot of the Caliph's throne and know ye that the state isat war with Russia, England, Prance, and their allies, and that these are the enemies of Islam. The Chief of the believers, the Caliph, invites you all as Moslems to join the Holy War!'^2^

Coincidental with the circulation of the above offi­

cial public document calling for a Holy War in a general way, another supplementary paper giving the faithful more specific instructions was also disseminated in all of the

Muslim countries. This particular document citing Koranic reference as authority charged every Muslim to kill at

least three or four of the infidels and be rewarded by God

for so doing. It is Interesting to note that the infidel

Germans and Austrians are exempted from the proposed massacre, apparently exonerated from being the enemies of

God and of the faith.

Pan-Islamism, with Its call for a Holy War, failed to materialize because the Ideas of nationalism and local In­ terests proved to be more enticing than the Turkish appeal for pure religious unity. Pan-Islamism failed drastically in Mecca, the spiritual center of Islam, where the Arabs

fell under the influence of England and joined the cause of the Entente. The call for a Holy War In such Muslim coun­ tries as India, Java, Morocco, Tunis, Iran, Egypt, Algeria,

12^Ibid. 90

Sudan and Tunis was received as ridiculous since the Caliph was allied with Christian Germany and Austria.

"With the formal entry of Turkey into the war German domination over Turkish actions and affairs became para- mount."125 The army of Turkey was directed by General von Sanders and her navy was under the command of Germany's

Admiral Aouchon. It was General von Sanders who started the deportations of the Armenians by removing all of them from the vicinity of the railroads and the coast in order to prevent sabotage.

While the course of World V/ur I was unfolding in the Middle East and shattering the Ottoman Empire, two national groups within the state openly aided the enemy. These were the Arabs and the Armenians.

Even Ambassador Morgenthau, who apparently had little respect or sympathy for the Turks as a people, admitted almost re­ luctantly that it must be true that some Armenian soldiers deserted Turkey and joined the Russian army. The dislike

Morgenthau^^ hacj for the Turks is manifested by the many bigoted generalities found in his writings such as: ". . . the dull-witted and lazy Turks. . "The Turk is

125s, N, Fisher, o p , cit.., p. 3^3-

126I b l d ., p. 365.

12 ^Morgenthau, who was of ,h.*wi sh extraction, seemingly could not tolerate the mistreatment of a minority race; and consequently, his writings appear* to reflect his emotional unhappiness conditioned by his personal involvement in this Turkish tragedy. 1 p Q Morgenthau, op. cit., p. Rib. 91 psychologically primitive. . .,l129, "Essentially the Turk is a bully and a coward. . . "13°, and "... the perversity of the Turkish mind."'*'31

Some of the Armenian deserters mentioned by Morgen­ thau who became soldiers of Russia returned to Turkey and were guilty of "massacring Turks in the eastern vilayets."132

It might be assumed that the Armenians in Istanbul and the western cities of the Ottoman Empire were, for the most part, loyal citizens; while most Armenians in eastern Turkey were like those Westernized Armenian radicals who rebelled against Turkey and fought for Russia. In some of the eastern rlgions, the rebellious Armenians were responsible for the death of entire Muslim populations of certain dis­ tricts . The revolt succeeded in Van to the degree that in

April, 1915, an Armenian government was proclaimed in that region. This situation could not be tolerated by the Turk­ ish government in Van in view of its contiguous position to

Russia.

As a counter rebellion and for security measures, the

Turkish government began the massacres and deportations of

129Ibid., p. 270.

13°Ibld.. p. 295.

131Ibid., p. 337.

l32Edib, Turkey Faces West, p. 142. 92

1915 and 1916. The plan called for moving the Armenians south into the Syrian desert where they supposedly could not aid the enemy. In the resulting exposure, starvation and mistreatment, approximately half a million Armenians 13 3 perished.

This brutal action against an Industrious Christian people shocked the world, and even the Turks In general considered the severity of the "security measure" a blot on the history of Turkey. The officials of Robert College daily attempted to stop the deportations by appealing to the Turkish government and the American Ambassador, but to no avail.

Ambassador Morgenthau, who had relentlessly inter­ ceded without success to the Turkish government on behalf of the Armenians, finally received this determined response from Talaat Pasha after the deportations were three-fourths complete:

'I have asked you to come today . . . so that I can explain our position on the whole Armenian sub­ ject. We base our objections to the Armenians on three distinct grounds. In the first plape, they have enriched themselves at the expense of £he Turks. In the second place, they are determined to domineer over us and to establish a separate state. In the third place, they have openly en­ couraged our enemies. They have assisted the Russians In the Caucasus and our failure there Is largely explained by their actions. We have therefore come to the irrevocable decision that

n . Fisher, op. ci t. , p. 3 66. 93

we shall make them powerless before this war Is e n d e d . 113*1

At a later date, Talaat made the proud boast: ”'1 have accom­ plished more toward solving the Armenian problem in three months than Abdul Hamid accomplished in thirty years!1"^35

At Robert College during the massacres and deporta­ tions, the Armenian students seemed to enjoy a position of sanctuary just as they had in the time of the Hamidian massacres. No mention was made in the writings of President

Gates or in the diary of Dr. Edgar J. Fisher of any

Armenian student of the College being molested during this time. The College was apparently not a place of refuge for

Armenian non-students for Gates reports:

Thirteen Armenian servants of the College were taken by the police, to be sent to the interior. I did all I could to prevent it, but my efforts wore in vain. While in prison, they were robbed of whet mon p e r i s h e d «^ 3 -

While the Armenian deportations were being carried out, Turkey was very concerned about the possibility of the

Allied fleets attempting to force the Straits. Turkey realized that it was necessary for the Allies to accomplish this in order to provide an open supply line between Russia in the Hast and England and Franco in the West, It was

1 - > ii J 'Morgentuau, o p . cit., p. 337. 13 ^Ib1d. , p. 3^2.

^•^(jates , op . clt. , p. 21 7, 94 obvious, however, to even the most naive strategist, that this task could not be accomplished by fleet action alone but would require that the Allied Armies conquer and hold the land on both sides of the Straits . This was the reason for the Gallipoli Campaign early in 1915 in which the com­ bined Anglo-French army forced a landing on the Gallipoli

Peninsula.

Ip the closing months of 1915, the outcome of the

Gallipoli expedition was truly in the hands of Bulgaria.

If Bulgaria aligned herself with Turkey and the Central

Powers, the Gallipoli landing would fail; and it would appear that if she remained neutral or joined forces with the Allies, they would succeed on the Peninsula. The pre­ eminent importance of her decision at this time cannot be overemphasized for Bulgaria actually held the duration of

World War I in its hands.

In this game of international politics then being played in the Balkans, there were two great prizes strongly desired by Bulgaria and Russia. Bulgaria was determined to have Macedonia returned to her since it w a s , in the

Bulgarian view, Bulgarian by race, language and tradition.

The general Bulgarian view seemed to be that Bulgaria had won Macedonia in the first Balkan war and that the Powers- had unjustly permitted most of that territory to fall under the control of Greece and Serbia. The second great prize in 95 the Balkan area was Instanbul and control of the Straits which had long been the desire of Russia. Bulgaria had no objection to having Russia claim her prize if she herself 137 could regain Macedonia.

Bulgaria realized that she was in an excellent bar­ gaining position and listened carefully to hear what each side would offer her. Serbia refused to give Bulgaria the

immediate possession of Macedonia while Turkey agreed to give her a coveted piece of the Ottoman Empire. This block of territory consisted of approximately one-thousand square miles and contained several important cities, including one- naif of Adriqnople. This land was especially important because it was a projection of Turkish land into Bulgaria that contained close to fifty miles of railroad which then completed the Bulgarian railroad from Sofia to the Aegean

Sea.

The gift cf this land by Turkey to Bulgaria was of groat, strategic significance for on September 7, 1915,

Bulgaria became the ally of the Central Powers. With this action, the entire picture of the war took on a different b u. for it insured the Allied defeat at the Dardanelles; and at the same time, it eliminated the great allied poten-

f Russi an power as a vital factor in the war. The

Bulgarian alliance with the Central Powers, coupled with

^3 ^Morgenthau, o p . ci t. , p. 268. 96

the occupation of Serbia, gave the Powers a direct railroad

connection between Germany and Instanbul by January of 1916, which facilitated the movement of supplies and ammunitions and prolonged the war.

The Bulgarian negotiations had an adverse effect on

the enrollment of Robert College as early as May of 1915 as

Morgenthau indicates:

. . . the Bulgarian Minister, had notified Robert College that the Bulgarian students could not remain until the end of the college year, but would have to return home by June 5th. The Constantinople College for Women [now part of Robert College] had also received word that all the Bulgarian girls must return at the same time. Both these American institutions had many Bul­ garian students, in most cases splendid represen­ tatives of their country; it is through these colleges, indeed, that the distant United States and Bulgaria had established such friendly rela­ tions . 138

Professor Edgar J. Fisher observes that as a result of the military call-up of Balkan and Turkish youth, the classes at Robert College were down to one-half of their original size. Late in May, he wrote, "Some of the Bulgarian seniors are leaving college today . . . to return to their homes. The Bulgarian fellows of military age have been sent for."^39 The next day, he wrote, "We learn today that all the Robert College Bulgarian boys will leave for home next

138ibid. , pp. 265-266.

•1-39e . J, Fisher, op. cl t . , May 28, 1915. 97 week."^® In June, he commented:

It seems so unfortunate that It it is necessary for so many of the fellows to go before commence­ ment but how thankful we should be to God that through his guidance the college has not been Interfered with more than it has been this year, and that the work has been carried practically to the end.1 i

Even In expressing this regret, Professor Fisher is indi­ cating once again the excellent relationship which existed between Robert College and the Turkish government. This relationship was all the more remarkable when It is realized that the United States was at that time providing England and France with ammunition and other war supplies used to destroy Turkish life and bring about her military defeat.

In the first counter attack on the Allied Army, the

Turkish forces, with some German officers, inflicted ex­ tremely heavy losses on the invading army and forced their withdrawal in January of 1916. Turkey was elated with her victory at Gallipoli, but it came at the price of many wounded who began to pour Into Instanbul from the early days of the campaign.

It Is said that there are more than *10,000 wounded soldiers in the city. The people here In Hissar are busy making bandages, because many soldiers would go pnpt,tended because of the lack of bandages.1^2

1/t0Tbid. , May 29.

lJ*^Ibld. , June 1.

lil2Ibid. , May 13- 98

Again Robert College proved itself to be a friend of Turkey

by helping the Red Crescent care for the wounded Turkish

soldiers. In Instanbul,

Emergency hospitals were improvised, but there was a great lack of doctors and nurses. Men and women from the College responded to calls for help, and, after taking lessons in bandaging from the College physician, they went regularly to the hospitals

Robert College remained open under war time condi­

tions although the war began to complicate the normal col­

lege routine. One of the first effects of war was a teacher

shortage in certain subject areas caused by the teachers

being called to military service or by their deportation

because of national background. This problem was further

aggravated by the public statement of the German Ambassador

in Washington implying that all the American institutions in

Turkey would immediately be closed in the event of war between the United States and Turkey. This remark caused

the Robert College Board of Trustees in America to doubt whether the College would be permitted to continue oper­

ations, and accordingly they were at first reluctant to

send to Turkey even teachers previously engaged. The

optimistic response from the Administration of the College

to the Trustees, reporting that while conditions were dark

and discouraging they were far from hopeless, convinced

the Trustees that they should send the needed teachers. In

■'■^Gates, op. cit. , p. 214. 99 the event that action would have been rejected by the trus­ tees, President Gates had developed the alternative plan of attempting to obtain teachers from the interior.

Also, as the war went on, it had dire effects on the economic situation, as reflected in the lowering of the standard of living in Turkey and at the College as well.

The coal supply to Turkey was drastically reduced because of the presence of the Russian Navy in the Black Sea. This caused the College as well as most Turks to use wood instead of coal for fuel. The prices of such commodities as coal, charcoal and oil became so excessively high that even the rich were shocked by them. The same situation existed in regard to sVjplee such as sugar, flour, coffee, rice and matches, where the prices were so exorbitant that the mar­ ginal villagers were plunged into abject poverty.

It would appear that the government lacked the neces­ sary knowledge and experience to cope with the economic situation:

The general attitude of the Government toward the economic problems created by the War was one of helplessness. Whenever things became too alarm­ ing some violent, Impulsive course was followed. It generally lasted only a few weeks; and sometimes, its impracticability becoming too apparent, it was supplanted by another experiment. All such experi­ menting, too, was done in the dark, and without any knowledge of the actual facts. At times examples set by Germany were imitated in an Imper­ fect way; on other occasions the most perfect system

l44Ibid., p. 217. 100

was devised on paper without any thought as to the means and ways of carrying it out. ^ 5

The prevalent governmental incompetency did little to alle­

viate the conditions of deprivation existing in the cities

and villages throughout Turkey. The Robert College village

of Rumeli Hissar was no exception in that its poor were

receiving inadequate aid from ineffectual governmental

policies. In response to the villagers' distress,

. . . The Robert College Community founded the Hissar Charitable Society which gave milk to children a,nd food to families, provided work for widows and medical care for the sick, making no discrimination, of course, between Christians and Moslems. 3-^6

The work of charity conducted by Robert College was

quite confusing to Talaat Pasha who at first thought that

the money came from America. Talaat did not wish his

people to receive any monetary aid In the form of a subsidy

from the United States government; for even though diplo­ matic relations were not broken at that time, they were definitely strained. When Talaat Pasha was Informed that the money for the relief of the poor of the village of

Rumeli Hissar was coming from the people of Robert College and from certain private philanthropists in America, he raised no more objections. In fact, he permitted the Hissar

Charitable Society to carry on an even more extensive relief

ll45Emin, op. cit. , p. 111.

■^^Gates, op. cit. , p. 218. 101 lM7 program. Robert College as a social Institution was accepted as being an integral part of the Turkish community, while the United States as a nation was rejected from play­ ing any part in this matter.

Early in the war, when flour became scarce in Turkey,

Robert College obtained all it needed from Bulgaria and the

Turkish government promised not to impound the flour when the train carrying it reached Turkey.

Sometime later the shipment arrived, and the Turkish government fulfilled its engagement not to confiscate the supplies. We were much im­ pressed with the leniency of both governments in this matter; on the part of the Turks it was one of many instances in which they showed their favor to the College when they might easily have created difficulties, and the Bulgarians in high office frequently reiterated their desire to help us . ^ °

The wartime shortage of flour was for the time being remedied by the immediate cooperation between Robert Col­ lege and the two nations whose youth this institution had so long and diligently served. The College bakery soon con­ verted the flour to bread that was made available to the students as well as to the Turkish village community.

After their success against the Allied armies at the

Dardanelles, the Turks became noticeably chauvinistic especially in their relationships with foreigners. At this juncture, the future of Robert College again seemed in doubt

1^7Ibid., p. 218.

lt|8Ibld. , p . 22Q . 102 because some Turks began to think In terms of terminating the activities of all foreign schools in Turkey. As a

Turkish historian and war correspondent of that time points o u t :

An aggressive nationalism developed during the War as a reaction against pre-war economic privileges accorded to foreigners. The slogan 'Turkey for the Turks' included all opportunities to earn money in Turkey. . . . These new ideas of 'economic Turkism' provided for the creation of a Turkish commercial class.

The first overt manifestations of this new national­ ism, or anti-foreign attitude, came in the form of daily police visits to the campus based on various pretexts.

Several lawsuits against the college followed, contesting its clear title to the land and buildings it occupied. All attempts of this nature were unsuccessful due, in part, to the tireless efforts of Ambassador Morgenthau to protect

American interests, and, in major part, to the policy of

Robert College to avoid political entanglements and at the same time render great service to Turkey by educating her y ou t h .

In one instance, the Turkish police visted the campus to demand that the windows of the College buildings be blacked out at night to prevent any signals being given to the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

Dr. Gates mentioned this evening that the police had requested the Robert College lights be left

^^Emin, op. cit. , pp. 113-11^. 103 out or so arranged that they will not be seen after dark, because the buildings were set so high upon a hill, and were hence very prominent. The police did not intend that the regulation should apply to the houses in the valley or out­ side of the College grounds.150

This order was a legitimate wartime security precaution which was complied with without complaint by the College or further pressure from the Turkish authorities.

Early in 1916, Robert College received the regret­ table information that Ambassador Morgenthau was resigning his post in Turkey in order to assist President Wilson with his campaign for reelection in America. His leaving at that critical time seemed particularly unfortunate for he had won the confidence of the Turkish government and enjoyed a prestige which no new Ambassador could immediately com­ mand. The leaders of Turkey acknowledged that they had al­ ways found the Ambassador fair even though they strongly disagreed with certain positions he had taken. They always respected American policy in Turkey as he had represented 1^1 it, however.

President Gates, in a conversation with the Ambassa­ dor, recalled the chauvinistic words of the Chief of Police who had said, "'If Mr. Morgenthau goes, the first thing we will do will be to close Robert College. 1" The President's

^-^E. J. Fisher, op . cit. , May 6.

^5lMc>rgenthau, op. cit. , p. 391.

1^2Gates, op. cit., p. 224. 104 fear that the College would be closed, based as It was on the irresponsible remark of a civil servant, could later be discounted, for the statement did not reflect the opinions of the Triumvirate. The position held by the leaders is clearly indicated in their parting pledge to Morgenthau:

'As to the American missionaries and colleges and schools,' said Talaat— and Enver assented— 'we give you an absolute promise. They will not be molested in the slightest degree, but can go on doing their work just the same as before. Your mind can rest easy on that score.'153

Further reassurance came at the June, 1916, commencement exercises when the Bulgarian minister told President Gates that his government would always lend its support to the

College. He also informed the Turkish officials who were present that his government would strongly protest if

Turkey should seize Robert College and the American College for Women T'. . . for the king, the government, and the people of Bulgaria loved these colleges.

At the close of the college year in 1916,

Evidence was not lacking that the Turkish govern­ ment itself was favorably disposed toward the Col­ lege. They had granted several requests that we had made. They allowed the graduates of our Engineering School to be examined by our profes­ sors in our own halls, and the minister of instruc­ tion had been courteous to us.^55

153[viorgenthau, op. cit . , p. 391.

^-^Gates , op . ci t. , p. 226. 105

Fortunately, the Ambassadorship vacated by Morgenthau

was filled by Abram Elkus In September of 1916. Ambassador

Elkus was a noted New York lawyer, knowledgeable in Turkish

history and possessed of a remarkable personality which

quickly won the respect and friendship of the Turks. He

continued the fine work of Morgenthau in defending and pro­

tecting the American colleges. The position of the American

educational institutions in Turkey became more precarious,

however, on April 6, 1917, when the United States declared war on Germany. The rumor quickly circulated that in

retaliation Turkey would soon declare war on the United

States. Ambassador Elkus felt certain that a break with

Turkey was in the offing, and on April 20, 1917, diplomatic

relations between Turkey and the United States were

severed. Elkus assumed that Robert College would be closed

and he advised the faculty to leave before they were in­

terned in a concentration camp. About a week later, a

Turkish officer appeared at the College with orders signed

by Enver Pasha, Minister of War, to take possession of some

of the College buildings to be used as a military hospital.

TL j s order was based on previous governmental instructions which, a few weeks later, were countermanded by the Turkish

cabinet which decided not to close Robert College.

In the southwestern corner of the Empire, another

American educational institution, the Syrian Protestant

College, experienced similar wartime difficulties. This 106

Institution also had proved itself a friend of the people of the Empire. During the war years, the Syrian College (later renamed the American University of Beirut), was under the administration of Dr. Howard Bliss, son of the founding president. The College came under a heavy strain from many directions. The new Educational Law of the Turkish govern­ ment had proclaimed that the study of the Turkish language was required for all Ottoman subjects, and that Turkish geography and history were to be taught in all educational

Institutions. This law could be complied with; but there were, besides, numberless regulations and rules dealing with registration, travel permits from Bierut, military service for students, blacking-out of University windows facing the

Mediterranean Sea, disuse of all telegraph equipment, as well as limitations on purchase of food. The confusion in

Beirut, as In Istanbul, was amplified by the threat of a

Holy War against all Christians, and by the reduction of the student body, the shortage of instructors, and drastic deficiency of supplies.

President Dodge of the American University wrote concerning his predecessor,

He followed a policy of being so honest with the Turks that they trusted him. His progressive re­ ligious ideals bore fruit, as the College gained the confidence of^the Muslim community, in spite of the Holy War.^°

156gayar£j Dodge, The American University of Beirut - A Brief History. Beirut": Khay at1 s , 1958, p"! M2 . 107 On April 22, 1917, the news reached Lebanon that the

United States had entered the war against Germany and had severed diplomatic relations with Turkey. The Vail (gover­ nor of the province), Azmi Bey, closed the College for a period of two weeks after which he allowed the institution to resume normal operations. The Ottoman leniency in this situation appears to be conditioned on the fact that the

United States had decided not to declare war on Turkey. This prudent act of the American government saved an already bad situation from becoming intolerable.

All through the War, the medical mission of the in­ stitution rendered a tremendous service to the Ottoman government, as the University proudly stated in later years:

During the Great War, Ahmed Jemal Pasha, com­ mander of the Fourth Army Corps, and Viceroy of Palestine and Syria, kept the College open, as he found that graduates of the Medical School were the only doctors in his army willing to take charge of typhus wards and to work close to the front lines.157

The Syrian College, like Robert College, in this time of crisis gave aid to the destitute people of their area by organizing soup kitchens,conducting an orphange and, in general, by providing extensive relief through the College hospital.

^■57^mer^can University of Beirut, American Univer­ sity of Beirut, description of its organization and work. American University of Beirut, Autumn7 193^, P~i 108

The two American institutions, in a time of national

disaster and when their own needs were the greatest, gave

unselfishly of their time and material goods to alleviate

the wretched conditions of the hopeless people of the

Ottoman Empire. It strongly appears that this unselfish,

continual commitment by the American University of Beirut * and Robert College to serve the needs of the Empire endeared

them to the Turks and that this endearment was reflected in

Turkish tolerance, understanding, and acceptance of the

institutions.

With diplomatic relations severed between the United

States and Turkey, Ambassador Elkus was recalled to America and the Swedish minister served as the official link between

Robert College and the Turkish government. In practice, this official channel was by-passed by President Gates who preferred to deal directly with the leaders of the govern­ ment .

In August, 1917, the Turkish government declared that the Robert College district of Rumeli Hissar was a war zone and all enemy aliens must vacate the area. President Gates appealed directly to Talaat Pasha for permission to allow

College-connected personnel to remain in the zone. Shortly thereafter, an official "order was issued that belligerents connected with Robert College might remain in their homes 109 and In their positions.m158 Gates was pleased, and felt that the policies of the College were vindicated by this order:

I have often asked myself how it came to pass that in such extraordinary circumstances, when the United States was at war with Turkey’s ally and when, under pressure from Germany, Turkey had broken off diplomatic relations with our country, the American college in Constantinople, Smyrna, and Beirut were anomalously allowed to continue. British and French schools had been closed and occupied by the Turks. People in the city said that it was a miracle that Robert College was still open. I feel that the only possible explanation of this remarkable toler­ ance was that the Turks were convinced of American political disinterestedness, that they knew we were not conducting any political propaganda, and that they valued the education which we were giving to their youth.159

But perhaps the military events of 1917 were also a guiding factor.

In January, 1917, President Wilson's peace message to the American Senate had been published in full In the

Ottoman newspaper. The President spoke of a peace with honor accomplished through understandings and sacrifices on both rides in order to achieve a lasting peace based upon the highest moral grounds. The fact that the message was published seemed to a professor at the College to indicate that the Central Powers felt tnat they held the initiative at the time and, therefore, would not show interest in peace overtures until the Allies achieved a decisive military

o p . clt., p. 237. 110 victory.1^0 Such a victory came within a few months.

In the summer of 1917, the German-Turkish campaign of

Yilderim failed and this resulted in the British and French forces taking over the Levant. The war was going from bad to worse for Turkey, and unmistakable signs of exhaustion and breakdown were clearly visible. Mustafa Kemal Pasha, the commander of a Turkish army, in a confidential report to the Minister of War, Enver Pasha, said on September 20,

1917: There are no bonds left between the Government and the people. If the War lasts much longer, the whole structure of Government and dynasty, decrepit In all its parts, may suddenly fall to pieces. Our army Is very weak. Most of the formations are now reduced to one-fifth of their prescribed strength.

By the summer of 1918, the number of army desertions grew to more than 500,000, and neither offers of amnesty nor extremely severe punishments could reverse this revolt against the war and the way it was conducted. Bulgaria sued for an armistice on September 29, 1918, after receiving a crushing defeat by the Allied Armies on the Salonica front. The Allied occupation of the Balkans which followed t h i s victory severed the military and economic lifeline between Turkey and Germany.

By October 9, 1918, the Turkish Minister of the In­ terior retired, the entire war cabinet resigned, and a new

l60E. J. Fisher, op. cit. , Jan. 25, 1917.

l^Emin, o p . cit. . pp. 262-263. Ill cabinet was established under Izzet Pasha. On October 30,

1918, on a ship of the British Fleet off Nudros, the new

Ottoman government of Izzet Pasha signed an armistice ending the war.

It was not an unconditional surrender; but Turkish forces were to be demobilized and the Allies were to have free access and control of the Straits. Opening the door to total Allied control was Article VII which stated: 'The Allies have the right to occupy any strategic poirts in the vent of any situation arising which threatens the security of the Allies.' Under such an article any action was allowable.

In Instanbul, the arrival of the Allied Fleet was anxiously expected. The people of Robert College hoped that the Allied occupational force would precede the arrival of the Fleet so that riots between the Greeks and the Turks could be prevented.

A report which I heard today was to the effect that there was a body of 1000 picked Greeks from different quarters of the city, who planned to take possession of St. Sophia by force, when the fleet arrives. The present Greek spirit would lead us to believe in the possibility of such an attempt being made.163

The Germans and Austrians left as fast as possible for the

Armistice called for their removal from Turkey within a month; and they were accompanied by some Turkish leaders:

The all absorbing topic of thought now is the flight of the pashas and beys, former ministers of the Cabinet, especially Enver, Talaat and Jemal Pashas.

162S. N. Fisher, op. clt. , p. 373.

163e . J. Fisher, op. cit. , Nov. 3, 1918. 112

Report has It that they escaped last Friday night on a German destroyer, having gone to the Black Sea.164

Turkey was left In a deplorable condition with extreme shortages, sickness, profiteering, unemployment, and, in general, great hardships and suffering for the masses caught in this aftermath of war; but after a generation, it was possible for a sympathetic Western historian to write:

. . . one of the more salutary [effects] for the Middle East was the presence of many British, French, Italian, and German soldiers, and their equipment. Thousands of Middle Easterners saw Westerners and their manner of living for the first time. Their machines opened a new world to Arabs and Turks. The impact of the West upon the Middle East in every facet of its living from transportation to religion was more profound and penetrating in these four war years than it had been in several centuries of contact through religious, commercial, and intel­ lectual missions from t.he West. A new age for the Middle East was born.

During the past decade of wars and short Intervals of peace, Robert College had successfully adjusted Its program and academic existence to the nationalistically oriented government of the Young Turks. Under this government, the

Armenians had been massacred and the Empire had been unsuc­ cessfully guided into a devastating world war. The Trium­ virate was no more, and Robert College awaited the advent of the Allied military government that would take Its place.

l^ibid. , Nov. 3 .

n . Fisher, o p . cit,, p. 37^. CHAPTER V

ROBERT COLLEGE UNDER THE ALLIED

MILITARY GOVERNMENT

When Che signing of the armistice off Mudros late in

1918, the war for Turkey had come to an end, and the Empire awaited with grave concern the arrival of the "conquerors."

Every citizen and Institution of the Ottoman Empire realized that the Impending Allied occupation would necessi­ tate an adjustment period of undetermined duration and degree.

The fate of the Middle East devolved then upon the several armies of occupation and, perhaps ever more Importantly, upon 'the smoke-filled rooms’ of Paris, where politicians, diplomats, statesmen, generals, journalists, and represen­ tatives of every special interest gathered to make peace,

An armistice i s generally thought of as the first step / toward peace; however, Halide Edlb, who played a prominent role in the Nationalist Revolution under Mustafa Kemal

Pasha from 1910 tr later wrote:

The Armistice of 1918 between Turkey and the A1 j1e 1 vas only an introduction to another war. The r t; t t ns,; i Empire died with it. The Ottomans

„ Pieher, The Middle East . . . , p. 376.

113 114

passed away forever during the great struggle which it created.

The war to which Edib refers was the Greek invasion of

Turkey instigated by the Allies and successfully repelled by

the Turkish Nationalists under Mustafa Kemal.

On November 13, 1918, a combined Allied fleet entered

the newly opened Dardanelles and steamed up the Bosphorus

to anchor off Istanbul. Several days before the arrival of

the anticipated Allied Fleet, a vast array of Greek flags as well as the flags of other dissatisfied minority groups were

flown to welcome the fleet; and as might be expected, no

Turkish flags were unfurled.168

It is of significance to observe the tactful, diplo­ matic action of Robert College In regard to the flying of nationalistic flags at that time. The President of Robert

College, upon witnessing the flags In Istanbul, showed his concern for the Turkish people in the following words:

I . . . sent word to all our families— Greek, English, and American— not to display any flag until the American flag should be seen on Hamlin Hall. The people among whom we lived were In trouble. They had been kind to us In our difficulties, when they were in power, and it would not be seemly now to flaunt their humiliation in their faces. There would be time enough to display flags to greet the Allied fleet when it should arrive.169

l^Edib, Turkey Faces West, p. 158.

16 8g> j m FiSher, Diary, Nov. 13, 1918.

l69Gates, Not To Me Only, p. 245. 115 It would appear* that this exhibition of Christianity in action by Robert College was just one of many similar incidents that served to enhance the character of the

College in the eyes of the Turkish people. This act of kindness and respect shown by Robert College to a nation in the despair of her defeat would be remembered and amplified as an act of wisdom and friendship when in the future she regained her sovereignty.

There was no doubt at that time that the Allies would be in control of all aspects of the Ottoman Empire for some time to come including all educational affairs. President

Gates was obviously anxious to develop friendly relations immediately with the powers that would soon administer the affairs of Turkey. Professor Fisher has this to say:

Dr. Gates appointed me chairman of a Committee at College to arrange for entertaining the officers and men of the Allied fleet when it arrives. We had a meeting this evening at six o ’clock, and discussed preliminary plans. The big function that we want to arrange for is an all day round of functions, including ath­ letic functions, lunch, tea, musical, dinner and a dance. This will be a College holiday.i'0

Thus it would appear that the President of Robert College by his diplomatic action sought to assure understanding and cooperation with the new Allied Military Government that hopefully would facilitate the administration of the insti­ tution in the days ahead.

•^°E. J. Fisher, op. cit. , Nov. *1. 116

President Gates was concerned about the great task of reconstruction so vitally necessary after the end of hostilities. Turkey was a picture of Impoverishment with hundreds of thousands of homes destroyed, orphans to care for, and distressed families of Turkish soldiers lost in the war who were In urgent need of help. A second concern of President Gates was that the defeated Turks would have no one to speak in their behalf and consequently would not receive fair treatment from the Allies. Gates described his concern with these two problems thus:

I thought It only right that whatever could be said for the Turks should be given a fair hearing. Wisdom Is shown in kindness to a defeated people. With this Intent I wrote to Cleveland H. Dodge, president of our board and then treasurer of the Near East Relief, in regard to the attitude to be observed toward the Turks. The American Institu­ tions In Turkey had great reason for gratitude to the Ottoman government for the kindly treatment that had been accorded to them. The Turks had given clear proof of their desire to maintain friendly relations with the United States, and in this crisis they hoped that the United States would manifest a like disposition toward Turkey.1?1

The Near East Relief organization had been incorpor­ ated In the United States in 1915- This organization did much during and following World War I to alleviate the suf­ fering In Turkey and other Middle East countries which were in need of relief and rehabilitation. Much of this aid was provided in the form of orphanages, soup kitchens, support of education, medical and surgical assistance, housing, as well as

^■^Gates, op. cit. , p. 2^9. 117 clothing the destitute all at an expenditure of over

$116,000,000 during a fifteen year period. ’’The organiza­ tion maintained a policy of strict neutrality and the dis­ tribution of its beneficences was according to needs, irrespective of race or creed.

Although the policy of neutrality followed by Near

East Relief and by Robert College would seem to be fair and

Just, the Nationalists of Turkey felt that they could not look with favor upon the work of Near East Relief. Two years after the Armistice, when Turkey was still wracked by the continuing war, Dr. Fisher wrote in his Diary:

When Colonel Coombs of the Near East Relief sought to go to the interior a week before last, he got as far as Samson. From there a communication was sent to the Kemalist government at Angora asking for permission to go to the interior. A telegram was received by Colonel Coombs stating that this permission could not be given because his govern­ ment (U.S.) had not recognized the Nationalist government, his government was allied with the nations that were forcing the Sevres Treaty upon Turkey, and because American relief was given to the Armenians especially, people who were, and are, the chief enemies of the Tur^s.l!!l73

Despite any narrow, Nationalist view of the matter, Robert

College, through her affiliation with the Near East Relief, had proved herself to be a loyal and valued friend to destitute people of the Ottoman Empire of whatever creed.

In the interest of clarity, it must be emphatically stated

172james l . Barton, Story of Near East Relief 1915- 19 30. New York: The Macmillan Co. , 1030, p~I i?Y.

1^3e . J. Fisher, Diary, Nov. 9, 1920. 118

that although the generous work of Near East Relief was

greatly appreciated by many of the Turks, the sum total of

relief it provided bore no proportion to the existing needs

of the Ottoman Empire.

The actual physical occupation of Turkey began shortly

after the arrival of the Allied Fleet in November of 1918 when the British, French, Italian, and American high com­ missioners came to Istanbul in order to assume responsibil­

ity for the four respective zones created in that city. It was agreed by the Powers that there would be established a

Turkish government with limited sovereignty, controlled by

the Allied high commissioners. A Turkish patriot points out

that this was a puppet government in all respects:

. . . the Sultan in turn had passed completely into the hands of the Allies. Although he occasionally managed to have a Government with a few members whose Integrity and patriotism were nationally known, they were utterly helpless to carry out any measures. The Sultan received orders from the Allies, and if his Government did not approve of them it had to resign and let those who were willing to carry out the instructions of the army of occupation take responsibility.1?^

The highest officials of the defeated Ottoman Empire waited placidly to have their country's future decided, but the Allies soon showed themselves Incapable and unworthy of this great opportunity and responsibility. Under the Allied military government, the Capitulations were restored and

Western concession-hunting at the expense of the "sick man

^^Edib, op. cit. , p. 167. 119 of Europe" began once more. "As the occupation proceeded, however, thoughtful Turks grew dismayed at Allied lack of justice, understanding and political wisdom."

France, Great Britain and Italy engaged In jealous rivalries and constant intrigues in concerted attempts to secure for themselves a greater share of the Ottoman Empire than had been assigned to them by secret treaties. A bitter indictment by a patriotic Turkish newspaper editor of that time seems to properly evaluate the situation:

On one point the Allied Powers agreed fully. They all wanted to destroy all Turkish social bonds, to kill the progressive spirit, to foment religious reaction, and to make of the Turks Individual slaves chained to the past.-*-7°

It was certainly inevitable that early during the occupation of Turkey, the tension of the times would be reflected In the student body of Robert College. Professor

Fisher recorded in his Dairy:

There has been a certain amount of unrest and boisterousness on the part of some students, but for the most part, considering the unsettled character of the times, it seems to me that the student body has been exceptionally well behaved. A certain critical spirit has been observed on the part of some of the older students. That perhaps is In line with the general tendency of the times to express oneself quite freely with no thoughts of restraint,177

175s . n . Fisher, op. cit. , p. 381.

l^Ahmed Emin Yalman, Turkey In My Time. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956, p. 68.

177E e J. Fisher, Diary, Nov. 21, 1918. 120

In the years from 1913 to 1918 covered in the diaries of

Professor Fisher, the impression is given that the student body was quite docile and well mannered. No remarks to the contrary are made until these words after the Allies began the occupation of Turkey in 1918:

I made several remarks to the boarding students . . . concerning the anonymous letters. Recently Professor Reymond received one, which was written In an exceedingly unjust and mean spirit.17°

There has been a considerable amount of petty thieving from some of the boarders this year, and also students have had difficulty because books would disappear from their study hall desks . . . a coat was recently stolen from a locker. . . .179

The rise In disciplinary problems at Robert College was negligible in comparison to the rapid increase in the number of crimes committed in Istanbul at that same time:

The breakdown of police control in the city seems to be almost complete, and the number nf crimes of violence that occur daily is appalling. . . and certain portions of the city are In the throws of a most lawless situation. Some criminals do not wait for nightfall before operating.

It might be conjectured that the emotional unrest conditioned by the uncertainty of the present, as well as the future for the students in particular and for the Middle East in general, was reflected in a noticeable lowering of moral standards.

1 7 8Ibid.

179i b l d ., Nov. 27.

l8oI b i d . , Dec., 7. 121

There seemed to exist in the Turkey of 1918 the feel­ ing that America was responsible for the destiny of the entire world because of her power, prestige and influence.

This was undoubtedly brought about in large part by

President Wilson's ideal of self determination as outlined in his Fourteen Points. Especially pertinent was the twelfth point which stated in essence that Turkey should be assured secure sovereignty over the truly Turkish part of the old

Ottoman Empire. With this idea in mind:

Growing numbers of Turks came to the conclusion that co-operation with America was the least dangerous and most hopeful course. Such a course would do away with the effects of the rivalries between European nations, would save Turkey from partition, and would supply expert guidance for a period of years. Halide Edib Hanim, well-known writer and courageous patriot, was the moving spirit of this project.

The Turks seemed to feel that the United States was the only power which understood their movement toward regeneration and independence. It would appear that, as the nationalist element of Turkey (the group which was later destined to form the Republic under Mustafa Kemal) began to place more and more faith in American co-operation as the only likelihood of their nation's future, the position of

Robert College among the Turks was strengthened proportion­ ally. The growing bond of friendship between Turkey and the

United States was solidified when Rear Admiral Mark L.

■^■^Yalman, op. cit. . p. 73. 122

Bristol was appointed American High Commissioner in 1919.

The Admiral was held in high esteem by the Turkish Nation­

alists, for as one of their number says of him, he was

. . . one of the few favorable outside factors against thousands of adverse ones in the first phase of the Turkish 'National Struggle.' His activities from the begipning to the end of our struggle for independent national existence amounted, in effect, to almost an informal al­ liance between Turkey and the United States. . . . Maybe the Turks, someday, will recognize Admiral Bristol as one of the heroes of their national struggle and erect a suitable monument to express their appreciation . . . this American's concern for Turkey's fate in the critical years, 1919-23, can be considered the introductory phase of Turkish-American co-operation during and after World War II and subsequently, in mutual defense against aggressive gestures by Communist Russia. 8

The President of Robert College became a very close friend of the High Commissioner, and this friendship proved to be a valuable asset to the College during the years of the

Allied occupation. Their amicable relationship is confirmed by the President:

Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol, who had been appointed American high commissioner, arrived on January 28, 1919, and visited me at the Col­ lege the next day for a conference on Turkish affairs. This was the beginning of a close and cordial cooperation between us--based on mutual respect and confidence— and of a friendship which lasted without interruption until his death in 1939.l83

The occupation of Turkey became more critical as the successive months of 1919 passed, and the people of the

l82Ibld., p . 79.

-*-88Gates, op . cl t. , p. 259- 123 Empire grew restless waiting for a Middle East peace treaty

to be signed. The Allies were unfortunately more concerned

with Germany and Austria and felt that the Ottoman Empire

could wait. In April of 1919* while Professor Fisher was

sightseeing near Yedi Koule, he was shocked to see that the

French army of occupation was destroying a portion of the

great historic wall of the city. The materials from the walls were being used to repair the road to San Stefano.

Fisher undertook to stop the outrage against this historic

ruin of the Ottoman past; and in so doing, he gained the

everlasting respect of the Turks. During a faculty meeting

at the College, Fisher reports:

I brought up the question of the demolition of the walls of the City near Yedi-Koule by the French forces, and moved that a letter of protest be sent to the French High Commissioner, and that a Committee be appointed to bring all pos­ sible pressure to bear against this vandalism. Both motions were passed.1°^

In the afternoon Professor Watson and I went to town to see the French authorities in connection with the demolition of the city walls, . . . We had determined to see especially Colonel Tonlon, the head of the military police here, for he is supposed to have an active interest in the anti­ quities of the city. Neither he nor High Commis­ sioner Defranel were at the Embassy, but we saw the Secretary of Colonel Tonlon. This offical was greatly disturbed by what we told him, and promised that the matter would be attended to speedily. He assured us that certainly it must be an underling who has carelessly been

l8i4E. J. Fisher, Diary, April 15, 1919. 124 responsible for this. We asked that Colonel Tonlon should respond to the letter.

The Paris Peace Conference convened in May, 1919, and

the President of Robert College planned to attend in order

to convey his views to the American delegates opposing the division of Turkey. Professor Fisher indicates that Dr.

Gates wished:

. , . to tell them his conclusions after his recent trip to the interior. His idea that the whole Turkish Empire should be under strong European control and not be divided into dif­ ferent national parts, has caused a storm of protest among the Armenians in the city but especially at the College. He even induced a strike of employees of the College. The idea of a large independent Armenia is so dear to the hearts of many of them that they can tolerate no other suggested settlement.

The Nationalists of Turkey could have asked for no better champion of their cause of Turkish territorial unity than Dr. Gates who was of one mind with them on this point. Dr. Gates was called pro-Turk by the Armenians and

Greeks for his efforts but he answered this accusation by saying that he was no more pro-Turk than he was pro-

Armenian, pro-Greek or pro-Jew. When the government of

Turkey came under the control of the Nationalists in 1923, the effort that President Gates of Robert College hadmade to prevent the dismemberment of Turkey during the years of

l85Ibid., April 16.

l86Ibid., Apr!1 23. 125 the Allied Occupation enhanced the good will between the

College and the government of the new Republic,

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 ended without reach­ ing permanent decisions regarding the settlement of Ottoman affairs. One ill-conceived action of the Conference of

Paris stung Turkey into new life when on May 15* 1919, under orders of the Supreme Council, Greece landed troops at

Smyrna (later called Izmir) under the cover of guns of the

Allied Fleet. The Greeks proceeded immediately to violate

Turkish citizens and property. Professor Toynbee refers to the spectacular violence inflicted upon the Turks by the

Greek Army in this remark:

. . . a destructive force was let loose in Western Anatolia, as sudden and apparently incomprehensible in its action as the eruption of a volcano. One morning, six months after the close of the European War, civilians and disarmed soldiers (Turkish) were massacred in the streets of Smyrna; whole quarters and villages were plundered; then the rich valleys In the hinterland were devastated by further arson and bloodshed, and a military front came Into existence.

Nationalist resentment in Istanbul against this Greek Inva­ sion, with Allied blessings, ran high and shortly thereafter,

Mustafa Kemal Pasha organized a resistance movement In central Antolia. Sir Harry Luke, the Lieutenant-Governor of

Malta speaks of the build-up of the Nationalists:

Mustafa Kemal, at Erzerum in his remote Anatolian highlands, well out of range of the guns of Allied men-of-war, could work with relatively frrc hand -.

^■^^Arnold J. Toynbee, The W c j L:r:i .m i. i < »u in liivccc and Turkey . London: Constable and Com, any, J'Jdj, p. TOY. 126

tied only by his slender resources and the war- wearlness of his human material. But, in so far as he was organizing against the Allies as personi­ fied by the Greeks, he was constituting himself a rebel against his own Sovereign. The Sultan and the Grand Vizier believed that Turkey’s only hope of salvation lay in strict compliance with the terms of the armistice.

The misdeeds of the Greek soldiers in the occupied areas of

Turkey, along with the silent encouragement given to his

army by the Western Powers, intensified the desire of every

patriotic Turk to fight to bring about the end of the

Allied occupation.

The situation was aggravated in March of 1920 when

the British moved a large military force into Istanbul in

order to suppress the ever growing nationalist movement

there. One writer interprets this event as follows:

Heretofore, the occupation had been nominal. With the British in full control, patriotic Turks flocked to Kemal and his Nationalists. In April, 1920, the Grand National Assembly met at Ankara, adopted the six-point program and elected Kemal as president of the Assembly . . . Turkish resistance was fully committed to fight for freedom and independence

While the Greek army continued Its vicious course of destruction in Turkey and the British army pursued its suppression of the Nationalists In Istanbul, the hated

Treaty of Sevres signed cn August 10, 1920, was added to

the misery of thr I'mpire. When the Sultan signed this

■ * ® ® L u k e , c £ 4 _£ijt. , p. 1 7 0 ,

u . Fisher, o£_; cit. , p. 382. 127 treaty, he recognized the severing of Syria, Arabia,

Mesopotamia, and Egypt from the Ottoman Empire. He also recognized the validity of the Tripartite Agreement which created French, English and Italian spheres of influence in

Asia Minor. This was an overt example of Western imperial­ ism diametrically opposed to the concept of self-determina­ tion emphasized in President Wilson's Idealistic declara­ tions that had long been the goal of the Nationalist movement. The Treaty of Sevres, with Its theme of the dis­ memberment of the Empire, had so Intensified the hatred of

Turkey for the West that even a friendship with the newly formed Communist regime of Soviet Russia appeared to be desirable. This by no means meant that the Turks accepted the Communist creed, for the Turkish Nationalists were

Western-oriented in their approach to modernity. In 1920 and 1921, however, when the Allied armies were attempting to divide Turkey into a series of colonies to further European

Imperialism, alliance with Soviet Russia seemed to be the only alternative.190

Russia concluded a treaty with the Grand National

Assembly in March of 1921, thereby becoming the first power to recognize it as a legitimate government. As a result of this treaty, Soviet Russia began to send much needed economic

190Edib, op. clt. , p. 192; also see George S. Harris, The Origins of Communism in Turkey. Stanford, California: Stanford University, Hoover Institution Publications, 1967. 128 and military support to the nationalists of Mustafa Kemal.

Notwithstanding this Communist assistance, the gigantic task facing the nationalists seemed insurmountable to everyone except Mustafa Kemal. As one writer expresses the situation:

They faced the British in Istanbul and the Straits, Greeks at Izmir, Italians at Antalya, French at Adana and Cilicia, British in Kurdistan, and Armenians in the northeastern vilayets. Fortunately for Kemal, the enemy never presented a concerted attack, and he was able to meet them one by one. 191

The French were first to be attacked and removed from the struggle after which a combined Turkish-Bolshevik force crushed the Armenians. The Italians soon became convinced that departing from Anatolia with economic concessions was better than fighting Kemal's now undaunted army. This left only the British occupational forces at Istanbul and a sizable Greek army in the interior for Kemal to dispose of.

The Greek army of over eighty-thousand men with excellent equipment fought well for glory and empire but were finally defeated in September, 1922, by a Turkish Army of about twenty-five thousand strong who fought for their very homes and fatherland. The retreat of the Greek army from central

Turkey was ignoble In that they burned, raped, and killed helpless civilians on their headlong flight to the sea.

The parting, ugle gesture of the Greek army was to burn the

Turkish port city of Smyrna which only intensified Turkish hatred for them.

^91s. N. Fisher, op. clt. , p. 3 8 3 . 129 In September, 1922, the Greco-Turkish War came to an

end with the remnants of the Greek army evacuated from Asia

Minor under the guns of the Allied Fleet. The president of

Robert College indicates the reaction of the College to the war in these words:

During all this period of the Greco-Turkish War the College had carried on as usual. Toward the end we were, of course, apprehensive of the fate of the College in the event of a conflict between the Turks and the Allied forces in Constantinople. An undisciplined entry of the victorious Turks into the city might present Robert College with a more serious crisis than it had ever faced before. At the time of the Smyrna diaster two hundred of the six hundred students enrolled left in fear, and we refunded over $10,000 in fees which they had paid.1”2

During the time of the Greek retreat and the precari­ ous position of the Allied occupation force at the Straits,

President Gates was in constant touch with Admiral Bristol regarding the proper steps to be taken to protect the interests of Robert College. While the Greeks were retreat­ ing, an incident occurred which demanded a tactful decision:

A British officer came to the College applying for permission to station two hundred British soldiers with us for our protection. Suspecting that his objective was to gain a strategic position on the Straits, I replied that I could not accept his offer until I had consulted with Admiral Bristol, who was charged with our protection. The Admiral and I agreed that the animosity of the Turks would be aroused by allowing the British to occupy the College hill, and I declined the offer of assis­ tance . 3

192 Gates, op. clt., p. 2 8 5 .

193Ibld., p. 286. 130

What response President Gates could have given the

British officer if England had had a powerful army in Turkey at the time can only lie in the realm of conjecture. In reality, however, it was Turkey— not England— which had the power in the closing months of 1922j and from all indications,

It would seem that Turkey would soon be in complete control of her national destiny, This would make Robert College subject to the laws and policies of the new Turkish govern­ ment so that the action of President Gates regarding the

British soldiers was wise and diplomatic.

The victorious Nationalist army of Ghazl Mustafa

Kemal Pasha turned from Izmir toward the Straits where the

British occupational force represented the last of the

Allies on Turkish soil, British Lieutenant General Sir

Charles Harington, the Allied Commander-in-Chlef, tried to turn back the advancing army of Mustafa Kemal by sending kindly telegrams of protest which only revealed the British weakness. A British army officer present at the Straits late in 1922 describes the event In the following words:

The Turks began to realize how matters stood. They had no desire to fight the British Empire. They decided on a manoeuvre of peaceful pene­ tration. With arms reversed and such like tricks they advanced right up to and In some cases through the British lines. To deal with such a manoeuvre demanded decision and character, and these were lacking. It was a great military victory . . , for without loss of men or prestige or material, they made the British position in Chanak 131 untenable, gained the key to the situation, and won a decision as effective as the key battle of a campaign.

General Harington, realizing that a victory for the

British occupation forces was Impossible without more troops, negotiated an armistice at Mudanya on October 1.1,

1922, between the Allies and the Grand National Assembly.

The Allies then recognized the Grand National Assembly as the real government of Turkey and Invited this body to represent the nation at the Lausanne Conference. One Middle

East historian points out:

A similar Invitation to the sultan’s government compelled the Grand National Assembly to pass a law on November 1, deposing Mehmed VI and voiding all laws of his government. Refet Pasha took over control of the city for the Nationalists on November 5, and Mehmed VI fled aboard a British cruiser for Malta. On November 18, the Grand National Assembly chose his cousin Abdul Mejid as caliph. The Ottoman Empire had come to Its end.195

The diary of E. J. Fisher relates that Mr. Charles R.

Crane, a member of the Board of Trustees of Robert College, met with Refet Pasha and was reassured by him that the

"American Colleges were not in the slightest danger of being interfered with, and that no single Christian in Constan­ tinople need fear for his safety."^^^

194 Harold Armstrong, Turkey in Travail. London: Lane, 1925, pp. 245-246.

N. Fisher, op. cl t. , p. 386.

j , Fisher, Diary, Nov. 17, 1922. CHAPTER VI

ROBERT COLLEGE UNDER THE NEW REPUBLIC

Dr, Gates, alert to the best interests of Robert

College, made Immediate contact with the recently Installed

Nationalist authority in Istanbul:

When Refet Pasha assumed the command of the Constantinople area, I went to pay him a visit of courtesy. As I entered his office he rose from his seat, came to meet me, and took both my hands In his, saying, 'If you had not come to see me I should have been obliged to come to you to thank you for all that you have done for our p e o p l e ,11*7

This remark by the Pasha leaves no doubt as to how much the

Turks accepted and admired the work of Robert College and its staff. The Pasha's remarks gave President Gates cause to envision a most cordial relationship between Robert

College and the new government of Mustafa Kemal.

With the Sultan's government out of the body politic,

Mustafa Kdmal of the Nationalist government sent Ismet

Pa.'ha later called Inoriu after the village where that great

Nationalist general had twice defeated the Greek army, to

Lausanne to secure terms from the Allies acceptable to the new Turkish government. Turkey would be going to Lausanne

■*-^Gates, Not To Me O n l y , p. 286.

132 133 net as the broken representative of the Sick Man of Europe

but as a stately representative of a nation newly emerging

because of her recent victories over tremendous odds. The

Nationalist armed might present in Istanbul to enhance the

bargaining position of the Turkish delegation at Lausanne

was observed by Professor Fisher;

Today more than any day I noticed the large numbers of Kemalist soldiers In the city, par­ ti cularly in Stambul. I am wondering how many troops the Nationalists now have in Constanti­ nople,, Most of them are In very good uniforms, and one sees officers of low grade going about in autos In the city. The high officials seem to have the best pick of limousines.198

President Gates points out that:

The peace conference opened at Lausanne on November JO, 1922 c The United States was invited to be present, and three representa­ tives were designated as observers without votc--Riohard W t Child, Joseph C. Grew, and Admiral Bristol When the admiral requested me to arcompany him to Lausanne as his unof­ ficial adviser, I readily accepted the invita­ tion, for I was eager to do whatever r could to Insure the conclusion of a just and intelli­ gent treaty of peace.199

At iauranne, President Gates presented himself and Robert

College, to the world as a friend of the new Turkish govern-

; c w e U as one who was closely allied with its long

range p - for the modernination and Westernlzation of

T ;ii' k oy lii ?• 1 oya i conern for the new Nationalist

~ - L. , richer, Diary, Jan. 2, 192 3-

es , 0 £r_c_iti, , p . 287 . 13^ government may also have had an Inner motive of providing future security and tranquillity for the American institu­ tions within this government's sovereign Jurisdiction:

In respect to American educational and philan­ thropic enterprises in Turkey I stressed— especi­ ally to my memorandum to the Turkish delegation— American political disinterestedness and our hope that we would be able to continue our work as before. I made specific request that American schools and hospitals be allowed to enjoy the same privileges and tax exemptions as those accorded to Turkish institutions of like nature.200

President Gates had grave reason to be concerned not only about the future relations of the American institutions with the Turkish government but also for their very existence

In Turkey; for the Turkish government, In its transformation to total nationalism, was making every effort to rid itself of foreign elements, pressures, and entanglements which the

Ottoman Empire had so long endured. It was probably for­ tunate for Robert College and for other American institu­ tions in Turkey that the secretary to Ismet Pasha at Lausanne was Hussein Bey, who had been a student at Robert College during the early years of Dr. Gates' presidency and was the first Turkish graduate of the College. Even though the surge of nationalism was sweeping Anatolia, Robert College remained an Island of international harmony, friendship and understanding:

Word has been received from President Caleb Gates that, in spite of the upheaval in the Near

200Ibid., p. 288. 135

East, the work of Robert College is going on as usual. The enrollment is about normal . . . 550 students having registered at the opening of the new year, Armenian, Greek, Turkish, Bulgarian and other students are still able to live harmoni­ ously together in this American institution. President Gates says: . . . 'The tradition of international friendliness and co-operation within the confines of Robert College constitutes one of the few remaining hopes for successful reconstruc­ tion after an unusually depressing and dark epoch in the history of Eastern Europe.'201

Sir Harry Luke points out that from a position of

strength at Lausanne the Kemalist Turks gained the following

objectives to further advance the tenets of nationalism in

Turkey:

The Capitulations were abolished; the Greco- Turkish agreement of January, 1923, provided for a compulsory exchange of populations between the two countries, an exception being made in favour of the Greeks of Constantinople and the Turks of Western Thrace. The millets, or what was left of them, thus practically disappeared, for the Kurds were now the only non-Turkish element of any Importance remaining within the Turkish frontiers. Turkey had become, with negligible exception, wholly Islamic and, but for the Kurds, racially homogeneous.202

Turkey, however, still had Christian and Jewish minority groups and they were given such rights as were accorded to

various European minority groups under post-war treaties.

‘-O'^'Kemal on pen ef Work," New York Times, October 25, 1922, p. 3, col, 5°

202Luke, The Making of Modern Turkey, p. 184.

20^Edib, Turkey Faces West, p. 202. 136 This new state of affairs in Turkey with the result- ent attitude of the Nationalists would not seem to favor

Robert College, a Christian-oriented, non-sectarian insti­ tution whose student body was composed almost exclusively of non-Muslims, To further complicate an already somewhat pessimistic picture for the American institutions, the

Nationalist governmental philosophy was based upon the teachings of Ziya Gtikalp who was the outstanding Nationalist intellectual leader of the period. Gtikalp's concept of nationalism was all inclusive:

At first GiJkalp espoused Ottomanism, but later he abandoned it as a political ideal, developing his political theory instead around TurchiilUk (the concept of Turkism). The new life of the nation, according to him, must be drawn from a rediscovery of the indigenous Turkish culture: its traditions, values and spirit. A true nation will be built if it becomes conscious of its own culture, which he defined as ’the integrated system of religious, moral, legal, intellectual, aesthetic, linguistic, economic, and technological spheres of life.'204

On the basis of this rationale, Gokalp made a definite dis­ tinction between civilization and culture which permitted him to judge what Western ideas might be used by Turkey and what modern Turkish education should cover:

Thus he would have introduced Western civilization into Turkey, that is, science and technology as well as scientific methods and the scientific spirit; but spiritual and moral values should be

^O^Kazamias, Education and the Quest . . .,; see also Niyazi Birkes, The Development of Secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill Univ^ Press, 1964. 137 derived from the national and religious heritage. The complete education of the Turks, according to Giikalp, should be based on three principles: Turkism, Islamism, and Modernism.205

Mustafa Kemal looked on Gtlkalp as " . . . his intel­ lectual ’father,’ and Turcologists refer to him as the first

Turk who formulated a systematic theory of Turkish national­ ism,"20^ Gokalp favored a type of national democracy which could materialize only through a national educational system that focused its major emphasis upon an educated, patriotic elite who he believed could best assume governmental responsibility. He was, however, critical of the traditional

Ottoman elite which he felt was incapable of Identifying itself with the democratic concepts of the Turkish common people so necessary in the type of government he envisioned.

Gftkalp was also critical of the traditional Islamic educa­ tion under which the Empire had lost its dynamism and began to suffer reversals because it had refused to inculcate

Western scientific, cultural, social, and educational advancements, Giikalp had been exiled by the Allied occupa­ tional government when they assumed control in Istanbul, but he returned to Turkey and "resumed his involvement in the nationalist movement when Kemal Atatttrk assumed power. "2°7

Under the Kemalist government In 1923 he was Instrumental in

2 0 51 b i d 0

20CIbid., p. 108.

2°7ibid., p. 112. 138 the reformation of the school curriculum as an elected member of the newly established Parliamentary Education Committee.

Even though GBkalp died in 1924, many of his nationalistic theories lived after him, having been incorporated into the structure of the new political, social and intellectual life of Turkey.

At the Lausanne Conference, the American delegation and

President Gates apparently convinced Ismet Pasha that they were sincerely interested in the success of the Kemalist government and, what is more important, that they accorded to it the respect and dignity of an equal. Thus, the goodwill of the Turks, so necessary for the future of Robert College, was obtained at Lausanne:

During the negotiations Ismet addressed a letter to the American delegation to assure it that the welfare of American business, and philanthropic organizations in Turkey would have adequate pro­ tection under the new government.208

Professor Fisher, discussing this situation with American missionaries who had just returned from Lausanne, learned also that the American institutions In Turkey were In no danger:

Ismet Pasha at Lausanne assured Dr. Peet and Dr. Barton that the American schools and work would be allowed to continue and said that orders of the Grand National Assembly had been given to that effect.2°9

^®Gates, op. clt. , p. 28$.

j. Fisher, Diary, Jan. 10, 1923. 139 This was a solid fact, not rumor, for the New York Times correspondent in Lausanne had reported a few days before:

. . s Ismet Pasha received a message from Mustafa Kemal today announcing that the American College at Smyrna, which was closed during the fighting there, might reopen, and that the Nationalist Government had no objection to the American schools carrying on their work in any part of Turkey.210

The success of Ismet Pasha's mission at the Lausanne

Conference, in reversing some of the objectionable terms of the Treaty of Sevres, as well as In establishing new terms for Turkey in accordance with the concept of the rights of peoples to self-determination, is attested by the owner of the Turkish newspaper Vatan (Fatherland):

The final result was the Treaty of Lausanne, the only peace by mutual consent following World War I, and it bore good fruits, as Is amply testified by the world-wide respect thereafter accorded to Turkey for her recovery at home and her voluntary co-operation with the Western powers.

The Treaty of Lausanne with its various conventions was ratified in the summer of 1923. On October 29, 1923* the

Grand National Assembly proclaimed Turkey a republic and elected Ghazi212 Mustafa Kemal Pasha Its first president.

210Edwin Lc James, "Accord is Reached on Straits Con­ trol," New York Times, Dec. 21, 1922, p. 2, col. .

211Yalman, op. cit. , p. 13^.

212This title, meaning "Victorious Conqueror," was conferred on Mustafa Kemal by the Grand National Assembly after the battle of the Sakaria. 140

Ismet Pasha, who had Just returned from the Lausanne Con­ ference, was chosen to serve as prime minister of the

Republic of Turkey, "... thus beginning a political career which, added to his military achievements, brought him well 21*3 merited renown."

Professor Fisher spoke for many others at Robert

College when he expressed uncertainty as to the future:

Tomorrow Is to be a General College holiday in honor of the declaration of the Turkish Republic. This news was announced in the papers this morning, and the Turkish schools are having a two day holi­ day. The exact significance of this last turn In Turkish politics is now hard to measure but will doubtless soon be more evident.214

On the following day, the uncertainty continued:

Today we began an enforced three day vacation at Robert College In honor of the declaration of the Turkish Republic. It had been our intention to have today as a holiday,but the Minister of Public Instruction has ordered all the schools to close for three days, and we are now subject to such Turkish o r d e r s . 215

This was a period of difficult transition for Turkey because she was attempting to make a clean break with her traditional Ottoman past and thrust herself Into a program of modernization based upon Western, democratic guidelines and traditions. The man!Testations and consequences of this course of action permeated and affected every aspect of

21^Gates, op . a 1 1.. , p. 293.

^■^E. J. Fisher, op. clt. , Oct. 30.

215Ibid., Oct. 31, m life and society in Turkey during the ensuing decade. This was a revolutionized Turkey no longer the old Ottoman Empire, and even the capital was now at Ankara rather than Istanbul,

The significance of this relocation of the capital is explained by Dr. Gates:

In turning away from Istanbul with its old palaces which might have been used for government offices, and in taking up their abode on the bare plain where everything must be built de novo, the Turks were making a new orientation, the full significance of which they did not fully appreciate at the time. It was a removal from foreign influence into a peasant atmosphere. Istanbul had a foreign culture; it was not Turkey. While the revolution implied the adoption of much that Is European, it could not have succeeded had its center been In the old capital. At long last the government is at home among Its p e o p l e . 216

Change and reform became the order of the day which necessitated immediate and continuous adjustments on the part of Robert College, The initial phase of this situation became a reality for the College In the autumn of 1923, as

Dr. Gates points out In these words:

The regulations for private schools, issued as a cabinet order In 1915, had now been enacted as law by a vote of the Assembly. Dr. Adnan Bey, at that time liaison officer between the govern­ ment at Ankara and the foreign embassies which were still In Constantinople, was Instructed by the president of the Council of Ministers to secure my acceptance of these regulations .... I was not ready to give my approval, for I knew that this would be considered tantamount to their acceptance by all the American schools, and would

^^Gates, op; clt : , p. 307 » 1U2

be used to bring pressure upon othejj^oreign schools to secure their acceptance.

It would seem that Dr. Gates felt confident that whatever happened to other foreign educational institutions, the

Turkish government had no desire to interfere seriously with

the work of Robert College. In view of the fact that some

of the French schools in the interior had already been

closed for non-compliance with the new law concerning educa­

tional institutions, it would seem that the Turkish authori­

ties were again granting Robert College special consider-

ation.218

Dr. Gates withheld his approval temporarily because

he felt that the regulations contained stipulations which he

could not accept. One of the objectionable requirements would permit the government to interrupt a college student's

educational work in order to engage in military training.

President Gates maintained that this training should be

deferred until after graduation, and his stand was later accepted by the government. Another regulation required that

final examinations for college level work had to be given In

an official school. President Gates explained to the

authorities:

. . . that this should not apply to Robert College engineering students, for the government at that time had no courses in mechanical and electrical

217Ibid., p p . 296-7.

2l8E. J. Fisher, Diary, 1923. 1^3 engineering, and was therefore not prepared to examine our students in these subjects. Accord­ ingly, these students were permitted to take their examinations at the college under our teachers, but in the presence of official inspectors.219

Another requirement forbade Muslim students from attending

Robert College religious services. As an alternative, the

Muslim students were required to attend their own services conducted by a Muslim teacher.

Though some tension existed between the new government and the College, it would appear that during the early stages of the transition from an occupational government to a Republic, harmony and unity of purpose existed among the student body of Robert College which often represented some twenty different nationalities. President Gates speaks of this attitude:

The political science forum, under the wise leader­ ship of Dean Edgar J. Fisher, provided a platform on which students could present and compare their national policies. They realized that there was no discrimination against any of them, on the ground of nationality or religion; and that no abuse of any people would be tolerated.220

Another writer confirms the unity to be found among the stu­ dents living at the American colleges in Turkey:

Within the college walls, there is shown an amazing ability of the younger generation to sink suggestions of racial distinction in the common cause. Student activities are carried

21^Gates, op. cit. , p. 297.

220Ibid., p. 186. 144

on without any sense of racial rivalry. Some of the most intimate friendships in the colleges are between Greeks and Bulgarians, between Armenians and Turks. Into this environment, Prime Minister Ismet Pasha has sent his brother as a student at Robert College.^21

Dr. Gates assured Dr. Adnan Bey that Robert College would make every effort to conform with the laws of the 222 Republic. Professor Fisher recorded that . . It is

Dr. Gates' hope that we can go along for the rest of this

academic year without any particular change in the College 2 2^ course." J His last diary entry for the year 1923 shows

that the hope was realistic:

It has been another year of trial and difficulty in this country and of great uncertainty in the work of the College. We have, however, been allowed to continue our work without undue hindrance.22^

On April 20, 19 24, the government of Turkey abandoned the use of the Ottoman constitutions of 18?6 and 1908 but incorporated certain modified portions of them into a new

Constitution of the Republic. The Constitution established a form of democracy with sovereignty residing in the Turkish nation which was represented by the Grand National Assembly. p »"* -j ^ Paul Monroe, "Education," In Modern Turkey, ed. by Eliot Grinnel Mears. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1924, p. 119-

222Gates , op. cit. , p. 297.

223e, J . Fisher, op. clt. , Nov. 8 . 224ibid.> Dec. 31. 145 The Constitution provided that all Turks were equal before the law and granted them freedom of speech, press, thought and travel. It did, however, establish Islam as the religion of the state and Turkish as the language of the people. Although it was presumedly a democracy, one his­ torian points out that it

. . . was in fact, at that time and for twenty years to follow, a one-party government controlled by Kemal and his close political associates. . . . Mustafa Kemal Pasha was correctly labeled a dicta­ tor: he determined high policy, selected high officials of state, and forced his will upon the party and nation. . . . His abiding ambition was for the Turkish people, not for himself. In this way he was a benevolent dictator and extremely popular. Had there been free elections In Turkey while he lived there can be little doubt but that he would have been elected and re-elected presi­ dent of the Republic.

Mustafa Kemal had found It necessary to take some decisive steps in his organization of the new regime. After the establishment of the Republic, it was no longer possible to countenance a Caliph who would be responsible for the enforcement of Sacred Law and would be looked upon as a powerful and honorable leader of Islam. Mustafa Kemal saw that a clear break with the past could not be an accomplished fact as long as the Caliph was In Istanbul or any member of the Ottoman family resided In Turkey. Accordingly, on March

3, 1924, the Grand National Assembly at Ankara adopted a lav/ abolishing the Caliphate and banishing the Ottoman imperial

225S. N. Fisher, The Middle East . . ., p. 392. 146 family from Turkey. Mustafa Kemal, in an address to the

Grand National Assembly two days earlier, had indicated his reason for suppressing the Caliphate as well as for his renunciation of any responsibility for leadership of the

Muslim world with these words:

Gentlemen, I must frankly and categorically declare that those who continue to occupy themselves with the chimera of the Caliphate and thereby mislead the Mohamedan world, are nothing but enemies of the Mohamedan world, and especially of Turkey. Is it from love of our faith that . . . all members of the deposed dynasty of the Sultanate and the Caliphate, with their adherents, all enemies of Turkey, are working with so much bitterness? . . . Indeed, to believe this would mean that we were possessed of^unmitigated ignorance and boundless blindness.

On March 5, 1924, Professor Fisher made the following com­ ment :

One of our teachers, Keramet Bey, a secretary to the Caliph, has left Constantinople with the Caliph, who was expelled from Constantinople yesterday under most astonishing circumstances. The present Turkish regime is evidently seeking to make a thorough going sweep of all possible rivals .... The paper announces that It Is for­ bidden to speak about the situation of the Caliphate . “ 7

These were just a few of the many profound changes that were

Introduced into Turkey In the early 1920fs by the compelling force of Nationalism.

Mustapha Kemal, President of the Turkish Republic, a delivered speech, Oct., 1927. Leipzig: K. F. Koehler, Publisher, 1929, p. 686.

J. Fisher, Diary, Mar. 5, 1924. 147 Secularization of the nation and society was another

Important reform movement of this all-inclusive revolution carried out by the government of Mustafa Kemal. On March 3,

1924, another new law abolished the Commissary for the Evkaf

(Pious Foundations) and Shaykh al-Islam, and all religious activities were placed under a specific department in the

Office of the Prime Minister. The purpose of this action was to place religion in the background and thereby remove it from the path of moderanization which it was thought to obstruct. A clear insight to the then prevailing situation has been given by one writer:

Islam pervaded all aspects of life in Turkey, and Kemal and many leaders subscribed to the theory, learned from their contacts with the West, that Islam's hold upon society retarded development and created the difference between West and East. Friday, the Muslim holy day, was made a compulsory day of rest throughout the land in 1924 in part to give the day another emphasis. ^

The reverberations of the promulgation of the day of rest had been felt in Robert College in the preceding months:

Dr. Gates had received notification from the Director of Public Instruction that the College should not have sessions on Fridays. If this lasts for very long it will mean a most incon­ venient arrangement. ^9

The order applied to all schools in Turkey and was, of course, received at Constantinople College for Girls,

N. Fisher, op. cit., p. 394.

229e . J. Fisher, op. cit. , Feb. 15. 148 another American Institution. It may have caused some bit­ terness among the western teachers, for on one occasion

Professor Pisher refers to the Muslim holy day as "their

Friday day of rest."230 jn another entry, he appears even to look back with longing to the good old days of Abdul

Hamid, the Young Turks or to the time when Turkey was under the Allied Occupational government when he states: "I sin­ cerely hope that soon we will take steps to be allowed to go back to the system we have had until now, or at least one of our own free choice."231

The order of the Director of Public Instruction forbid­ ding college sessions on Fridays did work a hardship on class scheduling at Robert College. So as to adjust to this compul­ sory Friday holiday, It became necessary to hold classes on

Saturdays, which destroyed the continuity of the weekend vacation for both students and faculty. Their discomfort and complaints over this situation, however, did not alter the law; and as time went by, It would appear that they reached a state of acquiescence since no further mention is made in

Fisher’s diary which would imply opposition to the continu- 282 ance of the broken weekends.

23°Ibid., Feb. 6 .

231Ibid. , Feb. 19.

232e. J. Fisher, Diary, 1924. (More than a decade later, on May 27, 1935, Sunday instead of the traditional Muslim Friday was proclaimed the official weekly day of rest in Turkey. Roger R. Trask, "’Unnamed Christianity’ in 149 The Kemallst program of secularization which propelled

Turkey on the way to similarity to the powerful Western

nations became manifest in the removal of religious instruc­

tion from public and private schools as well as a general de­

emphasis of religion in the life of the nation. The immedi­

ate effects of this governmental attitude resulted in diffi­

culty between the Turkish authority on pne side and French

and Italian Roman Catholic schools on the other, over the

display of religious objects in their schools. The French

had requested, as did the Italians, that they should at

least be allowed to retain the crucifix; but this Ankara

denied them and further retaliated against them by closing

their s c h o o l s . ^33 jt is evident from this drastic action

that Kemalist regime would permit no opposition to their

Turkey During the Ataturk Era," The Muslim World, A Quarter­ ly Journal of Islamic Study and of Christian Interpretation Among Muslims. Hartford Seminary Foundation, Jan., 1965, p. 67.

233lbld.j April 9. (The controversy continued for many months. Indeed, six months later the international press reported: "Recently several newspapers in Rome pub­ lished dispatches from Constantinople saying that the Pope had consented to the removal of the crucifix from religious schools In Turkey. Today the Osservatore Romano, the Vatican organ, says it is authorized to declare that the Holy See not only has not given such consent but has repremanded those schools which permitted the removal of the crucifix without con­ sulting the Vatican." Reference from: "Denies Crucifix Report," /Vatican Organ Says Pope Wants Cross Kept by Schools In Turkey/, New York Times, Sept. 5, 1924, p. 19, col. 8. 150 directives. As previously mentioned, the required chapel services at Robert College were forbidden, which necessi­ tated an adjustment in the religious atmosphere of the institution. The attitude of the protestant colleges was quite satisfactory to the Turkish government:

American colleges in Turkey are being conducted as usual without interference from the Turkish Government, as the allied protest against the closing of non-Turkish schools was not signed by representatives of the United States.23*4

Mustafa Kemal1s interest in reform for Turkey was definitely furthered by what he termed as "populism." He felt that the new republic of Turkey and its freedom had been won by the peasants and, therefore, he dedicated the new society to them. This required a law which would for­ ever free them from the inequalities endured under the millet system and the Capitulations. This law was promul­ gated in Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic which reads,

. . . that all Turks are equal before the law and that all privileges of whatever description claimed by groups, classes, families, and individuals are abolished and forbidden.235

The concept of "populism" demanded efforts to reduce the

Turkish illiteracy rate, which was over 80 percent. At the inception of the Republic, the control of the educational program was centralized. In March of 192*4, all schools and

23**"l*4,000 Out of Schools by Turkish Order," Hew York Times , April 15, 192*4, p. 3, col. 2.

235S . N. Fisher, o p . cit., p. 395. 151 scientific Institutions were placed under the jurisdiction of a secular Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Edu­ cation was one of the most important departments of the

Ankara government for it controlled the agencies by which

Turkey hoped to achieve a change in the nation's entire mentality:

. . . it is intrusted with the responsibility of producing a new generation which is literate, practical, versed in the ways of the West, and above all, enthusiastically useful to Turkey's national society.^37

Mustafa Kemal, after the action of The Grand National

Assembly, was called Ataturk, "Father of the Turks." He realized the importance of intelligent communication among his people and saw that widespread literacy was an indis­ pensable condition of modernity. He therefore undertook a revolutionary transition of the alphabet from Arabic to

Western script. He turned to the schools as the most effec­ tive allies to combat illiteracy:

Ataturk ruled that ’the most productive and important duty of the state is public instruc­ tion.' The secular drive of the new Republic infused its educational program, as the mystique of Villagism shaped its course. Major emphasis went into the ingenious system of Village Schools and Institutions, by which the slender resources of available literacy were to prime a self accelerating process of practical

^-^International Documents Service, World Survey of Education III. New York: 1961, p. 109*1.

237Allen, The Turkish Transformation, pp. 96-7. 152

basic Instruction among villagers. . . . Educa­ tion diffusion was a tougher problem for Ataturk than occupational redistribution, since Its advantages were less self-evident and hence the motivations of the populace less easily aroused.^ 38

Ataturk*s task, although a heavy one, in the area of educa­ tion, as well as In other areas of modernization, was lighter because his political power was not threatened by external Intervention or by internal dissatisfaction.

The development of nationalism was another reform measure undertaken by the Kemalist government. The Turkish government embraced the concept of nationalism as the key to modernity, as well as the social and emotional force that had saved the Turkish people from complete domination by

Allied and Greek Imperialism. As an evolutionary outgrowth of this burning nationalism, the Turkish leaders became deeply immersed in the cultural heritage of their nation and felt strongly that the people of Turkey, in the interest of patriotism, should also be exposed to this heritage. This may account in part for the fact that when Mustafa Kemal turned to history as one of his major interests, he organized ti ii in place of the defunct Turk Tarihi Encumeni (Academy of

Turkish History) a new society known as Turk Tarihi Kurumu

(Turkish History Foundation) to research the past history of

^^®Da.n ie 1 Lerner, The Passing of the Traditional Society Modernizing the Middle East. London: Collier McMillan Limited, 1958, p. 121. 153 the Turkish people. This society began hy devoting itself to the exploitation of the so-caj-lep History Thesis which taught that the early migration? from central Asia were com­ posed of Turkish peoples of Sumerian, Hittite and Myceneap stock. As one writer points out:

This history thesis became a useful means by which the youth of Turkey were led more easily to turn from their immediate Ottoman, Muhammadan past when they were really under Arabic and Persian influences, and take in its place what they chose from western civilization which was now believed to be the offspring of^their own far earlier Turkish civilizations.

The Turkish history books that were allowed in the schools of the Republic de-emphasized the history of the

Ottoman Turks, especially the centuries of stagnation and decay that followed the reign of Suleiman "The Magnificent."

In this way Ataturk, who was proud of being a Turk, attempted to build a glorious and significant past to fire the imagi­ nation and the patriotism of Turkish youth for a regime tinged with nationalism. 2i*l

In keeping with this line of reasoning, Professor

Fisher indicated that both Constantinople College and Robert

College had been ordered to send a copy of every textbook

239john K. Birge, A Guide to Turkish Area Study. Washington: American Council of' Learned Societies, 19^9> p. 122.

2/*°Ibid., p. 123.

2^1S. N. Fisher, o p . cit., p. 396. 154 to be used to the Ministry of Education for their approval prior to its being used in the classroom. He makes specific reference to the history books in the following words:

This morning I gathered in the Freshman and Sophomore History text-books, and they are to be 'censored' over this monthly holiday. The Robinson and Robinson and Bemd text-books that we are now using in History are remarkably fair in all their statements, but Dr. Gates and Hussein Bey desire to play exceedingly safe, so that the text-books, when they are sent in for government inspection, will contain no passages that may wound the sensibilities of the Turks at the present time.242

It is apparent from the above remark that the Robert

College officials were making every effort to interpret

Turkish history in a light which was pleasing to the govern­ ment of the New Republic much to the consternation of

Professor Fisher who seemingly wanted to present history as it really was. Professor Fisher makes his personal feelings quite clear in this remark:

I have told Dr. Gates and Hussein Bey that the obliteration of the passages deoided upon is, and that this has been deemed needful, is more derogatory to the Turks than letting the text stand as it is.2^3

The strong drive for nationalism, which resulted in censoring history textbooks as well as other innovations, may have seemed extreme to the Western scholar of the time; but in the interest of quickly inculcating a pride of race

242E. J. Fisher, op. cit. , Feb. 14. 155 and heritage in all Turks, this drastic program appeared

necessary. One writer views the situation in the following

words:

At times, nationalism seemed to engulf the Turks, and certainly it made them extremely sensitive even()to objective and friendly criticism. Whether Ataturk believed in all of the theories which he supported was debatable, but he certainly believed in the necessity of not tolerating public debate about them. In any case they were efficacious; and Atatdrk's slogan, Turkey for the Tur^s and the Turks for Turkey, was proudly accepted by the nation. 244

It Is not surprising that the Turks were hypersensi­

tive regarding comments which they deemed critical of things

Turkish, either past or present. Professor Fisher had

delivered a lecture with lantern slides on the subject of

Constantinople on board of the S. S. Reliance, a cruise

steamer, on March 7, 1924, which he felt was apparently much

appreciated. But on April 25, 1924, Robert College officials

received a notice regarding his cruise lecture from Sarfet

Bey, director of Public Instruction at Instanbul:

. . . ’It has been confirmed that he (I) has said many things belittling our nation.’ In a second paragraph this note states that 'From now on, It will not be possible to allow him to continue working In this country,' and the College is asked to request my resignation, and notify the Minister of Public Instruction that I have resigned.245

2^S. N. Fisher, op. cit. , p. 397.

245E . j . Fisher, op. cit. , April 25. 156

As a result of this action, Professor Fisher indicated to the Minister of Public Instruction, both in writing and in person, that his lecture had been entirely non-political and that he had made no criticism of the present Turkish govern­ ment. Dr. Gates also wrote a letter of explanation to the

Ankara government. After a month, no reply had been received, and President Gates interpreted thisto mean that the government realized that they had made a mistake and that nothing further would be heard about the matter.

On June 9, however, a Turkish law officer visited

Robert College and insisted that Professor Fisher sign a statement. Professor Fisher was asked:

. . . to sign a statement that I had given up my work until the response came from Ankara to the letter sent by the College Administration. That of course Dr. Gates or I could not consent to. Finally, to justify the policeman's return to his chief, I signed a statement that the affair was due to a misunderstanding, that Angora (Ankara) was being oonsulted, and that I was continuing my duties until Angora was heard from. '

No action was taken by the Ankara government at that time and Professor Fisher and his family began their summer vaca­ tion on June 19. While in Europe, Professor Fisher received,

. . . a letter from Dr. Gates enclosing an answer of the Minister of Public Instruction to an edi­ torial in my favor . . . in one of the Turkish

2^6Ibid., May 26.

2^7Ibid. , June 9. 157 newspapers. The Turkish Minister seems now to be shifting the basis of his charges against me . . . to the idea that my lecture emphasized Byzantine as Greek Constantinople instead of the Constantinople of Turkish times, and hence was Greek propaganda.248

Professor Fisher was not allowed to return to Istanbul or

Robert College until October 8, 1924, when the Ankara govern­ ment decided to drop the charge of anti-Kemalism against him. The sequence of events attests strongly to the fine political sense and diplomacy of President Gates.

Robert College continued to maintain a workable rela­ tionship with the Kemalist government through the early critical years. This was accomplished by the ability of the

College officials to anticipate situations which might con­ ceivably prove offensive to the overly-sensitive Republic; and, accordingly, the College authorities took every action to prevent the occurrence of any possibly objectionable act.

Professor Fisher recorded one such preventative measure:

A group of students, especially those In my classes, wished to organize a ’League of Nations Association1 to study the International prin­ ciples behind the League but Dr. Gates feels that such an organization Is unwise at this time, and that such a society might be regarded by the government as being a political club.

A few months later, there came another precautionary measure and preventative action by President Gates:

2J|8Ibld. , Sept. 12.

2M9Ibid., May 14. 158

I told him (Dr, Gates) about my going to Columbia University for summer session courses next year, and mentioned to him their desire that I should give one of a series of five public lectures on the Near East. . . . The lecture that I am asked to give is on ’Policies of the New Turkish Republic1, and Dr. Gates feels that that is rather a dangerous subject for me to lecture upon. Of course as long as I am connected with the College, I ought not to make any appointments contrary to the wishes of the College Administration.

The exercise of such prudence, while assuredly not in the best interests of academic freedom, was apparently the only reasonable action to follow in 1924 in order to maintain relative good will and to keep Robert College functioning under the nationalistically oriented dictatorship of Mustafa

Kemal Pasha.

The year 1925 proved to be a comparatively normal college year at Robert College; however, the underlying conflict between Turkish nationalism and foreign institu­ tions within her borders was ever present. Occasionally con­ flict situations would arise which called for diplomacy and caution on the part of the College administrators and faculty.

Professor Fisher makes reference in his Diary to several of these incidents. In February there was a reoccurrence of the history textbook problem of the year before. As pre­ viously stated, It had been necessary to employ extensive censorship of certain textbook passages in order to give an interpretation of history satisfactory to the Ankara

25°lbid., Dec. 16. government. Early in 1925, the situation was further compli­ cated as Professor Fisher reports:

The Government is not willing to have us use censored text-books, and there is no available book that we can use uncensored. I will need some time off to work up an outline, with refer­ ence readings, adapted to our course in Robert College.251

In the next month, tension was increased when it was learned that the Ankara government intended to make a number of important changes in the law, one of which was to suppress the Armenian and Greek vernacular departments at Robert

College. These departments had been a vital and integral part of the work of the Institution from the days of its foundation.2^2 as Professor Fisher indicates, "Being forced to take this step brings pain and regret to u s .,l2^3 was felt that this measure was directed expressly at the American institutions since the other foreign schools In Turkey had never maintained vernacular departments. To complicate further the problem of the College, as Professor Fisher points out,

. . . it has been assumed also that the government intended to require that foreign schools should not be permitted to employ Christian teachers not of the nationality of the Institution itself, and that all teachers would be required to pass exam­ inations In their subjects in Turkish In order to secure authorization to teach.

^51e . J. Fisher, Diary, Feb. 20, 1925.

252Ibld., March 2h. 160

President Gates was concerned about the new regulations not

only because they affected directly some members of the

faculty but also because they would change the entire climate

of Robert College:

An administrative order was issued requiring that history, geography, and civics should be taught by Turks, in Turkish, and with Turkish textbooks — thus suddenly and drastically changing the American character of the Institution.

This order apparently was the culmination of proposals made

in 1923 by the Ankara Government, as reported by an American newspaper:

Pursuing its policy of nationalism, the Angora (sic) Government has decreed that Turkish history and geography shall be taught in the Turkish language in all the foreign schools in Turkey. The decree prescribes the number of hours for the classes. It will affect ninety-nine foreign schools and 525 Greek, Armenian and Jewish institutions. The Tur­ kish Government will select all the Instructors.^5°

The sensitivity of the Kemalist government was again

demonstrated when they asked for the dismissal of Miss

Smith, a teacher at Constantinople College, apparently for her failure to act upon knowledge she must have had about a

certain College play in which a donkey wore a fez. The

Turks construed this act as insulting to their new law which banned the wearing of the fez in Turkey. As one writer points out:

^-^Gates, op. cit. , p. 302 .

256,'Turkish Proposals," Constantinople, March 26, New York Times, March 27, 1923, p. 3, col. 4. 161

In 1925 dervish orders were forbidden, and their tekkes, holy shrines, and mausoleums were closed. Most startling of all that year was the law forbidding men to wear the fez and ordering all headgear to have a brim or a visor. . . . The fez was considered a Muslim symbol, although it came from Europe at the time of Mahmud II.

Professor Fisher was concerned for the future of the Ameri­ can schools in Turkey and wondered if they would have to submit continually to what he felt were unnecessary demands:

Miss Smith has resigned from her post at Constan­ tinople College. Or rather the Constantinople College authorities have easily yielded to her dismissal by the Turkish Government, and ex­ pressed regret that the Turks were wounded. What our institutions will be driven to is more than one can f o r e s e e . 25o

Later he expressed his apprehension for the futpre of the

American institutions in Turkey:

If we cannot obtain a more constructive policy In our dealing out here, I fear that the institutions will be riding for a fall. And it is certainly true that we ride or fall t o g e t h e r . 259

His apprehension was shared with others, and he speaks on another occasion of discussing the Turkish situation with a fellow educator:

He shares my fear that In our educational work, we may be put in a compromising position, and one which later can lay us open to a charge of hypocrisy. Perhaps there Is a difference between opportunism and hypocrisy. Certainly

25?s. n. Fisher, op. cit. , p. 39^.

j # Fisher, op. cit. , July 23. 259ibid,# Aug. 6. 162

our situation needs clear and concise thinking, but that is just what is so difficult at this time.260

In a situation where a dynamic nationalism was making an overt effort to rid itself of all things foreign and religious, which it viewed as threats to its security and stability, there appeared to be no place for a democratic- minded foreign institution. In this situation, the

Christian-oriented, American Institutions seemingly were limited to the choice of either conforming to the policies of the Republic or of closing their doors. There appeared to be a need for constant caution and continuous adjustment on the part of the College in its relationships with the

Turkish government. On the other hand, the College appar­ ently had retained the respect of the Turkish government as an academic institution for the government sent a number of engineering students to Robert College in September,

1925.261

The year 1926 may be assumed to be a year of improved relations between the nationalist government and Robert

College, for the writings of President Gates, Dr. Scipio and the 1926 Diary of Professor Fisher make no remarks to the contrary and give some positive evidence. President Gates points out, "Although the extremist press sometimes Included

26°Ibld., Aug. 20.

26lIbid., Sept. 22. 163 Robert College in its denunciation of foreign influence, we were as a rule exempted from attack."2^2 Dr. Scipio, Dean of the School of Engineering, indicates that under the new law government inspectors visited the College periodically and were always present during final examinations. He states, however, that,

I do not remember that there was ever any criti­ cism of our work during all the years the system was in force. One thing that surprised us was to receive an invitation to attend the final examinations given in the Turkish engineering school. . . . This gave opportunity to make good friends among the Turkish teachers and later some of them became part-time members of our staff. Our chief satisfaction was that our graduates were always in demand. At one time I had occasion to call on the Minister of Public Works in Ankara and during the course of conversation, he re­ marked that I could judge as to what he thought of our graduates since he had fifteen of them in his office.263

In 1926 the Americans in Turkey, in the interest of the Turkish natior and also in order to secure better relations with the Turks and to insure the future welfare of

American interests, were unanimous In seeking the ratifica­ tion of the Lausanne Treaty which had not been acted upon by the United States government. A large number of these

Americans moved openly to urge approval of the treaty:

Secretary Kellogg and Senator Borah, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, have received by mail a petition signed by 108 American residents of Constantinople, favoring the

2^2Gates, op. ■■■! cit., 1 p. 301- 263Scippio, op. cit., p. 226. 16*4 ratification of the Lausanne Treaty between the United States and Turkey. . . . Without a treaty these American Interests will have no official standing in Turkey and will be in no position to defend themselves against any discrimination which the Government of Turkey can naturally be expected to enforce against them.^64

Professor Fisher indicates that President Gates was one of

the Americans working in that regard:

If the American-Turkish treaty has not been ratified by the time Dr. Gates reaches America, he will go to Washington undoubtedly in this con­ nection » . . with effort to secure the ratifi­ cation of the Treaty of Lausanne.

The efforts of Dr. Gates to obtain ratification were quite

vigorous and his position was forthrightly argued:

Dr. Caleb F. Gates . . . arrived in New York yes­ terday on the United States Liner Republic. urging ratification of the Lausanne Treaty. . . . Dr. Gates said ratification of the treaty by the Senate was desired by all the educational, religious and business interests of the United States In Turkey who had met prior to his departure so to petition the Secretary of State and the Senate. Dr. Gates asserted that the Turkish Government was working hard to make Turkey a modern and pro­ gressive State. He said Mustafa Kemal was a strong man, Imbued with Western Ideas and possessed of courage and firmness. . . „ 'We realire that the continuance of our educa­ tional work depends upon our convincing the Turks that this work is valuable to them . . . if the Turks were determined to get rid of us it would be easy for them to hamper our work with restrictions which would make It Imoossible for us to continue. The highest Turkish officials have repeatedly tes­ tified that they value highly the work which our

2k'*"Americans in Turkey for Lausanne Treaty," New York Times . April 7, 19 26, p. 6, col, *4.

265e. J. Fisher, Diary, March 30, 1923* 165

institutions are doing, and they have given us most favorable treatment .*266

The United States Senate voted on the Treaty of

Lausanne but failed to ratify it, much to the discomfort of the Americans living in Turkey. The very fact that these

Americans had so enthusiastically urged their country to ratify the Treaty, however, made a favorable impression on the Turks which seemed to be reflected in a congenial relationship between the Turkish government and Robert

College. The Turkish acceptance of the American institu­ tion was publicly stated:

How quickly Constantinople is losing its European character is shown by the fact that of 610 students at Robert College, an American institution, this year 51 percent are Turks. Prior to the war fewer than 5 percent were Moslems, the remainder being Bulgarians, Armenians, Greeks, Albanians and Serbians.

This improved relationship led within a year to the removal of an old concern with regard to the Turkish teachers:

. . . Dr. Gates stated that the College is now allowed to choose its own Turkish teachers, and this is indeed a great occasion for joy, This lack of control over the appointment of our Turkish teachers has been one of the most dis­ couraging features of the recent year or two at the College, and the news of a change in this respect is most welcome.

P f\ "Dr. Gates Pleads For Turkish Treaty," New York Times, April 20, 1926, p. 12, col. 1.

26/MM0re Turks Attend School," New York Times, June 27, 1926, p. 19f col, 6 .

j. Fisher, Diary, Sept. 30, 1927. 166

As a matter of fact, Professor Fisher's entire diary for the year 1927 is completely free of any negative remarks or un­ pleasant complications of any nature between the administra­ tion of Robert College and the government of t|ie New Republic

of Turkey. A positive reaction was also indicated by

President Gates who told,

. . . the Board of Directors of the College at the sixty-fourth annual meeting . . , that the present government in Turkey was the best he had known dur­ ing the forty-six years that he had been engaged in educational work in Turkey, He said that Turkey was making remarkable progress under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, and that it was doubtful whether any other country ©Yer made such radical changes in so short a time.265"

It might be conjectured that the improved attitude of the Turkish government in relation to the American institu­ tions was in anticipation of the resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries late in 1927. The

United States and Turkey had never been at war, so a peace treaty was not really necessary: and the installation of

Joseph C. Grew as Ambassador ended a ten-year break in formal diplomatic relations between the two nations. The

Turks welcomed Grew's appointment:

Announcement by the Angora Government that Joseph C. Grew, Under Secretary of State, is to be Ambassador to Turkey, succeeding Admiral Bristol, the High Commissioner, draws wide comment in the press which emphasizes Mr. Grew's experience at Lausanne. . . . The Official Milliet, like other papers, regards Mr. Grew's nomination as

269»praises Turkish Leader," New York Times, Nov. 19, 1927, p. 17, col. k. r" ~ 167 significant, because he is from the State Depart­ ment and is an old friend of Ismet and because his appointment would mark a break in the American tradition of Jewish ambassadors.^70

The choice of Ambassador Grew appeared to please not only the Turkish government but also President Gates of Robert

College as well who seemed to have an excellent relationship with the new Ambassador. President Gates makes this clear in his remarks about the Ambassadorj

. . . Joseph C. Grew, a career diplomat who had negotiated the American-Turkish treaty at Lausanne and was favorably known to the Turks. As early as 192 3 T had urged President Coolidge to consider him as Bristol's eventual successor. His appointment was well received in Turkey, and he served as ambassador until 19 32. . . . I had the pleasure of performing, at the embassy, the wedding ceremony of Mr. and Mrs. Grew's daughter Anita and Robert English, who was in the American consular service, Mr, Grew paid a handsome tribute to the Turkish government by having a Turkish marriage ceremony as well at the mayoralty. 1

It would appear* that in 1927 Robert College had found rela­ tive security in Turkey by having once more an ambassador, respected by the lurks, to Intercede for their cause of advancing and .*i sseml na-t ing knowledge in the Middle East.

*' ^u,f Turks V. I 11 Wo 1 come Grew's Appointment," New 1 T j mes , May ? 0 , 1 ■ ■>, / , p . 9 , col. L\. 271 Gat es , op , cit , p » , J : - CHAPTER VII

CONCLUSION

The Crimean War of the 1850’s had focused the atten­

tion of the Christian world on the Ottoman Empire; so the

Americans in Turkey felt that this was an opportune time to

found a college there. The Ottomans, through their recent

contact with the European powers, had been made uncomfort­

ably aware of their relative scientific and intellectual

deficiencies and quickly realized that only by emulation of

the West through education could they catch up. After the

Crimean War, Ottoman leaders found a great need in the

Empire for trained bureaucrats, civil servants and leaders

of society. They felt that the secularly-oriented, govern­ ment-controlled Lyce^ of Galata Saray, which was founded with French help In 1868, would produce such useful citizens.

Robert College, founded in I863 as a non-sectarian Christian institution by American philantropists with Ottoman approval but without government support, at first served minority groups; but through the years it came to serve Turkey’s need for leaders and government officials.

Dr. Hamlin, a founder and the first president of the

College, understood the Turkish mind for he had been a

168 169

missionary In Turkey for twenty years. With this Invaluable

knowledge, he was able to overcome strong French objections

which were being continually addressed to the Ottoman govern­

ment, and to establish Robert College in the old mission

school building at Bebek. Dr. Hamlin's greatest contribu­

tion to the College was his effort in securing an imperial

irade (sacred title to real estate) to the most desirable

site on the Bosphorus for the construction of the American

institution. This sacred title provided Robert College with a lasting sense of security through many changes of officials and of government policy.

Robert College was established in Istanbul, the

center of learning and culture in the Middle East for over fifteen-hundred years, in accordance with the Christian ideals of its founders - The philosophy of the College was decidedly Christian, hut definitely non-sectarian in its approach to education; and proselytlzation was never its goal. During its early years, Robert College was rejected by the Muslim Turks because of its foreign heritage and Its strong Christian commitment. As a result of this Ottoman attitude, the student body of the College was composed mostly ol‘ students from the Greek and Armenian millet com­ munities of the Empire and from Bulgaria.

Robert College found Itself In a precarious position in 1876 when the Ottoman Sultan condoned the Bulgarian massacre and later wnen he developed the policy of 170 exterminating the Armenians, The underlying sympathies of the College were obviously with the Bulgarians and Armenians because approximately two-thirds of her student body was composed of these nationality groups. Since the American institution had to reside among the Turks, however, it was not at liberty to openly state its position or even display its feelings in this regard. It was only by exercising a great degree of political maneuvering in dealing with these extremely delicate situations that Robert College was able to continue its educational mission in the Empire. President

Washburn, the second president of the College, by his diplo­ matic actions enabled the College to become a sanctuary for its Bulgarian and Armenian students during the massacres so that in no single Instance did soldiers or marauding bands do harm to the students. This was accomplished by the

College through the practice of non-involvement In the political affairs of the Empire while constantly being of service to the people. The College came through these crises and gradually even assumed the role of training the ablest youths (of both the Ottoman Empire and of the Republic of Turkey which superseded it) for leadership positions In various capacities of government and business.

Robert College has maintained strong religious commit­ ments in both its constitutional prescription and in actual practice, for it had always had a missionary for its presi­ dent from the year of its founding until 1932. The College 171 constitution emphatically stated that the institution be

open to all faiths and that it must be administered under

the laws of God and the principles of the Christian Bible.

The curriculum of Robert College was similar to any other

American, scientific and literary institution, but it was

thoughtfully and prudently developed from its inception to

meet the needs of the Ottoman community in which it was

located. In order to avoid Americanizing the students or

estranging them from their own national heritage, the

College from the first required every student to study his

own language and its literature.

Under the reign of the weak Sultan Abdul Aziz, 1861-

1876, the Ottoman advance toward modernity, which had been

stimulated by the Empire’s recent contact with Western cul­

ture, came to a standstill politically, socially, and intel­

lectually, In 1876, Abdul Hamid II became Sultan of the

Ottoman Empire and the early years of his reign were not

entirely a period of political reaction and imperial stag­

nation; for many Western ideas, as well as Tanzimat reforms, were incorporated.

Abdul Hamid had considerable faith in the value of

education and enlightenment, and viewed educational reform

as a necessity for political, legislative, judicial, admin­

istrative and military upgrading and for the advancement of

the Ottoman state. The objective of training Ottoman

leaders was approached through the use of government schools 172

such as the Darushshafaka, the Muiuiye and the Galata Saray

Lycee. These schools catered primarily to Turkish students who were forbidden by the Sultan to attend institutions such as Robert College and the missionary schools. However, even

though Sultan Abdul Hamid had restricted Turkish students

from attending Christian schools, those regulations were never rigid]y enforced against Robert College; and as a

result, a few Turks did attend. From the end of the nine­

teenth century on increasingly more enlightened Turks, cog­ nisant of the excellent training offered by Robert College, sent their s..,no there in spite of the Sultan's orders to t :.e contrary. The fact that 'his transgression of the despotic

Sultan's lav was overlooked -.o the case of Robert College was toe highest ompllnor.b that Abdul Hamid could have paid to this Chris ti an , American institution.

In IfAC ■ r i : Ph 1 ret hr ,, an influential Turk, simultaneous ly r •, ■' " nr .1 i:ns cf the head cf the Turkish

Vernacular hep a rim*, n*. of Robert College and that of Director of r *r-‘ Turkish Gn ltd r ■ a i ay Ay e . Che fact that hultan

Abdul Hamid perr.il11 .A t government official to hold a h.igh ru... •'pc/ii it 11.. : . ' _ Chri tiar college i r . p l -* ed hir hirVi

regard for tne A-a i tn i n:» tt it i .

ik t hey -y r -.n ur d y m .urn a vrlse, diplomat'-::

calcu la ted t o f ... • ••• •-H • *e I. p and solidify the friendly re la*. ;.onsh1 p betw^or T e -oh'eye and the httom^n Ann hrc . 173 Even though Robert College had learned to live in relative harmony with the despotic theocracy of Sultan Abdul

Hamid, many young intellectuals could not tolerate his tyranny; and rumblings of revolution could be Jieard through-- out the land. A process of enlightenment and growing

Westernization had unfolded in the Ottoman Empire to the degree that the tyrannical and depraved reign of the Sultan could no longer be endured. The Sultan himself had inadver­ tently contributed to his own downfall by instigating the rapid progress of enlightenment airjong the Turks for the previous thirty years. He had advanced education in Turkey by founding many schools. He had staffed his military and medical schools with German instructors who inspired the

Young Turks with liberal, Western ideas. Ironically, the education that Abdul Hamid expected to provide strength for his empire actually became the medium of revolutionary thinking that ultimately resulted in his deposition.

Secret societies sprang up In various sections of the Empire. One of these organizations, The Society of

Union and Progress, with the aid of the Third Army Corps, In

July, 1908, forced Abdul Hamid to restore the constitution of 1876, order elections for members of the Chamber of

Deputies, and appoint a liberal grand vizir. In the next year, Abdul Hamid, by a counter-revolvition, regained his power and within two weeks Abdul Hamid was deposed and his weak brother, Mehmed V, was proclaimed the Sultan. The 174

Young Turks, as they called themselves, suffered military reverses In the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 and were thus dis­ credited so that the leadership of Turkey fell Into the strong hands of a triumvirate which soon replaced the liberal movement with a government as absolutist as Abdul

Hamid's had ever been.

Robert College was not Isolated from these events of revolution and counter-revolution; and even though they did not participate in political events, they were forced to adjust and readjust to the transitional phases of the

Turkish transformation. Along with the change in government in Turkey, there was a corresponding change in the educa­ tional system of the Empire. Education under the Young

Turks was directed by a Minister of Education rather than by the whim of a Sultan. The Ministry of Education sought to establish national unity with a coordinated, educational program having a common language of instruction and a uni­ form curriculum. This and other governmental changes in the educational program, which so Inconvenienced foreign schools in Turkey at this time, left Robert College relatively untouched. Because of the efforts of American Ambassador

Morgenthau, who was highly respected by the Turks, and the non-involvement policy of the College, a very friendly and workable relationship continued to exist between the College and the Turkish government. The governmental acceptance of the neutrality of Robert College was instrumental in Its 175 surviving the successive changes in the imperial government.

From the accession of Mehmed V, increasing numbers of

Turkish students came to Robert College.

Early in the year 1914, the international storm broke

and World War I began. Before the year was over, Turkey,

because of her deep involvement with Germany, entered on the

side of the Central Powers. In 1915* what began as a secur­

ity measure of removing all Armenians from the vicinity of

the railroads and the coast in order to prevent sabotage

ended in another Armenian massacre in which a half million

Armenians perished. This brutal action against a Christian

people shocked the world; and the officials of Robert

College daily appealed to the Turkish government to stop the

deportations, but to no avail. The Armenian students, however, at Robert College again enjoyed a position of sanctuary during the massacres and deportations Just as they had in the time of the Hamidian massacres, although the

College was powerless to protect its Armenian employees.

This continuing respect of the Turkish government for the

American institution is remarkable when it is realized that

the United States was at that time providing England and

France with ammunition and other war supplies used to bring

about the military defeat of the Central Powers.

When the war came directly to Turkish soil, Robert

College again proved itself a friend of Turkey by helping

the Red Crescent care for more than 40,000 wounded Turkish 176 soldiers of the Gallipoli campaign. As the war went on, the economic situation became depressing throughout Turkey with drastic shortages and excessive prices causing abject poverty, suffering for the poor, and a general lowering of the standard of living for everyone. In response to the distress of the villagers around them, the Robert College community provided food and medical care to relieve their sufferings and received the heartfelt gratitude of the needy families and the Turkish government, as well.

As a reaction against the pre-war economic privileges granted to foreigners under the Capitulations and against the wartime shortages, an aggressive nationalism developed which threatened foreign institutions. The position of the

American educational institutions in Turkey became even more precarious, however, on April 6, 1917, when thp United States declared war on Germany and severed diplomatic relations with

Turkey during the same month. With the recall of the Ameri­ can Ambassador because of the severing of diplomatic rela­ tions, the Swedish minister served as the official link between Robert College and the Turkish government. President

Gates In actual practice, however, by-passed this official channel because he preferred to deal directly with the leaders of the government, many of whom he had known for nearly twenty years. In his many contacts with the triumvirate, President Gates was treated with courtesy and most of his requests were granted. This remarkable 177 relationship existed because the government of the Young

Turks was convinced of the American institution's political disinterestedness, its lack of political propaganda and the

fact that the Turks appreciated the high type of education their youth were receiving there.

It is significant to point out that while the United

States as a nation was rejected, Robert College as a social

Institution was accepted as being an integral part of the

Turkish community. This American institution in times of national disaster, when their own needs were the greatest, gave unselfishly of their time and material goods to help alleviate the suffering and hopelessness of the people of the Ottoman Empire. It was this unselfish, continual commit­ ment by Robert College to serve the needs of the Empire which endeared the College to the Turks and this endearment was reflected in Turkish tolerance, understanding and accep­ tance of the Institution.

During a decade of wars and conflict, Robert College had successfully adjusted its program and academic existence to the nationalist!cally oriented government of the Young

Turks. When the War was lost in 1918, the triumvirate fled from the country. Robert College once again prepared to adjust t o the Allied military government that would replace

It. It was obvious to President Gates that the Allies would be In control of all aspects of the Ottoman Empire, including its educational affairs, for an indefinite period of time. 178

President Gates, In order to immediately develop friendly relations, arranged to entertain the officers and men of the

Allied fleet on the campus of Robert College. This, as well as other friendly and diplomatic actions, was calculated to assure a cooperative relationship with the new Allied Mili­ tary Government that would facilitate the administration of the institution in the days ahead.

The image of Robert College was enhanced in the eyes of the defeated Turks by the many acts of kindness and sincere friendship performed in their behalf by the College community. As a result of the war Turkey was a picture of impoverishment; and Robert College, through its affiliation with the Near East Relief organization, did much to relieve the distressed families of the Empire. A second concern of

President Gates was that the defeated Turks would have no one to speak in their behalf; and as a result, they would not receive Just treatment from the Allies who, as time went by, began to engage in Jealous rivalries to secure a greater share of the Ottoman Empire for themselves. When the Paris

Peace Conference convened in May, 1919, the President of

Robert College planned to attend, in order to present his views to the American delegates, opposing the division of

Turkey among the Allies, The Turkish Nationalists could have asked for no better champion of their cause of terri­ torial unity for Turkey than Dr. Gates who was in perfect accord with them on this point. Dr. Gates felt so strongly 179

on this issue that he was called pro-Turk by the Armenians

and the Greeks who wanted to see the Empire divided. The

splendid effort that President Gates made to prevent the

dismemberment of Turkey during the Allied occupation was

never forgotten by the Turks.

The Turkish Nationalists, who later formed the Republic

under Mustafa Kemal, felt that the United States was the only

power that understood their movement toward regeneration and

independence. As this group progressively placed greater

faith in American co-operation as the only likelihood of

their nation's future, the position of Robert College among

the Turks was strengthened proportionately. The growing bond

of friendship between Turkey and the United States was

strengthened when Rear Admiral Mark L. Bristol was appointed

American High Commissioner to Turkey in 1919, for the Turks held him in high esteem. The fact that President Gates became a close friend of the Admiral proved to be a valuable

asset to Robert College during the remaining years of the

Allied occupation, which ended in October, 192r. The valiant

actions of Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Pasha actually, by force of

a : s , drove mosr of the Allies including the Greek Army from

Turkish soil and forced the peace conference at Lausanne in

November. President Gatos attended the conference a,: the

unofficial advisor of Admiral Bristol, and presented himself

and *•. ..hert College to the world a:-, a friend of t he new Turkish 180 government. He also made It perfectly clear that the Col­

lege was closely allied with the long-range plans of the new government for the modernization and Westernization of

Turkey. The government was represented by Ismet Pasha who

later became the first Prime Minister of republican Turkey.

The Turkish government, in its transformation to total nationalism, was exerting every effort to extricate itself of all foreign elements, pressures, and entanglements which had so long devitalized the Ottoman Empire. On October 29,

1923, the Grand National Assembly proclaimed Turkey as a

Republic and elected Kemal Pasha as its first president.

This dynamic leader thrust Turkey into an intensified pro­ gram of modernization and change based upon the democratic ideals and traditions of the West. Change and reform became the order of the day, which necessitated immediate and continuous adjustments by Robert College.

The College maintained a workable relationship with the Republic through its early critical years. This was accomplished by the ability of the College officials to anticipate sensitive situations and to immediately take action to prevent possible offense. They were able to accept the government appointment of teachers of the

Turkish language, In two years, however, the College had obtained a reversal of this policy so that they were then allowed by the nationalist government to select their own teachers In this area. When the nationalist government 181 sought the dismissal of a respected dean, on the grounds of alleged anti-Turkish sentiment, the College was able to secure a retraction of the charge and retain the faculty member. By conforming and continually readjusting to the dynamic nationalism of the Republic of Turkey, Robert

College was able to gain the respect of that nation to the extent that half of the student body of the College was composed of Turks by the late 1920's.

In 1927 diplomatic relations between the United

States and Turkey were resumed which ended a ten year break in formal relations between the nations. Joseph C. Grew, a friend of President Gates and a diplomat who was favorably known to the Turks, became the new American Ambassador.

Robert College, after more than sixty years of service to the people of the Middle East, found itself in a favorable position in Turkey with a sacred title to its beautiful site on the Bosphorus. It had become a known educational sanctuary for certain minority groups and every year found an increasing number of Turks in its ever-expanding student body . BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abbott, G. P. Turkey, Greece and the Great Powers. London R . Scott, 1916. " ' r

Alderson, A, D. The Structure of the Ottoman Dynasty. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956.

Allen, Henry Elisha, Ph.D. The Turkish Transformation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1935.

Armstrong, Harold. Turkey In Travail: The Birth of a New Nation. London! Lane, 19 £5.

Armstrong, Harold C, Grey Wolf, Mustafa Kemal: An Intimate Study of a Dictator. London: Barker, 19 32.

Bailey, Frank Edgar, British Policy and the Turkish Reform Movement: A Study In Anglo-Turklsh Relations. Cambridge: Harvard University Press', 1942.

Barton, James L. Story of Near East Relief, 1915-1930. New Yor>k: The Macmillan Company, 1930.

Birge, John K. A Guide to Turkish Area Study. Washington: American Council of teamed Societies, 1949.

BIrkes, Nlyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill University Press, 1964.

Bliss, Frederick J. The Reminiscences of Daniel Bliss. London: Fleming H, Reveil Company, 1926.

Buxton, Charles R. Turkey in Revolution. London: T. F. Unwin, 1908.

Creasy, Sir Edward S. History of the Ottoman Turks: From the Beginning of Their Empire to the Present Time. London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1877.

Davison, R. D. Reform of the Ottoman Empire: I856-I876. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 196 3* 183 Djemal Pasha, Ahmed. Memories of a Turkish Statesman, 1913- 1919. New York: Doran, 1922.

Dodge, Bayard. The American University of Beirut— A Brief History. Beirut: Khayat's, 1958.

Edib, Halide. Memoirs. New York: Century, 1926.

______. The Turkish Ordeal. New York: Century, 1928.

Edib (Adlvar), Halide. The Turkish Ordeal; Being the Further Memoirs of Halide Edib. New York: Century ,192b.

______. Turkey Paces West; A Turkish View of Recent Changes and Their Origin. New Haven: Yale University Press. T $ W . ------

_____ . Conflict of East and West in Turkey. 2nd ed. Eahore"- M"] Ashraf*, 19 35.

Ekrem, Selma. Turkey, Old and New. New York: Scribners, 1947. Eliot, Sir Charles N. E. Turkey in Europe. London: E. Arnold, 1908.

Emin (Yalman), Ahmed. The Development of Modern Turkey As Measured by Xus Press. New York: Columbia University Press, 191^.

______. Turkey in the World War. New Haven: Yale Univer­ sity Press, 1930.

Eversley, G. J. S,, and Chirol, Valentine. The Turkish Empire from 1288-1922. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1923.

Fisher, Sydney Nettleton. The Middle East: A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, I960.

Gates, Caleb Frank. Not To Me Only. Princeton: Princeton University Press"]! 1940 .

Gibb, H. A. R., and Bowen, Harold. Islamic Society and the West: A Study of the Impact of Western Civilization on Moslem Culture in the l4ear East. Vol. 1 ("in two parts) : Islamic Society in the Eighteenth Century. London: Sxford University Press, 1950 5 1957.

Gibbons, Herbert A. The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, I9T6. 184

Gordon, Leland J. American Relations with Turkey, 183Q-1930. An Economic Interpretation. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

Hamlin, Cyrus. Among the Turks. New York: Robert Carter & Bros., 1878.

______. My Life and Times, 2nd ed. Boston & Chicago: Congregational Sunday-School & Publishing Society, 1893.

Harris, George S. The Origins of Conwiunlsm in Turkey. Stanford University, Stanford, California: Hoover Institution Publications, 1967.

Helmreich, E. C. The Diplomacy of the Balkan Wars, 1912- 1913. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 193d'.

Heyd, Uriel. The Foundations of Turkish Nationalism. London: Harwell Press, 1950.

Howard, Harry N. The Partition of Turkey: A Diplomatic History, 1913-1923. Norman, Oklahoma; Oklahoma Uni- versity Press, 1931.

______. The Problem of the Turkish Straits. Washington: Department of State, 1947.

Hurewitz, J. C. Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East, Vol. I, A Documentary Record: 1535-1914. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1956.

Kazamias, Andreas M. Education and the Quest for Modernity in Turkey. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1966.

Kilic, Altemur. Turkey and the World. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1959.

Kritovoulos. History of Mehmed the Conqueror (Charles T. Riggs, Trans.), Princeton: Princeton University Fress, 1954.

Lane-Poole, Stanley, Gibb, E. J. W., and Gilman, Arthur. The Story of Turkey. New York: G. P. Putnam's, 1888.

Lerner, Daniel. The Passing of the Traditional Society Modernizing the Middle East. London: CoYTFer MacMillan Limited, 1958. 185 Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. London: Oxford University Preps, 1961.

Luke, Sir Harry. The Making of Modern Turkey from Byzantium to Angora. London: Macmillan, 1936.

Lybyer, Albert Howe. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1913 •

Marriott, J. A. R. The Eastern Question: An Historical Study in European Diplomacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1917.

Merriman, R. B. Suleiman the Magnificent, 1520-1566. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1944,

Midhat, All Haydar. The Life of Mldhat Pasha. London: J. Murray, 1903.

Miller, Bernette. Beyond the Sublime Porte: The Grand Seraglio of Stambul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 19317

______. The Palace School of Muhammed the Conqueror. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1941.

Miller, William. The Ottoman Empire, 1801-1913. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1913-

______. The Balkans: Roumania, Bulgaria, Servla and Monte- negro with New Chapter Containing Their History from 1896 to 1922. London: Unwin, 192 3. '

Monroe, Paul. "Education." Modern Turkey, ed. by Eliot Grinnel Mears. New York! *The Macmillan Company, 1924.

Moorehead, Alan. Gallipoli. New York: Harper, 1956.

Morgenthau, Henry. Ambassador Morgenthau'g Story. New York: Doubleday, Page & Co., 1919.

Patrick, Mary Mills. A Bosporus Adventure 1871-1924. Stanford University, California: Stanford University Press, 1934.

Pears, Sir Edwin. The Destruction of the Greek Empire and the Story of the Capture of^ Constantinople! New York: ■ Longmans, Green, 190 3.

_____ . Forty Years in Constantinople, 1873-1915. New Tork: Appleton, 1916. 186

Life of1 Abdul Hamid. London: Constable, 1917.

Penrose, Stephen B, L» That They May Have Life. New York: Princeton University Press, 19^1.

Prime, E. D. G. Forty Years in the Turkish Empire: o r , Memoirs ofLev, William Goodell, P.P., Late Missionary of the A. B, Cr F'l M, at Constantinople. New York: Robert Carter & Bros,, 1876.

Ramsaur, Jr., Ernest E, The Young Turks. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957.

Ravndal, G. Bie. 11 Cap! tu lations ,11 in Modern Turkey , A Polltico-econcm1c Interpretation, 1908-1923, Inclusive, with Selected Chapters by Representative Authorities. fJew York: The Macmillan Co., 1924.

Sarkissian, A. 0- History of the Armenian Question to 1885. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1958.

Scipio, Lynn A, My Tr.irly Years in Turkey. Rindge, New Hampshire: Id chari R. Smith Publisher, Inc., 1955.

Set on-Watson, Rolen Wi Lliam. Rise of Nationality in the Balkans . L ndon: Constable, 1917.

______. A Hist ..ry the Roumanians from Roman Times to the Completion of Unity. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- s 1 ty Press , 1 d

Shotwell, James The. ms on and Deak, Francis. Turkey at the Straits: A Short History. New York: The Macmillan Co., WTT. ------

Sousa, N , The oryyir datory Regime of Turkey, Its History, Origin, arid Nature^ Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press . 19' 5 i - "

Sumner, B. H. I: e t e- r the Great and the Ottoman Empire. 0... ford: Black w o' 11T 19 ^ 9 'i

Temper!ey, H. W History of the Peace Conference of t 3rd , Vol ' London : Henry Frowde 4 Stoughton, .

Thomas, he.-; is V , . i Frye, Richard. The United States and Turkey and Iran- Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951.

Toynbee, Arnold • ' . T- .< Western Question in Greece and Turkey. tona-r: Constable, 1922. 187 ______. Survey of International Affairs, 1925: Vol. I r The Islamic World since the Peace Settlement, London: bxford University f’ress, 1927.

Toynbee, Arnold J., and Kirkwood, K. P. Turkey. London: Ernest Benn, 1926. von Sanders, Liman. Five Years In Turkey. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins^ 192b.

Washburn, George. Fifty Years In Constantinople. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1909.

Waugh, Sir Telford. Turkey, Yesterday, To-Day, and To- Morrow . London: Chapman & Hall, 1930.

Webster, Donald Everett, The Turkey of AtatUrk: Social Process lnthe Turkish Reformation. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political & Social Science, 1939.

White, Wilbur W, The Process of Change In the Ottoman Empire. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1937.

Wlttek, Paul. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1933.

Yalman, Ahmed Emin. Turkey in My Time, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press^ 1956.

Catalogue, Documents, Journal, Speech

American University of Beirut. American University of Beirut, description of its organization and work. American University of Beirut, Autumn, 193*1.

International Documents Service. World Survey of Education III, New York: 1961, p. 109*1.

Kemal, Mustapha, President of the Turkish Republic, a delivered speech, October, 1927. Leipzig: K. F. Koehler Publisher, 1029» p. 686.

Nebioglu, Osman. Who ’s Who In Turkey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Tech. Services, Joint Pub. Res. Service, Aug. 5, 1962. 188

Trask, Roger {]. " 'Unnamed Christianity' in Turkey During the Ataturk Era," The Muslim World, A Quarterly Journal of Islamic StucTy and of Christian Interpreta­ tion Among Muslims. Hartford Seminary Foundation, Jan„, 1965 , p = 67.

Di ari es

Fisher, Edgar J i iai its, ')9ii-1927 , preserved in the Rare Book Room, 100 Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

Newsnapers and Articles

New York Times. NYork Times Company, New York: 1900-1927.

"Americans in Turkey for Lausanne Treaty," New York Times, April 7, 19 2 6 , p. b, col. 4.

"Denies Crucifix Repo'-t," New York Times, Sept. 5, 192A, p . 19, col. 8 .

"Dr. Gates Pleads for Turkish Treaty," New York Times, April 20, 1.92b, p, 12, ■’o 1, 1,

"1*4,000 Out of Teton is iy Turkish Order," New York Times, April IS, 19; -i, p . 3, col. 2.

James, Edwin L, "/wr, rd i » Peached on Straits Control," New York T iiru.-s, i . s. 21, 1922, p. 2, col. *1.

"Kemal on Relief Won’- , " N* w York Times, Oct. 25, 1922, p . 3, col:. 5

"More Turks Attend T :boo Is," New York Times, June 27, 1926, p . 19, c o: : 6,

"Praises Turkish Leader," New York Times, Nov. 19, 1927, p . 17, col. d .

"Turkish Propoaa\s ," Cons tarn ’ n-np le , March 26, New York Times , Mar.' h 2 7 , 19 2 S , p . 3 , cel. *i.

"Turks Will We 1 re me :1 ? e w ’ Ippointmt nt," New York Times , May ; , i • : ; I • ,