INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75-25,897

JOHNSON, Hugh Grayson, 1934- THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY 1923-1933: A CASE SIUDY OF MISSIONARY PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. The American University, Ph.D., 1975 Political Science, international law and relations

Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106

© Copyright by

HUGH GRAYSON JOHNSON

197c

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS IN THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY 1923-1933 A CASE STUDY OF MISSIONARY PROBLEMS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

by

Hugh Grayson Johnson

Submitted to the

Faculty of the School of International Service

of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

International Studies

1975

The American University Washington, DC

THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

Sok0

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF F I GURES...... * ...... iv

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ...... 8

THE GROWTH OF THE AMERICAN B O A R D ...... 8

EDUCATIONAL W O R K ...... 19

CHANGING GOALS IN CHANGING TIMES ...... 33

3. THE TRAINING OF PERSONNEL...... 56

THE EARLY PERIOD: PIONEERING AND EV A N G E L I S M ...... 56

SECOND PERIOD: EDUCATION AND THENEW CH U R C H ...... 6h

THIRD PERIOD: MOVING INTO THE MODERN AG E ...... 69

L. TURKISH NATIONALISM AND THE AMERICAN SC H O O L S ...... 78

EFFECTS OF THE CAPITULATIONS...... 78

THE NEW TURKISH PERSONALITY...... 93

5. RELIGION AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS...... Ill

SECULARIZATION...... HI

PROSELYTISM...... 132

6, CULTORE AND THE AMERICAN S C H O O L S ...... 165

THE DONKEY I N C I D E N T S ...... 165

THE MEAD C A S E ...... 185

THE BARBER POLE I N C I D E N T ...... 196

ii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7. BUREAUCRACY AND THE AMERICAN S C H O O L S ...... 208

ETATISM...... 208

RED T A P E ...... 215

OBSTRUCTIONISM...... 225

8 . CONCLUSION ...... 235

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 259

APPENDIXES

A. DRAMATIS PERSONAE...... 311

B. SOME IMPORTANT DATES ; ...... 321

C. ISMET PASHA'S STATEMENT TO THE AMERICANS AT LAUSANNE ...... 331

D. ISMET PASHA'S LETTER TO JOSEPH C. G R E W ...... 332

E. ISMET PASHA’S IDENTIC LETTER TO THE BRITISH, FRENCH AND ITALIAN DELE G A T I O N S...... 333

F. REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS...... 335

G. CRIMINAL CODE: DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDERS FROM AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS (Article 5 2 6 ) ...... 336

H. CRIMINAL CODE: INSULTING THE TURKISH NATION OR TURKISH O F F I C I A L S ...... 337

Article 157 ...... 337

Article 1 5 8...... 337

Article 1 5 9 ...... 337

Article 1 6 0 ...... 338

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Stations and Outstations of the American Board in Turkey in 19 1 1 ...... 304

2. American Schools and Colleges in Turkey Prior to 1 9 1 4 ...... 305

3. American Schools and Colleges in Turkey in 1923 ...... 306

4. American Schools and Collegesin Turkey in 1929 ...... 307

5. American Schools and Colleges in Turkey in 1933 ...... 308

6. Professor Fisher's "Donkey Slide" ...... 309

iv

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Five times I have received...forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I vas stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches. (2 Corinthians 11:2^-28, RSV)

Tarsus, in the southern part of the land that became modern

Turkey, was the home town of the Apostle Paul. Paul was the prototype

missionary. Like his modern counterpart, he left all behind and jour­

neyed great distances to do his work among people he did not know. He

worked and preached. He wrote letters about it. He had some successes

and many failures. He was cock-sure and insecure. He suffered

beatings, stonings and shipwrecks as well as robberies. He was

arrested and imprisoned. He appealed his treatment on the basis

of his citizenship.

Since that time, churches have sent many people to all sorts

of places for all sorts of reasons. Today, missionaries are much more

likely to be ignored than stoned. They are more likely to be shrugged

at than flogged. They run a much greater risk of expulsion than of

imprisonment. They are less in danger of shipwreck than of finding

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2

themselves by chance aboard a hijacked airliner. When they do run afoul

of the law on foreign soil, however, their nationality still has a

certain importance.

Christian mission has always meant crossing frontiers. The

frontiers have most often been geographic, as in the case of national

boundaries. At other times, the frontiers were the less obvious ones

of culture or faith. In all cases, those who sent and those who went

interpreted their action as dutiful obedience to the commands of Jesus.

Hie stated purpose of mission was to convert people, although churches

occasionally sent missionaries to serve other people in the most

altruistic sense.

Churches sent their missionaries to foreign lands and strange

cultures. The organization of the churches for structured mission was

for little more than to provide the most elementary support. Sometimes

not even that much was furnished. Missionaries were adventurous pio­

neers. The churches pioneered vicariously through the adventures of

the missionaries.

Churches did not prepare their missionaries for service before

sending them out. The missionaries themselves were the experts, both in

mission and in foreign cultures. Even if the churches had been inclined

to prepare the missionaries before sending them, they could not have

done so with any appreciable degree of effectiveness. They were simply

not equipped for it.

Therefore, missionaries were sent out into the unknown. They

had to see to their own training on the job. They learned languages and

cultures by observation, trial and error, because that was the only way

to do it. They had to evaluate the prospects of their efforts, conceive

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3

and establish programs which offered the best possibility of advancing

them towards their goals. They had to garner support for themselves and

for the programs they established. Often the type of activity ch- sen

depended upon what might prove attractive to potential supporters in the

homeland.

The ebullient twentieth century has brought about vast changes

in world structure. Many of these changes were no more than dreams in

the nineteenth century. Nations which then had no independent existence

are now international powers. Some great powers of the previous century

have now become impotent by comparison.

The twentieth century has also witnessed an extensive evolu­

tion in the way churches perceive mission. For years, most church-re­

lated missions primarily sought religious conversions. Even when a par­

ticular activity was not directly evangelistic, it sought to advance

evangelistic goals. Today, by contrast, many missions, in encounter

with other faiths, seek dialog with its adherents rather than their

conversion.

This is a sincere statement of position. The missions of

churches thus oriented are not merely adopting an expedient means of

hanging on until religious exploitation again becomes possible. Rather,

they seek through dialog to increase interfaith understanding and coop­

eration. Brotherhood takes precedence over statistical gains.

Service is not exploitive. It is not primarily intended to

advance hidden evangelistic motives. It is intended rather to give a

concrete and visible expression of Christian love in specific terms. It

seeks to offer a reflection of the highest broadly human ideals which

can be common to both faiths.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. k

Some churches and their missionaries have been forced sooner

them others to come to grips with the nev situation. Accidents of time

and geography have occasionally been at the origin of it. A few mis­

sions give little evidence of being aware that fundamental changes have

taken place in the world in this century.

In the first decade of the twentieth century, the order which

had dominated the Near East for centuries began to crumble. Out of the

ruins arose a new, more dynamic order. By the third decade, the transi­

tion was being actively pursued. During that time, both the Ottoman

past and the Republican future constituted the contextual present of

the mission in Turkey of the American Board of Commissioners for

Foreign Missions.

The transition from the Empire to the Republic in Turkey was

in many respects similar to the transition from colony to independence

in many other countries. A burgeoning nationalism and a renewed sense

of peoplehood were characteristic of Turkey, as they are of currently

emerging nations. National and cultural pride find parallels there.

The same is true of the increased emphasis on linguistic and cultural

unity of the people, and of the idealistic drive for political and

economic independence.

The first decade of the Turkich Republic provides a convenient

time-frame in which to situate the study. It begins with the historical

watershed of the emergence from a decade of war and the establishment of

the Republic. A major reorientation of the mission was in order. The

former client community had all but disappeared. Hie period was closed

when the institutional commitment of the American Board in Turkey was

sharply curtailed. The Great Depression in the United States had

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5

brought about a drastic decline in financial support from overseas.

The scope of American Board activity in Turkey was broad.

Missionaries were active in education, medicine, social services,

publication and church development. The life of the Protestant churches

in Turkey was largely in the hands of national Christians. Education

occupied the greatest number of missionaries in the country. Most of

the problems in international relations encountered by the mission in

the first decade of the Republic involved educational missionaries. One

can see in their predicaments the types of difficulties likely to be en­

countered by any service-oriented mission.

For the purposes of this study, all non-nationals teaching or

otherwise employed in the American schools and colleges will be consi­

dered missionaries, despite the fact that many of them were technically

not missionaries, but simply contract workers from overseas. Turks con­

sidered them missionaries. By the same token, the study deals with the

American schools and colleges in Turkey, regardless of whether or not

they were organizationally related to the American Board of Commis­

sioners for Foreign Missions. Three of the American colleges were inde­

pendent of the American Board. They were nonetheless founded as a di­

rect result of the efforts of missionaries. Turks considered the col­

leges missionary institutions. Whether independent or related to the

American Board, they were still all American educational institutions.

Mission will be considered a program of international involvement of a

church organization.

All churches and mission agencies should have the opportunity

of benefiting fully from the experiences of others. Interchurch organi­

zation has helped in this respect. The experiences of the American

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

Board in the first decade of the Turkish Republic offer a good oppor­

tunity to study mission organization in an evolving social context. Al­

though some might question the timeliness of a study of that particular

decade, there are nevertheless advantages in being somewhat removed from

the period being studied. Obviously, the passage of some forty years

since provides the advantage of a decent historical perspective. It

also permits access to materials which are not made generally available

for several decades after their compilation. The selection of Turkey as

a field for study also offers less obvious advantages. The American

Board was the only American Protestant mission agency significantly

engaged there over a long term. Thus, the occasional problems are rela­

tively well-isolated. The complications of several competing Protestant

missions can safely be ignored. Missionary activities and missionary

errors will have repercussions on no other mission agency.

Specific problems encountered will illustrate where inter­

national service agencies may expect trouble to develop. While the

problems are factual and specific, they are not peculiar to Turkey.

Many of them might validly be transposed to almost any other country in

the throes of rapid change, and the example could thus prove useful to

other mission or service agencies.

The purpose of this study is not to provide the definitive

study of missions in international relations. It is rather to make a

significant and positive contribution to the understanding of a complex

phenomenon that has been too much left to chance. This contribution is

made in the hope that others will add to it. Churches and mission agen­

cies, or other international service agencies can make liberal use of

this type of material. They can substitute other specific examples as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7

illustrations. The essential problem areas will remain the same. Mis­

sionaries in rapidly changing socio-political situations in foreign

countries will be most likely to encounter difficulties on four fronts:

nationalism, religion, culture and unfamiliar organizational patterns.

This type of study is by its very nature both interpretive and

conjectural. Much of the study is made up of personal interpretation of

various types of sources and documents. However, even where the text

presents the conclusions of the writer, the sources underlying those

conclusions are cited in support. Thus, the study will be seen through­

out to be rather closely documented.

The American Board kept voluminous records of its work. Its

missionaries and executives were prolific writers. They kept notes,

wrote letters, memoranda and books. Quarterly and annual reports were

published and shared with supporters. These materials have provided

much of the supporting documentation for the study.

A major resource has been archival material, including both

the above-mentioned material and records kept on the Turkey Mission by

the ambassadorial and consular services in Turkey of the U.S. Department

of State. The study will also make use of various types of published

material. The excellent published histories of the American Board and

its mission to the Near East are a valuable resource, especially in sup­

port of the chapter on background. Biographies and autobiographies of

missionaries and others provide a rich source of background knowledge.

Finally, contemporary newspaper and magazine articles, both from Turkey

and from the United States have aided in the documentation of the study.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 2

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

THE GROWTH OF THE AMERICAN BOARD

Early in the nineteenth century, five New England students

presented themselves to their church as volunteers for mission. Ameri­

can Protestantism had not yet considered a program of overseas mission,

and was not organized to accomodate them. Thus, they forced their

church to think in terms of external mission. The founding of the

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1810 was the

positive response of the church to the young men's challenge.^

In the decade that followed, missionaries were sent around

the world. The aim of the American Board then was "to convert the

world" to the evangelical Christianity of New England Congregation- 2 alism. This aim reflected the point of view of a majority of those

■^Clifton Jackson Phillips, Protestant America and the Pagan World (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 20.

^ a o Humpherys Lindsay, Nineteenth Century American Schools in the Levant (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, 1965), p. 221 . 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9

who participated initially in this endeavor, although it was by no

means the only motivation. Several of the participants had been in­

fluenced by Samuel Hopkins and his doctrine of "disinterested bene­

volence .

Many acted under the compulsion of the belief that all people

must have the opportunity to have heard the Gospel proclaimed and to

have reacted to it before the arrival of one millennium. Eighteen de­

cades seemed but a short time to bring all the people of the world into

the fold of Christianity. No time was to be lost in getting about the

task. This was the moving force behind much of American evangelism in h the early nineteenth century.

This motivation, tempered by that of the Hopkinsian strain of

New England Protestantism, had still another significant impact upon the

application of the missionary imperative. Quite apart from any concern

for the souls of those outside the faith, the Church and its mission­

aries must have a care for the social welfare of humankind. Thus, the

American Board declared in 1827 that mission must be defined in terms of

"the moral renovation of (the) world."'’ There would be no more war,

family relations would be improved, every village would have a church

and a school, and every family would be devout in study and in prayer.^

^Phillips, op. clt., p. 2.

^Ibid., p. 1 0.

'’ibid., pp. 11-12 .

^American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Annual Report 1827 (Boston: American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 1827), p. 159.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The program of mission of the American Board eventually

metured beyond the millennial mentality of the early nineteenth

century, but later goals would still be colored by the earlier 7 aspirations. Often unattainable goals would be maintained.

This is illustrated by the statement of goals in 1837, in

which a missionary corps of l,26 o ordained ministers was contemplated.

All but sixty of them were to have been destined for work in foreign

fields. Three hundred laymen and laywomen, including teachers,

printers and physicians, were to assist these ministers around the

world. Upon the shoulders of each minister would fall the respon­

sibility of seeing the Gospel proclaimed to 50,000 people. Even at

that, the American Board lamented that such a program would reach only

sixty million people, out of the hundreds of millions they wanted to

attain.®

The American Board never arrived at that number. The

greatest number of missionaries employed by the Board at one time

was 728 , attained in 1921, including ministers, teachers, physicians,

wives and single women. Only about 137 of them were in the three

Turkey missions, covering more territory than present-day Turkey.^

^Phillips, op. cit., p. 11.

^American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Outline of the Plan on which the Missions of the Board are to be Prosecuted (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1837), p. 10. Hereinafter in footnotes the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions will be identified simply as ABCFM.

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1921 (Boston: ABCFM), p. iv.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

The greatest number of missionaries in Turkey in one year was 174,

reached in 191b, when the Board had 638 missionaries around the

world. 10

The Board did not consider the project too ambitious. They

maintained that the task was realistic, the goal achievable, and the

whole a solemn duty of the Church. 11 The Board held fast to the aim

of proclaiming the Gospel wherever it was unknown, by all means at

their disposal, throughout the fourth decade of the nineteenth

century. 12

In 1823, the Board had placed 29 ministers on 25 stations.

They were assisted by 117 laymen and laywomen. In 1833 , the numberof

ministers in the service of the Board had increased to 85. They

occupied 56 stations around the world, and were assisted by l8l

other persons. In 1843, the number of ministers in mission was 131*

217 laymen and laywomen assisted them in the 86 stations of the Board.

In 1853, 157 ministers served in 111 stations and 38 outstations,

with the assistance of 232 unordained persons. By the end of the

decade, the work of 258 stations and outstations was carried on by

170 ministers and 229 unordained persons. Not quite one-fourth of

all these were in the Ottoman Empire.^

10ABCFM, Annual Report 193.4 (Boston: ABCFM), p. 224.

11ABCFM, Outline of the Plan on Which the Missions of the Board are to be Prosecuted (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1837), P» 1 »

12Ibid., p. 9.

13 ABCFM, Historical Sketch of the Missions of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Boston: T. R. Marvin and Son, 1859), pp. 14-15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

When Pliny Fisk and Levi Parsons sailed for the Near East in

November, 1819, they were instructed to see what good might be done

there, and how it should be done. In this survey, they were to keep in

mind Jews, Muslims, Christians and pagans.^ One should not assume that

they were to choose among those peoples, but rather that they should

determine what to do among all four.

The arrived in Smyrna in 1820, constituting the first settle­

ment of American missionaries in Turkey. William Goodell arrived ten

years later, and opened a station in Constantinople on June 9, 1831 .

Between May, I83 O, and July, 1831 , Eli Smith and Harrison Gray Otis

Dwight explored the interior of Turkey, reaching into the Transcaucasus

and Persia, seeking likely places to establish new mission stations.

Their hopes for success in Turkey were higher than for neighboring

regions of the Near East.1-*

The early missionaries to the Near East did not find Jews or

Muslims very receptive to their advances. It is likely that both were

wary, having too often encountered the wrong end of misguided Christian

zeal. Centuries of hostility between Muslims and Christians had fos­

tered deep-seated animosities. Muslims met Christian aggressors during

the Crusades, and Christians met Muslim aggressors when Islam expanded

into southwestern Europe and the Balkan peninsula. Such intense

feeling does not quickly disappear. Missionaries of the American

"^James L. Barton, "Hie Gospel for All Turkey," The Mis­ sionary Herald (June, 1923); P* 235 .

1^William Ellsworth Strong, The Story of the American Board (Boston: ABCFM, 1910), pp. 88-89.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

Board were to learn, well into the next century that members of

both communities continued to nurse those historical hatreds.1*’

Due in part to the indifference or outright hostility of

the Muslims to their attempts to reach them, and due in part to the

comparatively ready reception accorded their work by the Armenians,

gradually the primary thrust of American Board work in the Near East

turned to the Armenians, and, to a somewhat lesser extent, to the

Greeks. The missionaries did not intend to undermine the structure

or the integrity of any of the Oriental Churches. They had been

specifically warned against that danger.1"^

It is clear, however, that they were not pleased with what

they saw in these churches. They soon discovered that the Christians

of the Ottoman Empire were already divided. Racial community and

political community were identical. Religious differences also

constituted national differences.1^

They were also appalled by what they considered the

degenerate quality of the Christianity they encountered. A foreign

secretary of the Board asserted correctly that the major responsibility

for Christian witness among Muslims belongs to the native Christians.

The missionaries of the American Board, however, felt that the

indigenous Christianity of the Near East lacked sufficient vitality

^F r e d Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: ABCFM, 1959), P. 25.

■^James L. Barton, "Missionary Problems in Turkey," International Review of Missions (New York, October, 1927), P*

James Thayer Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^2), P* 93•

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Ik

and discernment to make any sort of positive impression upon the

Muslims. To that lack they credited the negative response given

them in their own tentative approaches to Muslims. Rufus Anderson,

the foreign secretary of the American Board, agreed with the

missionaries that "a vise plan for the conversion of the Mohammedans

of Western Asia necessarily involved, first, a mission to the ..19 Oriental Churches.

Not a great number of the missionaries learned to speak

Turkish. Some of them never had to use it. Most of them concentrated

on Armenian. The Muslim Turk did not feel himself addressed by the

missionaries or their organization. In large measure his response

was the utmost indifference. He considered that the missionaries were

in Turkey only for the Armenians and the Greeks. 20

There persisted nonetheless, somewhere in the back of the

minds of the missionaries, the expectation that an opening would

come for them to work among the Muslim Turks. Indeed, in the latter

part of the nineteenth century, both the Old Testament and the New

Testament had been translated into Turkish, as well as into other

tongues through the efforts of American Board missionaries. Tracts

and other items turned out in Turkish, however, went largely 21 unnoticed.

l^pufus Anderson, History of the Missions of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to the Oriental Churches (Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1873)> vol. I, p. 1.

20 Goodsell, op. cit., p. 26 .

21James L. Barton, "Missionary Problems in Turkey," International Review of Missions (October, 1927), P» ^84.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15

No conscious choice had been made as to where, or among

what people the Board should concentrate its efforts. Some contend

that the missionaries intended to address themselves chiefly to the 22 Muslims. Others are equally certain that the missionaries meant to

work among the Jews.2^ Still others feel that the goal adopted by

the missionaries was to reinvigorate the native Christian Churches 2k of the Empire. Although the missionaries probably never intended

to establish themselves as chaplains for the foreign merchants, it is

true that no small portion of the time and energy of some missionaries

was devoted to preaching to this expatriate community and to teaching

their children.2^ It is very likely that, obeying their original

instructions, the missionaries were seeing what good could be done

among all the inhabitants of the region, whatever their religion.

This is partly illustrated by the fact that the printing equipment

moved from Malta to Smyrna in 1833 was for Greek, Turkish and

Armenian.2^

In fact, the work did develop primarily among the Armenians.

The missionaries did not wish to cause sny schism in the Armenian

22 James L. Barton, The Christian Approach to Islam (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1918), p. 223.

2 ^Strong, op. cit., p. 80.

2i*Xewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye, United States and Turkey and Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), p. l5 o .

2 ^Lindsay, op. cit., p. 210 .

^Strong, op. cit., pp. 86-87.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16

Church, but they did intend to shake it up. Being themselves the

product of the evangelical revival of the early nineteenth century in

America, they meant, by means of an analogous evangelical revival in

the Oriental Churches, to reform them and so make of them the basic

vehicle of the transmission of the Gospel to their non-Christian

neighbors.2^

The missionaries did not, at first, conduct services of

public worship. Rather they attended the services in the Greek and

Gregorian Churches. They spoke in these churches when they were

invited to do so. The only services of worship they conducted with

any degree of regularity wei'e those in English intended only for

their families and for a limited number of English-speaking

Christians around them.2®

Patriarch M&tleos, disturbed by the character of the

Protestant revival, decided to put a stop to it, and brought great

pressure to bear upon those who had been responding to the Americans.

At first economic reprisals were used, and when these did not bear the

fruit he had hoped for, he turned to the weapon of excommunication.29

This was a serious step, because under the Millet system of

the Ottoman Empire, men claimed civil and political rights through the

religious community. Outside that community, they had none. They

2 7Addison, op. cit., pp. 82 -83 .

2 ®Strong, op. cit., p. 92.

2 ^Addi8on, op. cit., pp. 85-86.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

were utterly exposed. When they sought civil protection, they were

ultimately granted it, but not as Armenians. It was the property of

"Protestants" that was safeguarded.3®

As is so often the case, the missionaries accomplished what

they had sought not to do. Deprived nf their religious community and

their civil and political rights, the Protestants, in consultation with

the missionaries, organized themselves as a church. On July 1, 1846,

the missionaries, self-styled representatives of evangelical churches,

recognized the First Evangelical Armenian Church in Constantinople as

truly evangelical. The missionaries themselves did not become members

of that church.31 Years later, James L. Barton, arriving as a young

missionary in Harput, found missionaries sitting in the congregation,

all but ignored by the native pastor conducting the service of

worship.32

The next logical step for the Protestants was to secure

their own charter, which they did under the hand of the Grand Vizier

on November 15, 1847. 33 Since the Grand Vizier was not the highest

authority in the land, the Protestant Charter of 1847 was subject

to repeal. A second charter was accorded to the Protestants in 84 November, I85O, this time over the signature of the Sultan. It

3 ®Strong, op. cit., p. 105.

31 Ibid.

32James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," Missionary Herald (February, 1927), P« 56.

^E.D.G. Prime, Memoirs, or Forty Years in the Turkish Empire (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1876), p. 330 .

3 ^Ibid., p. 352.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

was reinforced by an Imperial Firman in 1853> communicated to all the

provincial governors and to Protestant leaders.35 The Hatt I Humaiyun

of 1856 was intended to be a charter of religious liberty, abolishing

the death penalty for changing one’s r e l i g i o n . 3^ it did not, however,

eliminate religious persecution, which continued for some time.37

By 1907, the work of the American Board was decidedly among

the Armenians, reinforced by 139 evangelical churches with an indigenous

membership of 16,099. A good number of these churches were financially

independent of the American Board.3®

The Armenian massacre of 1895 presaged further disasters

in years to come which would open the third phase of the work of the

American Board in Turkey. The first phase was that of cooperation

with the already existing Oriental Churches. The second was that of

cooperating with the young Protestant Churches.39 ihe third phase was

necessitated by the tragedies of World War I, during which the number

of Armenian Protestants in Turkey was reduced by 95 percent. During

this same period, most of the churches were closed, all but a few of

the several hundred schools were closed, nearly half of the mission­

aries were lost to the work for various reasons, and much property of Uo great value was destroyed.

35ibid., p. ^85. pp. 485-U86.

37 gtrong, op. cit., p. 215.

3®ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, I907), P- 22.

39abCFM, Annual Report 1930 (Boston: ABCFM, 1930), pp. I63 -I6U.

^®Addison, op. cit., pp. 100-101.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

All this forced the American Board and its remaining

missionaries in Turkey to face up to the new conditions, and to

come to grips with the options now before them--withdrawal from

Turkey or re-orientation of their work there. Tiie former would

mean abandoning all that might have been accomplished and following

their constituency into exile. The latter would require a new

emphasis, a realignment of loyalties, a reorientation of their

interests, and to some degree a retraining of the personnel.

EDUCATIONAL WORK

In the course of their journey of fifteen months of

exploration of the interior of Turkey in I83 O and I83 I, Smith and

Dwight noted no school in the whole territory for the education of

girls.^ The following year, in the month of May, William Goodell

and his wife attempted a short-lived remedy to the situation. They

opened a school for girls in their own home, and invited the Greek

families of their acquaintance to send them their daughters. In

a very short time, they had 25 girls. However, threats of the Greek

Synod to excommunicate those families forced them to withdraw their

daughters, and within the span of only four months the first

attempt of the missionaries to open a school for girls came to an

^Strong, op. cit., p. 221 .

^Joseph K. Greene, Leavening the Levant (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1916), P- l^l^

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

Another attempt to provide educational facilities for girls

led to the establishment of a school for girls in Smyrna in 1836. This

project met with somewhat more success, but the school did not long

remain in the hands of missionaries.^

Later, more durable educational projects were launched.

Among them was a boys' boarding school at Bebek, founded by Cyrus

Hamlin near Constantinople. Within a few years, it became the first

Protestant theological seminary in Turkey.^ In the Fall of 1845,

the Goodells again opened a school in their home. Unlike the first

school, this one was a boarding school. By this time, the evangelical

community was more numerous, and the response was considerable. ^

The opposition of the hierarchy of the Oriental Churches

continued to be vigorous, not only to the evangelistic efforts of the

missionaries, but also to their educational programs. In part this

was because the schools were being used as means of reaching the

families and acquaintances of the pupils. In some cases these contacts

led to new converts to the evangelical movement, and in at least one

case to a new evangelist among his own people, in the person of the 46 father of one of the pupils.

After the first successes at Constantinople, boarding schools

for girls sprang up all across the country, in nearly all the major

mission stations. Schools of the American Board were to be found as

^strong, op. cit., pp. 93, 221 -222 .

^Addison, op. cit., p. 90.

^Greene, op. cit., pp. l6l-l6 2 . 46 Strong, op. cit., p. 97-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

far west as Van, as far north as Sivas, and as far south as the 47 Mediterranean, as well as along the Bosporus.

The educational system of the American Board in Turkey had

thus become quite extensive, largely as a result of the evangelistic

emphasis in the mission and of the methods employed in it. When the

excommunication did come, in 1846, missionaries and evangelicals alike

began to see a need for pastors 1 training schools to provide pastors

for the new churches. Four such schools were founded, and called

theological seminaries, although their program and the quality of

their training could not be said to compare with the theological

seminaries of the West in a very favorable manner. One was situated

in Eastern Turkey, in Mardin. Two were located in Central Turkey,

in Mara^ and in Harput. The fourth was in North Central Turkey,

in Merzifon.^

It was at the time of the schism that the Board began to hq emphasize educational work in particular. y Although there was wide

agreement concerning the desirability of elementary education, that

agreement did not extend to higher education in the B o a r d . S e c r e t a r y

Anderson was of the opinion that only those programs of education

^Greene, op. cit., p. 163

^Addison, op. cit., p. 89.

^Julius Richter, History of Protestant Missions in the Near East (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910), p. 123-

5°Goodsell, op. cit., pp. 51-52.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

which contributed to the provision of mission manpower were acceptable.

The growth of the new evangelical community being the end, the training

of mission helpers became the means.^ The schools became keys by which

missionaries opened the doors of new communities. They served as recom­

pense to communities which opened their doors to the missionaries. They

became "instruments of proselytism. In part, the misgivings about

the place of higher education in Christian mission came from New England

life, where Harvard College had become too liberal for New England con­

servatives in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Per­

sonal experience, emotionalism and piety were more important than formal

e d u c a t i o n . I t is ironic that the Congregationalists were reluctant to

accept higher education in mission as valid, especially since their pro­

gram of O' erseas mission resulted from the challenge thrown down before

them by college students.'*1* Even James L. Barton, many years afterward,

having been inspired himself by Cyrus Hamlin, the founder of Robert

College, and having responded to a challenge to become part of the

world mission while still a college student, confessed that he had

great difficulty in appreciating the proper place of any education,

and especially higher education, in mission work. "I seriously ques­

tioned," he wrote, "whether this was missionary work, and doubted the

place of the college in the missionary program.. . Still more

^^Goodsell, op. cit., pp. 51-52.

^Lindsay, op. cit., p. 222. ^Goodsell, op. cit., p. 50

5**Ibid., p. 49.

^James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (March, 1927), P* 95*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

ironic, in the light of this confession, is the fact that Barton was

sent to Turkey unaware that he was to replace President Wheeler, of

Euphrates College in Harput.^

In a serious break with Secretary Anderson, Cyrus Hamlin with­

drew from the mission in order to be free to realize his dream of estab­

lishing an institution of higher learning in the Turkish capital modeled

after those in America. He wanted to make use of English as the vehicle

of instruction, and Secretary Anderson found the idea totally unaccept­

able, and insisted that all education be in the vernacular. More than

three decades later, Hamlin defended the rupture, saying, "I could not

conscientiously continue as an educator in the service of the Board

after Dr. Anderson's revolutionary system of vernacular education had

been decided upon."^

He set about seeking funds, and was able, in 1863, to take in

a limited number of students in temporary facilities. Christopher R.

Robert, a wealthy businessman of New York, visited the city of Con­

stantinople in I856, and invited Dr. Hamlin to help in the establish­

ment of the college. The Eebek Seminary was closed in 1862, and was

moved to Merzifon the same year. The college was named after its

benefactor. By the time of his death in 1878, Christopher R. Robert

had given $1*00,000 for the college which bore his name. ^

56Ibid.

^Cyrus Hamlin, My Life and Times (Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society, 18937» P* ^l1**

"^Richter, op. cit., p. 129.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2k

By 1880, the higher education movement in Turkey was well

under way. Robert College in Constantinople and the Syrian Protestant

College in Beirut, both in a sense offspring of the Board, although cast

out, had already demonstrated both the desire for such institutions and

their viability. By then, the Board, too, had begun to play the game.^

In 1874, Central Turkey College was founded at Aintab. An analogous

college for girls was situated some distance away, at Mares.^ Anatolia

College was established at Merzifon.^2 Euphrates College was chartered

in Massachusetts in 187k, and situated at Harput.^ In Scutari, across

the straits from Constantinople, one found a college for girls, later to

become Constantinople Woman's College. In 1888, Col. Shepard, of New

York, founded St. Paul's College for young men at Tarsus. It was placed 1 6U under the care of the Board in 1904• By 1910* the Board was engaged

in a program of education consisting of better than forty high schools

8nd boarding schools, in excess of three hundred primary schools and

village schools, and more than half a dozen institutions of higher

learning, directly or indirectly.^

It is said that because of these schools and colleges, the

American Board had indeed made a significant impact upon the Muslim

population of Turkey. Although it would be a mistake to attribute too

much of the later evolution of Turkish policies, especially in the

period of westernization, to the influence of the schools and colleges

•^Addison, op. cit., pp. 89-90. ^Strong, op. cit., p. 22k.

^^ichter, op. cit., p. 157* ^2 Ibid.

^Strong, op. cit., p. 22k. ^Richter, op. cit., p. 157.

^Richter, op. cit., p. 157, and Addison, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

of the American Board in Turkey, it would be no less a mistake to

deny them any credit at all. Certainly their presence had some effect

upon Turkish life and thought. Graduates were to be numbered in the 66 thousands.

Such results can be considered to have religious value, too.

One must keep in mind the effect that the presence of these colleges,

high schools and primary schools, staffed by Christians, in part, and

thus having a character of their own, constituted in fact a kind of

existential Christian-Muslim dialog. Their presence and their

contribution to Turkish well-being was certainly a far cry from the

earlier and less fortunate experiences Turks and other Muslims had

had with western Christians.^

With the high schools, the seminaries, the preparatory

schools and the boarding schools supplying the institutions of higher

education with students, the program of education of the American

Board had come full cycle since the days of Secretary Anderson's

inflexible opposition to higher education in Christian mission.

In the early days of the American Board's mission in Turkey,

occasionally enticements had to be offered to draw pupils into the

mission schools.^® In later years, some of these schools came to

constitute a great burden upon the financial resources of the mission

^Addison, op. cit., pp. 89-90.

^Addison, op. cit., p. 96, and Lindsay, op. cit., p. 22k.

^Jaraes L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (February, 1927), P* 56.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

in Turkey. The Board was forced to cut its appropriations to the

overseas missions from time to time, and it became the lot of the

missions themselves to determine how their program should be adjusted

to reflect the diminution in foreign support. On one such occasion,

the executive committee of the Eastern Turkey Mission decided that

the appropriate response to the reduction must be the closing of

four village schools supported by the mission. James L. Barton was

given the responsibility of informing the authorities in the villages

affected by the decision. To his great surprise, three of the villages

undertook the entire support of their schools, including the salaries 6q of the teachers, and the schools did not close. y

The experience may have been repeated many times over. Even

as late as 1932, when funds from the United States again diminished,

because of the depression, the mission was forced to close several

schools. In one case, that of Adana, the citizens of the city felt the

school to be of such value that they did not wish it to be closed.

When they were told that the financial situation of the mission did not

permit its continuation, they took matters into their own hands. They

contacted the Government in Ankara, rented the school buildings from

the mission, established a management committee composed of prominent

citizens, and took upon themselves the salaries of two American

teachers.7°

69lbid.

7°Charles H. Sherrill, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group No. 59 )> 36T*ll6^/l80, Istanbul, August 2k, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

There were many other ressons for closing schools, ana the

mission was obliged to do so many times in the course of its history

in Turkey. Sometimes the schools had to be closed when personnel was

not available to staff them. Sometimes they had to be closed because

of civil strife or other social upheavals. Sometimes the authorities

closed them. Sometimes they were closed in one city to be reopened

in another. Sometimes they were severely damaged or destroyed by fire.

The most devastating effect by far upon the schools was that of the

first World War and the subsequent war between Greece end Turkey.

When these conflicts finally ceased, most of the hundreds

of schools supported by the mission, whether directly under its

control or not, had been closed. Nearly all their pupils were gone,

victims of the conflict--some had fled and some had perished. None of

the schools of the Eastern Turkey Mission remained. Of the boarding

schools and high schools, only eight remained— two in the Central

Turkey Mission, and the rest in the Western Turkey Mission.^' Of the

eight colleges related to the American Board, only two survived--one

in Tarsus and the other in I z m i r .Constantinople Woman’s College and

Robert College, both independent, were not greatly affected. The

Constantinople Woman's College had left its former site in Uskildar^

71ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 192U), PP. 3- 75, 77, 79-80, d2-ti3.

^%ith the advent of the Republic, toponyms often changed. Smyrna became Izmir.

^Formerly Scutari. Situated on the Asian side of the Bosporus. See note 72, above.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

before the World War, and was on its new campus in Istanbul^ on the

European side of the Bosporus.^ A preparatory department was con­

nected with each of the remaining colleges. The preparatory depart­

ment was of high school level, but was nonetheless an integral part

of the college organization.^

With the exception of schools and colleges which had been

closed temporarily at the end of the Greco-Turkish conflict in the

aftermath of World War I, such as the American Collegiate Institute

and International College, in Izmir,^ the American Board made no

attempt until May 1, 1925, . to reopen the schools which had been

closed during the war. Then the American Board, through its repre­

sentatives in Turkey, requested the permission of the Minister of

Public Instruction to reopen some of them, but that permission was not , . ?8 granted.

Robert College and Constantinople Woman's College, in

Istanbul, were two of the four institutions of higher education which

made un the Near East College Association. These institutions were

entirely outside the purview of the American Board. This was due in

^Constantinople.

^Addison, op. cit., pp. 91-92.

^Ernest W. Riggs, Memorandum prepared for Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367.1164/12, Boston, February 15, 1923 .

^^Both the school and the college were closed in 1922 , immediately after the burning of Smyrna. They were both reopened in the Fall of 1923.

^Joseph C. Grew, Aide-Memoire prepared for Tevfik Ru^tU Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)# 367-1164/104, Constantinople, November 3# 1927.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

part to the type of disagreement within the Board which had led Cyrus

Hamlin to withdraw as a missionary of the Board in the mid-nineteenth

century. It was partly due, also, to the evolution of Board policies,

especially under the leadership of Secretary Barton. He felt that the

advantages of independent boards of trustees for the institutions of

higher education were multiple. . In the first place, he felt that the

mission was not especially suited to manage a college or university,

and particularly in a foreign country. Its primary interest did not

lie in education. In the second place, independent boards of trustees

for such institutions would be made up of educators, and as such would

be appropriately qualified to promote educational interests. This

would also involve additional people in the enterprise of Christian

education overseas, distributing the load of responsibility more

equitably. In the third place, these people, being independent of

the mission, would not in the course of their quest of necessary funds

for running the colleges and universities menace the supply of funds

needed by the mission.79

He did not share the misgivings of Secretary Anderson of

a generation before that the institutions risked not being Christian

in character simply because they were consecrated to higher education.

On the contrary, he felt they could be profoundly Christian and truly

missionary, as much as if they were directly answerable to the Board.

79james L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (March, 1927), PP* 96-97*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30

They would also "be as purely educational as if they had not had their 80 origins in the mission of the Church. The independence of these

colleges and universities had nothing to do with a denial of the

mission. At least part of the personnel of the colleges in Turkey

had come from the mission, had been secured with the cooperation of

the Board, or had some other fraternal ties with the mission. Several

of the faculty members were ordained clergymen. Of the first four

presidents of Robert College, three--Cyrus Hamlin, George Washburn

and Caleb F. Gates— had been missionaries of the Board for several 81 years.

In addition to the extensive educational program in Turkey

already outlined, the Board initiated two other ventures in education.

Neither of them proved to be of very great duration there.

The first of these was the Language School in Istanbul.

Mrs. Lulu Goodsell, spouse of the Field Secretary of the mission,

Fred Field Goodsell, was directress for a short while after its

founding in 1920. The initial and immediately obvious purpose of

such a school was the provision of a structured learning environment

which would favorize to the maximum degree the acquisition of any

necessary languages by new arrivals to the field. The language School

®°Ibid.

^Greene, op. cit., p. 20k

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31

made use of university students as private tutors for the students.

Others, too, were brought in as tutors as necessary and appropriate.

The students had daily lessons in language.®*2 The school began in a

very modest fashion, and never became very large. By 192k, when

Fred Field Goodsell was director, the enrollment was only ten.®3 The

following year, sixteen were enrolled.®21 In 1926 and 1927, the Good*

sells took their furlough in the United States, and Edward T. Perry,

one of the younger missionaries, became acting director. Hie two

students enrolled during that year had the attentions of the acting

director, one Turkish teacher, and three university students serving

as tutors.®5 During the academic year of 1927-1928, when the Good-

sells had returned from their furlough, twelve students took courses

in Turkish, Arabic as used in Turkish, Turkish Psychology, Turkish

Womanhood, Turkish Religious History, Protestantism in Turkey, Syria

and Her Problems, and the Red Crescent.®® In the Summer and Fall of

1928, the Language School was even more active. During the Summer, a

two-month session was held in Talas. This increase in activity was

due in part to the Bursa incident earlier in the year, which is treated

in Chapter 5 below.®? Eighteen students were enrolled for the Fall

®2 ABCFM, Annual Report 1926 (Boston: ABCFM, 1926), p. 87.

®3a BCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924). p. 80.

®2*ABCFM, Annual Report 1925 (Boston: ABCFM, 1925), P- 6 0.

ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927), P* 80.

®®ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), p. 82.

®7a b CFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), pp. 70-71*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in 1928, and continued their studies for the rest of that academic

year. This would be the year, too, when the Language School was

accorded special facilities in the Bible House, where the administrative

offices of the mission were situated. The students found that the

adoption of a modified Latin letter alphabet for Turkish facilitated

their learning considerably.®® That year marked the peak of activity

of the school. During the year that followed, two events would point

the way of the future for the school. The first came in the Fall.

The stock market crash at the end of October signalled the onset of

the Great Depression in the United States. It heralded also a period

of tight money and sharply reduced budgets for the Board and all its

missions. This would mean reduced funding, and especially for an

Institution that was young, that was not directly involved in aggressive

mission, and that might not therefore have the wholehearted support of

the most conservative elements of the church. It would also mean that

much fewer new people would be coming overseas. Actually, there were 8 o only three students that year, and four the following year. ^ The

second event of the year affecting the school profoundly occurred in

the Spring. Goodsell was elected Executive Vice-President of the

Board, and left Turkey to take his new post in Boston.^ Edward T.

®®ABCFM, Annual Report 1929 (Boston: ABCFM, 1929), P- 200.

®9ABCFM, Annual Report 1930 (Boston: ABCFM, 1930), p. 173, and ABCFM, Annual Report 1931 (Boston: ABCFM, 1931), PP- 72-73-

90ABCFM, Annual Report 1930 (Boston: ABCFM, 1930), p. 173-

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33

Perry was appointed director of the Language School, but since no

new appointees were in sight, the Language School was closed in the

Spring of 1932. 91

The other new post-war venture in education in Turkey was

a School of Religion, established in Constantinople in 1922. It was

intended to be a center to which young men might come from several

countries of the region. They were also to be welcomed from any

Christian confession. The institution was never to become strong in 02 Turkey. It was quietly moved to Athens in 1925.

CHANGING GOALS IN CHANGING TIMES

In 1832, when the Constitution of the American Board of Com­

missioners for Foreign Missions was adopted with its laws and regula­

tions, its stated object was "to propagate the gospel among unevange­

lized nations and communities, by means of preachers, catechists,

schoolmasters, and the press.This was still the object five years

later, when the strategy for world mission was outlined. In 1837,

preac hing was seen as the most important of all the methods to be em­

ployed in mission. The aim of mission was the conversion of men, with

the accent upon the individual. The function of the American Board

in this grand design was to see to it that preachers should be

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1931 (Boston; ABCFM, 1931), PP- 72-73-

92ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston; ABCFM, 1927), p- 6 6.

9\bCFW, Constitution. Laws and Regulations (Boston: ABCFM, 1833), P- 5} the Constitution, Laws and Regulations were adopted by the Board on October 4, 1832 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Made available to all people within the geographical areas targeted

by the Board for evangelization.^

When the Board set itself to opening schools and educating

children within a few years, the motives were not so much a concern

for the well-being of the individual, nor of the society made up of

individuals, but rather evangelistic. The schools were intended to

serve the aim of conversion. The mission schools would provide a

literate, not intellectual, people who could read the Bible and who

would thus be likely to offer success in evangelization.95

The Board had adopted a plan of action standing upon three

legs. The first was the preaching of the Gospel to as many as possible.

The second was the translation and distribution of the Gospel as widely

as possible among those encompassed in the field of mission. The

third was the promotion of Bible study, a concept which necessitated

the most elementary sort of literacy program.9^

The program was not complex in conception. The Word was

addressed to individuals. Individuals responded, having been convinced.

Those who accepted were saved and attained a heavenly peace. That was

it.97

When the missionaries set themselves to evangelizing the

eastern Christians, particularly those of the Armenian Church, it was

9^ABCFM, Outline of the Plan on Which the Missions of the Board are to be Prosecuted (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1637), p. 7-

^Lindsay, op. cit., p. 221.

-^Goodsell, op. cit., p. 33-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35

still in the furtherance of the aims already tacitly or explicitly

adopted. They had encountered a church which they considered so far

removed from the Gospel— as they interpreted it— as to be for all

practical purposes without it. They preached with the expectation of

reform, they printed and they taught.

When the evangelical Armenians were cast out of their

church by the patriarch in 1846, the effect was not only to deprive

them of civil and political rights in the ordinary sense. It also

deprived them of education. Education was the concern, in the Millet

system of the Ottomans, of the religious communities, or, under the

capitulations, of the foreign communities. It would have been possible,

of course, for the Armenians to attend the European foreign schools.

The missionaries saw there, however, another danger. They had been

building an evangelical community. To default on the issue of edu­

cation might drive the evangelicals into the arms of the "infidel

schools in Europe. The missionaries began to see education as part

and parcel of the broad program of evangelism. 100 By the same token,

a united, strong and fervent evangelical community would, they hoped,

further their aim of converting Muslims, an aim from which they had

9®Addison, op. cit., pp. 82 -83 .

^ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, 1907), p. 133, quoting greetings from Rev. Oscar M. Chamberlain, of Turkey, a convert from the Armenian Gregorian Church.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36

not retreated. i0 1 The interest in their schools was interpreted by

the missionaries as demonstrating the very awakening of the Christian 102 conscience which they had sought.

Having served as midwives to the birth of a new denomination

in Turkey, the missionaries did not feel that the baby could be allowed

to perish for lack of nourishment. Thus, rudimentary seminaries, or,

more accurately, pastors' training schools, such as the one at Bebek

founded by Qyrus Hamlin, came into b e i n g . The pastors trained in

the seminaries would care for the churches of the evangelical community,

or "Protestants," as they had been dubbed, and the evangelicals would

see to the Christian witness among Muslims, according to the hopes of

Secretary Anderson.

In later years, the pursuance of broadly-based general

education in the mission schools was not so much an expression of

interest in pure education or scientific knowledge as it was the

exploitation of education as a tool with which the Church might be

advanced.^ When Hamlin broke with Anderson and withdrew from the

service of the Board in i860, his objections to Anderson's ideas

were fourfold. In the first place, he felt that the narrow policies

101Anderson, op. cit., vol. I, p. 1; see also James L. Barton, "The Gospel for All Turkey," The Missionary Herald (Boston: ABCFM, June, 1923), p. 235 .

102 Strong, op. cit., p. 97. 10^Ibid,, p. 103. 10k Anderson, op. cit., lcc. cit.; see also Addison, op. cit., pp. 83 -8k, 89.

10^Goodsell, op. cit., p. 50.

Reproduced with permission of the oopyright owner. Further reproduo,ion prohibited without permission. 37

of education which Anderson espoused were unnatural in the human

race, which, once aroused, always sought more, and was not satisfied

with merely having been awakened. In the second place, he saw no

reason why the Protestants should not have the right to an education

at least as good as that of Catholics, particularly in the question

of languages other than the vernacular. Third, he was sure that not

to pursue the education already begun would cause dissatisfaction in

the evangelical community. Finally, this would reflect negatively

on the reputation of the mission.-*-0^

This did not mean that Hamlin favored the promotion of

education, and higher education in particular, but did not favor

an evangelical approach. Rather he favored higher education as one

of many methods of the prosecution of evangelism. After the founding

of Robert College, he still pursued within the institution policies

that might characterized as aggressively evangelistic. In this

respect, he continued to be every bit the missionary. He was simply 107 no longer connected with the American Board. 1

As the century was drawing to a close, it was possible to

see a distinct evolution in concepts, goals and methods of mission.

More and more missionaries were willing to admit the importance of

10^Hamlin, op. cit., p. klk.

10^Robert College, Istanbul, Statements in Regard to Robert College (New York: Board of Trustees of Robert College, [n.d.} }, pp. 7-6; see also Greene, op. cit., pp. 20k-205.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38

education in its own right. Education in these American schools was

being eagerly sought after, especially among the Armenians, both 108 Protestant and Gregorian, but interest was not limited to the

Christians, because one could count Muslims and Jews among the bene­

ficiaries as vell.10^ The American schools could by then enjoy some

of the fruits of their earlier labors; as more and more students went

through the system, they could be increasingly called upon to shoulder

some of the load of education.11^* As the schools became ever more

popular, missionaries began to appreciate to what degree general edu­

cation could contribute to better community relations. They began to

see how through general education they made contacts with elements of

society they might not otherwise have been able to reach. They began

to see how programs of this nature could gain them a clear acceptance

in the community. This sort of thinking resulted in the evolution of

another way of looking at the purposes of the schools.

By the turn of the century, the schools were looked upon

as the yeast in ferment in the loaf of society. Through the schools,

impregnated as they were with Christian character, or at the very least

with western civilization, missionaries saw the opportunity of trans­

forming the whole culture around them. 111 The graduates of the American

10®Richter, op. cit., pp. 131-132.

10^Strong, op. cit., p. 22k.

110Ibid.

^^ichter, op. cit., p. 133; see also Addison, op. cit., p. 96; and Lindsay, op. cit., p. 22^; see also ABCFM, The One Hundredth Axiiiivcrc-ary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston; ABCFM, 1907), P* 90*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39

schools and colleges were widely recognized as having unusual qualities

of character and leadership, of honesty in their dealings, and of

clear thinking. 112

The role of education by then was very widely appreciated

among missionaries and in the Board offices. By then it was under­

stood as furnishing the intellectual and spiritual leaders of the

church. It was seen as the planting of a seed in non-Christian society

which would bear fruit in later years. 13-3 Therefore, the mission con­

centrated its efforts in the field of education. The whole field of

evangelism was becoming the domain of the native Christians.11^

Addressing a gathering on the occasion of the centenary of

the birth of Congregational missions, James L. Barton called for more

missionaries to be sent to Turkey. He called for a radical reorientation

of the attention of the American Board. He felt that any new mission­

aries going to Turkey should devote themselves exclusively to work

among Muslims, letting the Christians take care of themselves.He

further challenged the Board and the Church to a new concept in

missionary involvement in education. Based upon the successes of the

past in education under the control of the mission, he foresaw the

112Robert P. Skinner, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6UR5I+/6 9, Istanbul, December 12, 1930; see also James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (March, 192 7)> P- 96.

^^James L. Barton, "Reminiscences ofJames L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (March, 192 7), P- 97*

llJ*Strong, op. cit., p. 399.

■^ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston; ABCFM, 1907), p. 2 95-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. hO

possibility of increased demand on the part of the Muslim Turks for

American assistance in education. He called for the Board and the

mission in Turkey to be prepared to join with the Turks in cooperative

ventures in education, within the Turkish system.11®

By 1907, the American Board, and probably the leadership of

all its missions, had turned away from the original aim in mission of

converting an individual here and there, or, even without converting

him, of bringing pressure to bear upon the individual conscience. The

focus in mission was now upon what transformation the missions might

bring about in the community as a whole, rather than in personal

lives only. 117

One should not confuse this accent with a defeatist

attitude resultant upon a categorical lack of success in the method of

personal evangelism. On the contrary, some in the American Board fully

expected remarkable progress throughout the twentieth century due to

this emphasis, and were not in the least hesitant to predict sweeping

changes in the world, including Turkey.11®

By 191^, at the beginning ofWorld War I, the leaders of

the American educational program in Turkey had been witnesses to

sweeping changes, well enough, but not those they had anticipated.

They had not swept the Near East with change; they had rather been

ll6Ibid., p. 295.

^■^ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, 1907), P* 90.

ll8Ibid., p. 162 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. kl

swept by change themselves. They were forced to come to grips with

the fact that history was not marching to their tune. The Near East

had been subject to many influences, both internal and external.

The Near East was in the full swing of self-development. The

American schools were only one of many influences feeding that

development. ^-9

In late July, 1908, the Young Turk Committee of Union and

Progress, a hitherto secret organization dedicated to the cause of

regenerating the Empire through democratic reforms, popularly known

as the Young Turks, revolted against the Sultanate. They were

successful in their coup, and the newspapers tersely gave notice

that parlimentary elections would be held. This meant that the

long-suspended Constitution of l8f6 had been reinstated.

Suddenly, the press, long censored, was free. The press

participated enthusiastically in the celebration of the new liberty.

Try as they might, the old-fashioned presses could not meet the

increased demand of the public for fresh, free news. Up to that

time, the price of a newspaper had been one cent. Now, prices 121 increased four thousand percent, to forty cents a copy.

Popular reaction to the coup was joyous. Constantinople was

enveloped in a euphoric delirium. Throngs in the streets applauded

^-^Lindsay, op. cit., p. 196.

120Ahmed Emin Yalman, Turkey in My Time (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 195&), P* 21. 121 x Ibid., p. 23 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. k2

speeches by the revolutionaries. Muslim and Christian clergy were

pushed into each others' arms by the crowds and forced to embrace.

Turks fraternized with Greeks and Armenians. The effect was elec- t 22 trifying. Istanbul had been shaken out of its lethargy.

The Young Turks were not without opposition, however, and

not all went smoothly. Difficulties became serious in October. By

April 13, 1909> opponents were demanding that the Constitution again

be suspended and that Parliament be revoked. The Young Turks deposed

Sultan Abdul Hamid II, and took control of the government them­

selves. 123 •

All subjects of Turkey were declared inalienably equal in

the new Turkey, and distinctions based upon race or creed were des­

tined for elimination. The minorities of Turkey were offered the pri­

vilege of military service instead of paying the special tax levied

upon them because they were ineligible for military service. They

were also promised equality in employment opportunities, in parlia­

mentary representation, in the right to cabinet posts. The ground

work was being done, the foundations laid for the abolition of

the millets.1^

From 1911 until 191^, the Young Turks attempted without

notable success to negotiate agreements with the foreign powers on

^^Efthimios N. Couzinos, Twenty-Three Years in Asia Minor (1899-1922) (New York: Vantage Press, 19^9), PP* 23-25; see also Yalman, op. cit., pp. 23 -2 U.

"^^Feroz Ahmad, The Young Turks (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969), PP» 23-U6.

12 ^Idem., p. 23; see also Couzinos, op. cit., pp. 2^-25.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. k3

the abolition of the capitulations, which granted to foreign nationals

in Turkey certain extra-territorial rights. They were hoping that

the foreign powers would accept the reforms in Turkey as demonstrating

that the capitulations were no longer necessary. At last, in the

confusion reigning at the beginning of the first World War, the Turks

unilaterally abrogated the capitulations on September 9, 191k. The

foreign pcwers were powerless to do anything about it, except to

protest.

The outbreak of World War I was also the period of reawakening

of barely dormant animosities of long duration. The origins of these

animosities are complex, and sometimes even lost in obscurity. Probably

no party to them is without a certain amount of guilt. We can be

reasonably certain that many Americans do not have the full story. It

was in part due to the events of this period that the epithet of

"Terrible Turk" was engraved so indelibly in the minds of so many

Americans. During the first World War, hundreds of thousands of

Armenians were deported, killed, or died in the course of their depor­

tation. Since most of the work of the missionaries up to that time

had been among the Armenians, this fact alone would make a great

difference in the future of the mission in the Near East.12^

It would not be fair to leave this consideration, especially

.S., Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (192k), LXV, No. 10, 10292, Senator William Henry King, of Utah, addressing the Senate on June 3, 192k; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1922 (Boston: ABCFM, 1922), p. 76; see also James L. Barton, "What of the Future in Turkey?* The Missionary Herald (September, 1923 )> P* 390; see also Ahmad, op. cit., pp. 22, 62 -6k, 87, 96, IkO, 156-157.

■^Lewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye, The United States and Turkey and Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951)> PP* 60-61;

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44

since this study deals with the part played in international relations

by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions or their

mission in the Near East, without pointing out a possible missionary

contribution to this tragic chapter of history in Turkey. One must

keep in mind the great awakening among the Armenians brought about by

the missionaries in the first half of the nineteenth century. That

awakening brought about the separation of some of the Armenians from

their mother church. They constituted a separate community. The

missionaries learned the Armenian language. Armenians responded to

the educational opportunities offered by the missionaries. All of

these things contributed to a sense of nationalism among the Armenians.

One car. be reasonably certain that the missionaries did not mean

for that to happen, but happen it did. In report after report made

by the mission or the schools for which it was responsible, it is

possible to read lists of the various "nationalities" which benefited

from the programs of the mission. One is struck by the fact that these

"nationalities" were occasionally ethnic, linguistic, cultural or

religious groupings, and that they had nothing to do with an indivi­

dual's citizenship.^^ As time went on, non-Muslim minorities in

general, and the Armenians in particular, were increasingly looked

upon by the Turks as not only dissident elements in a homogeneous

^^Robert College, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Constan­ tinople: Robert College, 1924), p. 33; see also Mark L. Bristol, Memo­ randum for Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59)# 367.1164/96, Constantinople, December 7# 1926; see also Joseph C. Grew, Memorandum for Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59)# 367.1l64/l04, Constantinople, November 23, 1927; see also Near East Colleges Association, Annual Report 1928-1929 (New York: Near East Colleges Association, 1929), p. 2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. society. Many of them were in fact radical revolutionaries. All of

them were suspected of collusion with outsiders to carve Turkey up

and to deliver her into the hands of foreign domination."*2 ®

The war years in Turkey were to be tumultuous and tragic

ones for the mission. No sector of the work of the mission was to

remain untouched. It was impossible for the missionaries to remain

indifferent to the suffering all around them, and many of them were

quite active in relief work of all kinds, particularly among the

remnant of the people with whom their organization had been working

for nearly a century.12^

Before the war, hundreds of schools had been in operation

by the Board; during the war, most of them were closed. Before the

war, no less than twenty-three stations were occupied by missionaries;

during the war, most of them were closed and evacuated. Before the

war, the Board operated hospitals in nine localities; by the end of

the war, the American Board operated only two. Two others were

functioning under the Near East Relief.

In the course of the war, many mission buildings were

requisitioned by the Turkish military forces, while still others were

■^Ziya Gflkalp, The Principles of Turkism, trans. Robert Devereux (Leiden, Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1966), pp. 32, 42, 54; see also Ahmad, op. cit., pp. 144-145, 15^-155J see also Thomas and Frye, op. cit., pp. 60-61, 140-141.

12^James L. Barton, '"Hie Problem of Turkey," The Missionary Herald (May, 1923), p. 191*

130 ABCFM, Year Book 1918 (Boston: ABCFM, 1918), PP- 42, 49-53; see also James L. Barton, "What of the Future in Turkey?" The Missionary Herald (September, 1923), PP. 391-392; see also Ernest W. Riggs, Memo­ randum to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/12 , Boston, January 15, 1923*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. k6

pressed into service as emergency centers for relief, where they

received refugees, orphans and others in need of temporary care. At

the end of the war, the Turks returned to the mission all the property

they had requisitioned for the military. Conditions were still

unsettled throughout Turkey, and the work of the mission did not 131 return to normal operations. It could not.

At this point, some basic decisions had to be made. They

would ultimately be made in the United States, but they would not be

made without the participation of the missionaries in Turkey. Basically

all the decisions to be made might be summed up in two. First, should

the Board continue its presence in Turkey in any form? Second, based

on the supposition that the Board should decide to maintain a presence

in Turkey, what should be the nature of that presence?

A debate ensued which lasted several years. In fact, it

would be resumed with vigor each time the mission encountered some

new problem in its operations in Turkey throughout the first decade

of the Turkish Republic. It would occupy many pages in many ecclesias­

tical publications, denominational, interdenominational and non-

denominational. The time, thought and energies of many missionaries to

Turkey, former missionaries to Turkey, Board staff, Board members and

many others would be consumed in this debate.

■^James L. Barton, "The Problem of Turkey," The Missionary Herald (May, 1923), p. 191*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47

One of the arguments against continuing in Turkey was that the

Muslims had not responded favorably enough in a century of work in Tur­

key to justify any further investment in personnel or financial re- 132 sources. Another argument was that since the Greeks and Armenians

had responded favorably, it would be unthinkable to abandon work among

them simply because they had been compelled to leave the country. The

mission should sooner withdraw and follow its constituency into

exile.Still another argument was that, since the capitulations had

been abrogated, the authorities would make life so unbearable for the

missionaries that they would find it impossible to continue. Thus, the

mission, anticipating that possibility, should abandon the country

immediately.

One of the reasons given for staying was that the Board had

extensive property holdings in Turkey, and a large missionary force

still present with competency in varied business and professional

capacities. These people knew Turkey, Turkish and the Turks, and it 135 would be unwise, so the argument went, to ignore that important fact.

It was also contended that to leave under the circumstances prevailing

in the first few years after the institution of the Republic, and

during the westernization of Turkey, would constitute a witness to the

"^U.S.. Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924), LXV, No. 10, 10294. 133 James L. Barton, "The Gospel for All Turkey,' The Mission­ ary Herald (June, 1923)> P» 235*

13\j.S., Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924), LXV, No. 10, 10295; see also James L. Barton, "What of the Future in Turkey?" The Missionary Herald (September, 1§23), P* 390. 135 James L. Barton, "Have We a Mandate for Turkey? The Missionary Herald (July, 1923), P* 282.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. k8

Muslims so negative as to be unacceptable."1"®® Another reason given for

staying was that up to that time the Turks had believed that the

missionaries were only in Turkey for the Greek and Armenian populations;

now it appeared that the Turks were willing to believe that the mission

was there for them as well. They were at last beginning to take advan- 1«7 tage of the services offered by the missionaries. One of the argu­

ments advanced in favor of remaining in Turkey was that Turkey wasen­

trusted to the American Board in the interchurch comity agreementsof

the nineteenth century; to withdraw would mean not keeping faith with

the other denominations.^® Still another argument was to the effect

that the missionaries did not wish to withdraw, and that their feelings ion should be taken into account. Some even saw in the secularization

of Turkey great., new opportunities for the evangelization of Muslims. 1^0 Those so oriented naturally favored continuing in Turkey.

"^Ferdinand Q. Blanchard, "Their Chance and Ours," The Mis­ sionary Herald (December, 1925), P* 555j see also ABCFM, Year Book 1923 (Boston: ABCFM, 1923), P» 5* 137 William Allen Harper, "Character Building in the Hew Republic,” The Missionary Herald (May, 1933), P* 139; see also James L. Barton, "Missionary Problems in Turkey," International Review of Missions (New York, October, 1927), PP* k&9, ^92 *

James L. Barton, "Have We a Mandate for Turkey?" The Mis­ sionary Herald (July, 192 3), P» 282*

139„a rjy_me on," The Missionary Herald (January, 1923), p. h; see also James L. Barton, "How Others Feel About Work in Turkey," The Missionary Herald (August, 1923), pp. 332-333*

1^°ABCFM, Year Book 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 192k), pp. 5, 7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

In reply to the negative arguments, those who wished the

mission to remain in Turkey maintained that it was not absolutely

necessary to choose between a ministry to the exiles and one to the

Muslims in Turkey. In effect, this was the point of the statements

that extensive property holdings were already in Turkey, and that 141 personnel was already on the field. No new investment in Turkey

should be necessary, and some of the personnel already in the Near

East could be transferred to places where the exiles had settled in Ik? greater numbers. In other words, both options could be taken.

To the contention that missionary life in Turkey without the

protection of the capitulations would be untenable, there were two

replies. The first was that the missionaries were perfectly aware that

there would be new and more numerous restrictions placed upon their

activities, but they were quite willing to adapt to the conditions of

work in new Turkey. jn reality, they averred, they had been

See above, p. 47; see also James L, Barton, "What of the Future in Turkey?" The Missionary Herald (September, 1923), PP* 391- 392. In late 1923 , the mission in Turkey had possession of its pro­ perties in nineteen locations. All eight major stations of Eastern Turkey-**Bitlis, Diyarbakir, Erzurum, Hacin (completely destroyed), Harput, Trabzon, Urfa and Van— were unoccupied. In Western Turkey, Adapazari and Konya were closed, the latter recently. Sivas was only occupied by a single lady who had refused to leave. Ten stations or so were open. Personnel included business men, doctors, ministers, teachers, writers and technicians. lU2 William Allen Harper, op. cit., p. 139; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 71* In many cases, mis­ sionaries from Eastern Turkey had fled with their constituency to the Soviet Union, to Greece and to Syria. They were already at work in exile with the exiles. 143 .. James L. Barton, "How Others Feel About Work in Turkey, The Missionary Herald (August, 1923)> PP* 332-333; see also ABCFM, Year Book 192k (Boston: ABGrM, 1924), pp. 5-7*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

carrying on their work in Turkey without benefit of the protective

capitulations since the unilateral abrogation on September 9, 1914.

They had determined that the conditions of life and work were not

then unduly annoying or restrictive. They did not anticipate very

much difference between conditions in the period 19l4-1923> and what i )|)i might come under the Republican regime.

The second reply to concerns about difficulty of life without

the capitulations was that the negotiation of a treaty was then in pro­

gress, and that such a treaty could well provide for the welfare of

American nationals in Turkey, and for the protection of their insti­

tutions. Dr. Caleb F. Gates was of the opinion that no matter what

rights might be secured, either by the maintenance of the capitulations

or by treaty, they would prove to be vain if good will in relation­

ships between the Turkish authorities and the American schools and

colleges were not cultivated and maintained.

When the Treaty of Lausanne was finally concluded in August

of 1923 , it did not in fact contain any reference to foreign schools

and colleges in Turkey. Besides, the western nations had acquiesced

in the abrogation of the capitulations, the maintenance of which had

1^Ernest W. Riggs, Letter to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 367*1164/22, Boston, February 23 , 1923* 145 Charles E. Hughes, Telegram to the Special Mission at Lausanne (National Archives Record Group 59), 767.68229P/55a, Washing­ ton, D.C., June 11, 1923; see also Charles E. Hughes, Letter to Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge (National Archives Record Group 59), 711.672/287b, Washington, D.C., May 5, 1924; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 192U (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 76.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 146 been one of their aims at Lausanne up to that point. It had seemed

to the negotiators that the only means of maintaining the capitulations 147 was to fight for them. By the conclusion of the conference, however,

two notes of no small importance had been secured from Ismet, Chief of

the Turkish Delegation. The first assured the American educational and

philanthropic institutions in Turkey that there was no intention of 148 making life unbearable for them, even without treaty guarantees.

The second was an identic letter addressed to the British, French and

Italian Chiefs of Delegation, recognizing the legal existence of any

religious, scholastic, charitable or medical establishment that had

actually been in existence before the outbreak of World War I. This

letter constituted the Establishment Convention of July 24, 1923 . In

a cover letter to Joseph C. Grew, the American Plenipotentiary at

Lausanne, Ismet conferred the rights of the Convention upon similar li|Q American institutions in Turkey.

1 Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era ed. Walter Johnson and Nancy H. Hooker (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), vol. I, pp. 754-755; see also U.S., Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924), LXV, No. 10, 10292, 10294; see also U.S. Solicitor, Opinion prepared for Allen W. Dulles (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/20, Wash­ ington, D.C., January 5, 1923; see also Charles E. Hughes, Telegram to the Special Mission at Lausanne (National Archives Record Group 59), 767.68229P/55a, Washington, D.C., June 11, 1923.

^ W i l l i a m Phillips, Telegram to High Commissioner Mark Bristol (National Archives Record Group 59), 711.6rj/k6a, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1924.

James L. Barton, "What of the Future in Turkey?" The Mis­ sionary Herald (September, 1923 ), p. 390; see Appendix C.

^^Ismet, Identic letter to British, French and Italian Chiefs of Delegation at Lausanne, State Department translation (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 711*672/170, Lausanne, July 24, 1923; see also Ismet, Letter to Joseph C. Grew, State Department translation (National Archives Record Group 59), 711.672/170, Lausanne, August 6, 1923; see also Appendixes D and E.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

Obviously, not everyone was content with the treaty thus

negotiated. Those who were not denounced the treaty roundly as a

betrayal of American missionary interests in Turkey and an abandon­

ment of the minorities.Board representatives and missionaries,

on the other hand, feeling that the assurances received were the best

that could be obtained, even though they were not all they had hoped

for, waged a vigorous campaign in favor of the ratification of the

treaty. 1^1 The Senate failed to ratify it.

Encouraged by the assurances they had received at Lausanne,

along with the increasingly evident welcome by Muslims of such acti­

vities as they continued to pursue in Turkey, the American Board

elected to continue a missionary presence in Turkey. This was not

unaccompanied by some disappointment over the failure of the Senate

to ratify the treaty. They fully expected the Senate's treatment of

the agreement to have some detrimental effect upon American interests

in Turkey. They were still determined to forge ahead.

Such a decision entailed some new reflection on the matter

of goals. It was obvious, both from the response of the Turkish people

and from the statements made by their representatives at Lausanne, that

1^°"Speakers Denounce Treaty," Mew York Times (November 25, 1923), Sect. II, p. 1, Col. 8; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 66; see also U.S., Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924), 10292-10295.

^•51i

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53

the American schools, colleges, social work and medical work were

recognized as valid and desirable in Turkey. Rethinking the goals

of the mission should start with the institutions.

When the capitulations were abolished, the mission institu­

tions came under Turkish laws and regulations. It was apparent that

those laws and regulations must be obeyed if the mission meant to

remain in Turkey for long.

Educational laws clearly forbade the teaching of religion

in schools. 1-*2 Both Board and missionaries were well aware of that.

Apparently there was agreement to observe at least the letter of the 153 law. The same was true of the laws prohibiting attendance at 154 religious services by the students of the schools. ' Occasional

violations did not constitute a policy of disobedience. The mission

adopted a general policy of strict obedience of the law.1^

L. Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/70, Constanti­ nople, February 18, 1924; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 67.: see also James L. Barton, "Missionary Problems in Turkey," International Review of Missions (October, 1927), P* 490.

■^Robert College, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Istan­ bul: Robert College, 1924), pp. 5-6; see also Lucille Day, Statements prepared for her defense in the Bursa school trial (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II64BST/3 O, Bursa, February 16, 1928, and 367.1164BST/41, Bursa, April 25 , 1928.

^Stobert College, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Istan­ bul: Robert College, 1924), pp. 5-6; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 67; see especially Mark Bristol, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59) 367.1164/70, Constantinople, February 18, 1924.

^^See note 153 1 above.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54

Obedience of the lawimplied aligning the general program of

education with that of Turkish schools. Textbooks were voluntarily cen­

sored to make them conform to Turkish standards. Any material that did

not appear to be acceptable was removed from the textbooks even when the

textbooks themselves were not changed. One of the educational aims of

the mission would appear at that point to have been to help the students

to be better Turkish citizens.

Nationalism and cultural pride were very important in this

period of Turkish history. The American schools would have to consider

this point at all times in the execution of their program. All the per­

sonnel would have to show by word and deed that they recognized Turkish

sovereignty. All the personnel would have to be equally careful to

avoid any manifestation of feelings of superiority over the Turks. It

would mean, ideally, not even having those feelings.

It was necessary to do something about the hiatus in the

orientation of personnel as they began their service in Turkey. The

Language School established in Constantinople offered an excellent

chance to act positively in this area. A quick perusal of the courses

of study offered in 1927 and 1928 will show how the mission in Turkey

took to heart the importance of initial preparation to assure accept­

able service in T u r k e y . 1 ^

■^ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), pp. 68-69, 73; see also ABCPM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927), P* 6l; see also Lucille Day, Statements prepared for her defense at the Bursa school trial (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164BST/30, Bursa, February 16, 1928 and 367.II6UBST/41, Bursa, April 25 , 1928.

"^ABCFM, Annual Report 1926 (Boston: ABCFM, 1926), p. 78.

See above, pp. 30-33; see also James L. Barton, "Reminis­ cences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (January, 1927), P* 17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Finally, in what had to be one of the most important

developments in Christian mission to non-Christians up to that time,

the American Board seemed to be turning to the method of witness

through service. The basis of this service would have to be the

interests of Turkey. The justification of the service would have to

be the real needs of Turkey. It would have to be cooperative service.

In such a mission, the missionaries are content to make their witness

through their living, their attitudes, their character rather than by

their words. This type of mission requires a new way of looking at

other cultures, and particularly at other religions. It requires a

willingness to enter into sincere dialog with proponents of another

faith, with no ulterior motives of exploitation. It requires a readi­

ness to listen and to receive as well as to inform and to give. It

requires a willingness to renounce seeking a given number of converts

as the goal of Christian presence. The mission of the American Board

of Commissioners for Foreign Missions seemed to have adopted this as 159 a course of action in Turkey for some years to come.

^Jamss l . Barton, "How Others Feel About Work in Turkey," The Missionary Herald (August, 1923), PP* 332-333; see also William Phillips, Telegram to Mark Bristol, quoting Caleb F. Gates (National Archives Record Group 59), 711*67/46a, Washington, D.C., January 23, 1924; see also Ferdinand Q. Blanchard, "Their Chance and Ours," The Missionary Herald (December, 1925), p. 555; see also James L. Barton, irReminiscences of James L. Barton," Ihe Missionary Herald (January, 1927), p. 17; see also William Allen Harper, “Character Building in the New Republic," The Missionary Herald (May, 1933), P* 140; see also ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM. 1907). P. 92; see also ABCFM, If Your Project Is in the Near East (Boston: ABCFM, 1937), p. 1; see also Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^2), pp. 111-112; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1925 (Boston: ABCFM, 1925), p. 55; see also ABCFM, Annual~Report 1930 (Boston: ABCFM, 1930), pp. 164-165.

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permissioh. Chapter 3

THE TRAINING OF PERSONNEL

•HIE EARLY PERIOD: PIONEERING AND EVANGELISM

Hie Constitution, Laws and Regulations of the American Board

of Commissioners for Foreign Missions defined a missionary, in 1832, as

a person "who has been ordained a minister of the gospel, and is actual­

ly under the direction of the Board." 1 Thirty-four years later, the

definition had not changed at all. Only those who were ordained p ministers might be called missionaries.

This did not mean that only ordained ministers were engaged in

the missions of the American Board around the world. It was a question

of classification. All others under the direction of the Board, what­

ever their occupation, were technically "assistant m i s s i o n a r i e s . I t

was more usual, however, to refer to them in terms of their professional

qualities or functions within the mission, such as licensed but unor-

^BCFM, Constitution, Laws and Regulations (Boston: ABCFM, 1833 ), p. 10; the Constitution, Laws and Regulations cited were adopted by the Board on October k, 1832 . 2 ABCFM, Manual for Missionary Candidates (Boston: ABCFM, 1866), p. 3 .

^ABCFM, Constitution, Laws and Regulations (Boston: ABCFM, 1833), p. 10; see also ABCFM, Manual for Missionary Candidates (Boston: ABCFM, 1866), p. 3 .

56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57

dained preachers, physicians, school teachers, school administrators,

printers and boarding school teachers.^ Single women, regardless of

their function in the mission, were grouped together in a category

known as "unmarried females."'’

This definition reflected the aims of mission in this early

period, discussed in the preceding chapter. The missionaries were

ministers, their job was to evangelize the "heathen," and all other

people working under the Board were support personnel.

The Board sought to engage people in missionary work as young

as possible, and to commit them to missionary service whenever possible

even before college.^ Whether or not one agrees with this principle,

the reasoning behind it seemed at least superficially sound. The hope

was that an early commitment might permit the advantageous use of educa­

tional opportunities. The authorities of the Board felt that early com­

mitments gave ample opportunity to reflect on the decision, and eventu­

ally to reconsider and withdraw as a candidate before actually beginning

service whenever that seemed advisable. They thought that early

commitments had a beneficial effect upon the person once he was actually

in the service of the Board, and made him more emotionally stable and

thus more effective in service.^

^ABGFM, Manual for Missionary Candidates (Boston: ABCFM, 1866), p. 3 .

5Ibid. 6Ibid., p. 4. 7Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58

Although the Board had some ideas on what wives, also classed

as assistant missionaries,® could represent for good or ill in the life Q of 8 candidate, not everyone was agreed that wives were in order at

all. Rufus Anderson saw in the married missionaries men who were often

too willing to settle down, to take on local and binding responsibili­

ties, to create station-churches of which they would be psstors, and so

foster paternalistic relationships with those among whom they would

minister. 1(“*

Otherwise, the qualifications sought were more properly

applied to the ministers themselves than to their spouses, for, despite

Anderson's ideas, missionaries did marry. Among the qualities sought

out in missionary candidates, and in candidates as assistant mission­

aries, the Board looked for sound religious beliefs and a pattern of

living based upon those beliefs. It looked for firm commitment to

missions as a career. It looked for an ability to think clearly and

sensibly. It looked for agreeable personality traits--amiability,

kindness, gentleness, forgiveness and patience, obligingness, frankness,

reliability, perseverance, cheerfulness, industry, economy and thorough

attention to details. It looked for good health, a healthy intellect,

ambition, unfeigned humility, adaptability, stability, an unblemished

reputation, youth and a standing in one's profession.'11

®Ibid., p. 6. 9Ibid., p. 9.

10ABCFM, Annual Report 1862 (Boston: ABCFM, 1862), pp. 17-22.

n ABCFM, Manual for Missionary Candidates (Boston: ABCFM, 186 6), pp. 4-6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

James L. Barton felt that the early missionaries frequently

fell below reasonable standards of intellectual and educational 12 achievement necessary for effective work in Muslim lands. Fred

Field Goodsell, writing a generation later, however, felt justified in

paying tribute to the personal qualities of "patience, courage, perse­

verance, ingenuity and wisdom and devotion" of those early

missionaries.^

In preparation for their service, missionaries were expected

to have acquired at least the basic training necessary for their parti­

cular profession. As this training was necessary before appointment,

it was at the candidate's own expense. No expenses were paid before 14 the regular appointment of the missionary or assistant missionary.

It was not considered wise to use any of the pre-appoint­

ment study in preparation for any particular field of service for

various reasons. In the first place, a missionary was never sure before

the actual appointment just where he might be sent.^ It would be a

waste of time for a candidate to budget his study in anticipation of one

field of service only to be appointed to another field quite different

12James L. Barton, The Christian Approach to Islam (Boston: The Pilgrim Press, 1918)# P* 229.

^ Fr e d Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: ABCFM, 1959), p. 29.

^ABCFM, Manual for Missionary Candidates (Boston: ABCFM, 1866), pp. 6, 10-11.

15Ibid., pp. 13-15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6o

from the one for which he had prepared. In the second place, the Board

felt that the most adequate preparation of a missionary for his service

had to take place directly in the country in which he was to serve.1®

In fact, neither the Board nor the theological seminaries in the United

States thought that missionaries might need any special training for

foreign missions.^ Having the right spirit about the thing was often

preparation enough. The fact is, however, that the authorities in the

Board offices were probably just as ignorant of conditions into which

the missionaries would be sent as were the candidates themselves. They

could not have given the candidates adequate preparation prior to -

sending them even if that had been their design.'*'®

It was tragic, nevertheless, that missionaries should be sent

to Muslim countries, or to any country for that matter, as impoverished

as they were in the religious beliefs of the people they expected to

convert. There had been other Christian missionaries to Muslims. The

early missionaries of the American Board to the Near East had not

studied the lives of Raymond Lull, or Henry Martin. They nad not read,

nor had they studied the Qur’an, or Muslim history.^ These could not

but prove to be serious gaps in the adequacy of these men to be

effective in the work of the mission.

"^Fred Field Goodsell, They Lived Their Faith (Boston: ABCFM, 196l), p. 36 ; see also Fred Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: ABCFM, 1959), PP- 182-183.

^Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 183 .

James Thayer Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^+2), pp. 95-96; see also Good- sell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 25 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

The human heing is a remarkably resilient creature. In spite

of all the handicaps, in spite of the singular lack of preparation, the

missionaries did in fact adapt to the strange, new environment, and they 20 did demonstrate quick wits in doing so. The Board, too, had to grow

in the light of the experiences of its missionaries as they shared them,

and it developed policies and principles as experience dictated them.^

In Turkey, the missionaries had first to see to the most

ordinary tasks of survival. They had to find places to live, and set

themselves up. Some did this in their own quarters, and others found

shelter with other expatriates, usually merchants, in the cities where PP they settled.

The next task to which they set themselves was that of

learning the languages necessary for their work. Pliny Fisk and Levi

Parsons established themselves in Smyrna, and undertook their language

studies. At the same time, they attempted to establish some sort of

permanent mission in Palestine and to pursue the study of Near Eastern

languages. In 1822, Parsons died enroute from Alexandria to Jerusalem,

and was replaced by Jonas King. Fisk set himself to mastering Italian

and modern Greek, while King concentrated on Arabic.2 3

^°Lewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye, The United States and Turkey and Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), P- 1^+0; see also James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Mis­ sionary Herald (January, 1927)> P- 17*

21 0oodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 2 9 .

22 r«, Humpherys Lindsay, Nineteenth Century American Schools in the Levant (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, 19^5), p. 210 ; see also Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 2 9.

2\illiam Ellsworth Strong, The Story of the American Board (Boston: ABCFM, 1910), pp. 81-82.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

As the Missionaries found themselves obliged to travel about, 2k for diverse reasons, they took their language teachers with them. At

other times, they were forced to stay in one place, as they were when

epidemics of diseases raged in Constantinople in the early 1830's. Then

they pursued their language studies without the distractions of

travel. 25

The quintessential skill of a missionary is considered by many

to be a mastery of the language or the languages of the people with whom

he intends to communicate.2^ This is a skill which must be used,

sharpened, cultivated, refined, and the only way it can be maintained

is by unending study. Still, too many missionaries are satisfied to

abandon systematic study of a language once they have acquired a minimal

knowledge of the structure of the language, filled out with a basic

market-place vocabulary. Missionaries to Turkey seemed to have been

tempted, too, from time to time to cut short their period of language

study. One cause of this, in missions anywhere, is an anxiety about

getting the "preliminaries" over with, and getting to the "real" work

for which one left home in the first place.2^ William Goodell, of

24 Ibid., p. 85. 25 Ibid., p. 9 0.

2^James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (February, 1927), P- 58; see also Julius Richter, The History of Protestant Missions in the Near East (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910), p. 285-

2^Joseph K. Greene, Leavening the Levant (New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1916), pp. 285-286; see also Richter, op. cit., p. 285.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

Constantinople, once told a younger missionary tempted to cut short his

language study that to do so would be a serious mistake; if a person

should begin work soon after arrival without enough time to master the

language, he would make enough mistakes to last him the rest of his

missionary career.2®

As time went on, missionaries also learned Armenian, and some

of them learned Turkish as well. Some made more rapid progress than

others, and some used novel methods to stimulate their learning. Joseph

Greene filled some eight hundred pages of handwritten entries in Eng­

lish, Armenian, Turkish and Greek to make a quadrilingual dictionary of 2 Q more than eight thousand entries in each language. y

The early missionaries were also obliged, all on their own,

to get to know the culture, the religion, the social organization, the

customs and the ways of thinking of the people who surrounded them.

They observed bizarre mannerisms. They learned of strange dishes and

foods. They saw manifestations of odd superstitions. They saw funda­

mental contradictions of the message they wanted people to accept. All

this was set in the framework of a language they did not know well.®^

They had to get their training on the job.

It was on-the-job training because there were no others to

take responsibilities while they became properly equipped for their

28 Ibid., p. 286.

2 ^Ibid., pp. 284-285; see also Addison, op. cit., pp. 95-96. 30 Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 2 9 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6k

work. Some of them taught, some translated the Bible as they learned

the language, some set up and operated presses and some preached.31

SECOND PERIOD: EDUCATION AND THE NEW CHURCH

With the advent of the increased emphasis placed on education

and on other types of service mission in the late nineteenth century,

some of the earlier notions of what a missionary was had evolved some­

what. One began to think of the assistant missionaries of the earlier

period as being missionaries in their own right. Along with the mission­

ary pastors, one will note references to physicians and teachers as

missionaries as well.^ 2

There were still rather particular notions about what kind

of person should be a missionary. Challenges to young people to become

missionaries were broadcast with fervor. But equally fervent were the

admonitions that not just anyone should give an affirmative answer to

the appeal. Rev. Francis E. Clark, President of the United Society of

Christian Endeavor, speaking to a gathering on the occasion of the

one hundredth anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting, declared that

there was a great need for educational missionaries. He cautioned, how­

ever, that only those properly motivated by a genuine spirit of mission,

as he defined it, should go out as educational missionaries. He saw no

^*Mary Mills Patrick, A Bosporus Adventure (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 193*0, PP* 31, 37; see also Greene, op. cit., pp. 17^- 175; see also Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 29.

^Richter, op. cit., p. 118; see also Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, p. 184.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65

legitimate place in the program of the Board for the purely social

service missionary, unless that social service, again, was based upon

the correct principles; those correct principles did not include the

belief that the human race was gradually improving itself and its

environment. A person motivated only by that humanistic belief "would

much better stay at home."33

Missionaries were still being recruited while they were

young enough to be both enthusiastic and idealistic. James L. Barton

was twenty-one years old, and a student at Beeman Academy in Vermont, ■3k when he attended what was then called a missionary concert. J Al­

though he was impressed by what he had heard, it was not until l88l,

when he was a seniorat Middlebury College, that he made a definite

move towards becoming a missionary. He was one of three in his class

to apply.35

Even if there had been some evolution in the thinking of the

Board and missionaries about what a missionary was, and about the

work on the field that a missionary might be doing, there was not yet

any significant evolution in their thinking about how and where a

missionary should receive his training. He was appointed early enough

■^ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, 1907)f P • 1$5•

Barton pointed out that the missionary concert he attended had no instruments out of the ordinary, and the hymns sung were familiar ones sung in the usual fashion. There was not even a missionary present. One of the members ofthe church presented the work of a missionary as he had read about it in denominational publications.

35 .. m James L. Barton, Reminiscences of James L. Barton, The Missionary Herald (January, 1927), PP* 15-l6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. to have been able to use his seminary studies to good advantage. It

occurred to no one, however, to suggest to him that he might profit

from some sort of study of Islam, or even the study of mission. He

was at the seminary to be trained as a minister of the gospel, and

that was it.3^

Harlan P. Beach, of Yale University, said in 1907 that almost

all missionary candidates studied the Bible as a normal part of their

undergraduate studies. The Bible studies consisted in devotional

study rather than critical study. This was considered more useful

for the missionary. Students did not participate in studies of

missiology to any great extent.37

In fact, special training for missionary candidates played no

great part in the study program of any theological seminary up to the

turn of the century. It is interesting to note that this was the case

in spite of the fact that about ten percent of the graduates of at least

one seminary eventually entered some kind of overseas service.

After 1900, however, America in general and the Board in

particular began to learn enough about the world abroad to motivate them

to think in terms of more adequate preparation of missionaries for their

field of service. Courses were offered in history, languages and 39 methods of mission as well as in Bible and theology.

36Ibid., pp. 16-1 7.

3 ^ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, I907), p. 201.

3 ®Goodsell, They Lived Their Faith, p. 3 6 .

39Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67

Unless the case of Barton is atypical, the specific assign­

ments of new missionaries beyond the naming of a station of service were

not always discussed with the candidates before their departure for ohe

mission. He says that he had been on the field some six months before

he was told that all along his work was to be in the administration of

Euphrates College at Harput. Apparently the tentative decision had been

made in Boston some time before. The final decision was left in the

hands of the executive committee of the mission, which was to evaluate

his work over a period of time before determining whether or not to let

him take the job.**0

When his letter of appointment came from the Board offices, he

was simply informed that he was to go to "Harpoot," without the name of

a country where he might locate this place. He had never heard of it,

and knew of no one who had. A personal but extensive search in indexes

and atlases, in the library and among acquaintances was his first intro­

duction to variant spellings of place names; Kharput, Harpoot and other

equally imaginative orthographic adventures were used to designate the hi same mountain village of southeastern Turkey. That simple letter of

assignment, terse as it may have been seemed to have been the extent of 2lP JiO his orientation to Harput prior to his sailing. J

There was apparently no formalized or structured language

^James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (March, 1927), P* 95* hi „ James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton, The Missionary Herald (January, 1927), P* 16. h2 The modern orthography. h^ n James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton, The Missionary Herald (January, 1927), PP« 16-17.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

learning opportunity once he arrived in Turkey. The first introduction

to Armenian vas given by casual visitors. He was able to secure a

teacher. Still, a good bit of his exposure to Armenian was ad hoc, as

he was forced to make use of it in the course of his mission responsi­

bilities of purchasing and accounting.^ As soon as he was able to

take care of himself in the language, he was assigned the additional

responsibility of visiting the outstations of the region.^

Some of the missionaries at the time were given time to learn

Turkish or Armenian before they took on responsibilities. Others were

not. There seems to have been no general rule, other than that a mis­

sionary would be allowed time to learn a language if the work and time

demands of his station permitted. Otherwise, he must pick up the lan­

guage in the exercise of his responsibilities. Mary Mills Patrick, who

later became President of Constantinople Woman's College, says of her ii6 predecessor that she taught and studied the language at the same time.

Of herself, she says that she already knew Armenian well before she had

to teach physics and algebra in Armenian at Constantinople. She

lamented the fact that she knew very little about physics, however.^

Joseph K. Greene, the compiler of the 32,000 entry private dictionary

James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (February, 1927), p. 58.

^ibia., p. 57-

ll6Mary Mills Patrick, A Bosporus Adventure (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1934), P* 31* 4? Ibid., p. 37.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69

mentioned above,^ tells the story of Miss Corinna Shattuck, who

arrived in Aintab^ at the beginning of Winter in 1873, set herself

assiduously to learning the language with the help of those she could

find around the school to help her. She said that she felt "almost

useless" before she mastered the language. Her progress was such that

the following Autuz^n, she was made acting principal of the school in

the absence of tne regular principal.^° She had learned Turkish, but

one-third of the missionaries in the whole country neither spoke nor

understood Turkish, even as late as 1912.

THIRD PERIOD: MOVING INTO THE MODERN AGE

As the mission entered this period, the tendency begun in 1893

to call some people in the service of the Board missionaries, even when

they were not ordained ministers, continued and was accentuated. Both

men and women were counted among the missionaries, and members of all

the professions sent out in the service of the Board.

The personal qualities sought in a missionary were still those

of religious conviction, even in those who were not to be involved in

evangelistic effort.^3 jn addition, however, and especially with regard

^®See above, p. 63 . ^ % o w Gaziantep.

•^Joseph K. Greene, Leavening the Levant (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1916), pp. 17^-175•

51ABCFM, Annual Report 1912 (Boston: ABCFM, 1912), p. 8l.

•^"Missionary Personalia" in each issue of the Missionary Herald gives news of missionaries of both sexes in diverse professions.

^ABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, 1907), p. l85.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

to those in certain professional or educational fields, it was

expected that the qualifications and standards in their respective

fields be at least the equivalent of what would be demanded of them ck in the same fields in the United States.^ One may suppose therefore

that the professional qualifications of the personnel of the American

Board in Turkey were in the process of improvement.

Since the screening of candidates for mission, by means of

written and oral interviews, as well as by means of letters of recom­

mendation, persisted throughout this period of the history of the

American Board, as it had in earlier p e r i o d s , ^ it may be fairly

assumed that there was at least a modicum of psychological evaluation

of the candidates.

It is not immediately apparent that psychological appraisals

of candidates by American Board staff, and, through the letters of

recommendation, by acquaintances of the candidates, permitted the same

critical appreciation of a candidate that an evaluation by a qualified

professional might have done. It would certainly be difficult to

appreciate his ability to adjust to a hostile environment, and to

perform his duties there effectively and unabrasively. The random

statements about missionaries in Turkey, made by those who had occasion

5**Fred Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: ABCFM, 1959), P. 184.

•^ABCFM, Manual for Missionary Candidates (Boston: ABCFM, 1866), pp. 4-6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

to deal with them from time to time, are far from conclusive.

James L. Barton, Foreign Secretary of the American Board,

expressed his opinions on the value: of the missionaries. Just before

the founding of the Republic, he defended the continuation of the

mission in Turkey. He praised the missionaries as competent. One

should not infer any lack of sincerity simply on the basis of the

context of his remarks.^

On many different occasions, Turkish officials expressed

opinions about missionary personalities and missionary preparedness.

These opinions were not always consistent. Hamdullah Suphi Bey told

the missionaries directly on one occasion that their difficulties

came about whenever they were not informed, or were inadequately 57 informed, and did not understand the "situation of the Turks. On

the other hand, Kemal Zaim Bey expressed delight once when he found

that the knowledge of Turkish of his interlocutors permitted him to

speak his mind freely in his own language.5® The chief dissatisfaction

of the Turks seemed not so much to have been that the missionaries did

not understand as that they did not adapt when necessary. One especial­

ly annoying example of this inadaptability of missionaries in the mind of

5^James L. Barton, "Have We a Mandate for Turkey?" The Missionary Herald (August, 1923), p. 282.

^Luther R. Fowle, Notes on address delivered by Hamdullah Suphi Bey to a conference of American educators (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/89, Constantinople, June 26 , I925.

■^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*1164/123, Constan­ tinople, June 30, 1929*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

Turkish officials was the seeming incapacity of certain missionaries 59 to realize that the capitulations had really been abolished,

Representatives of the United States also expressed opinions

on the subject of missionary personalities. Sometimes the diplomats

praised the missionaries;^0 at other times their feelings were clearly

negative.^" The traits which most displeased the diplomats were the

inflexibility and the inability to adapt of the older missionaries, and

the naive idealism and the immaturity of the younger ones.^2 What

pleased them most in the missionaries was to find examples of thorough

competence, limitless patience and genuine courtesy,^

59joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg, re­ porting visit of F. Lammot Belin to mission stations (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/103 , Constantinople, November 7, 1927; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/123 , Constantinople, June 30, 1929; see also Efthimios N. Couzinos, Twenty-three Years in Asia Minor (1899- 1922) (New York: Vantage Press, 1969)# PP» 129-131.

^°Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg, re­ porting Belin visit to mission stations (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II64/IO3 , Constantinople, November 7, 1927; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/123 , Constantinople, June 30, 1929*

6lAdmiral Mark L. Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/87, Constan­ tinople, June 18, 1925; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Frank B. Kellogg, reporting Belin visit to mission stations (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II64/IO3 , Constantinople, November 7, 1927.

fo2Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 3°7*1164/155, Istanbul, June 29, 1931; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1163/13 , Istanbul, July 30, 1931; see also Her­ bert S. Bursley, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/144, Izmir, January 29, 1931.

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Frank B. Kellogg (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367*1164/103, Constantinople, November 7, 1927; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Heniy L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/123, Constantinople, June 30 , 1929*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

Ambassador Grew doubted the ability of the missionaries to be

objective and critical about their own work. He felt that the mission­

aries approached their work with a sense of superiority that obscured

their appreciation of how this work might respond to the real needs of

Turkey. For that reason, they did not evaluate their work in terms of

how it served the needs of Turkey, but in terms of how it underscored 64 their own, personal convictions. Fred Field Goodsell, writing to

Ernest W. Riggs in 1925, said somewhat the same thing. He thought that

missionaries in Turkey should look beyond themselves for the motivation

and scope of their service, founding their service to Turkey upon

Christian principles rather than upon their personal interests.^

Mr. Grew had well appreciated the fact that, although they might still

lack somewhat in certain skills in education, the Turks were nonetheless

capable of accurately appraising the work of others in the field.^

William Allen Harper and Lee Vrooman both recognized the

increasing importance of the personality of the missionary in Turkey

as the country was evolving. This reflected the changing situation of

the missionary, who was no longer cloistered in the extraterritorial

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367»ll63/l3, Istanbul, July 30,M931*

^Fred Field Goodsell, Letter to Ernest W. Riggs, cited in letter from Riggs to Allen W. Dulles (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6U/95, Constantinople, November 10, 1925.

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6L/155, Istanbul, June 29, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7^

protection of his station, where his methods and actions did not come

under constant public scrutiny. He was nov working under Turkish

authority, and Turks evaluated not only his work but his person as

well. Both Vrooman and Harper saw the need for accentuating the 67 development of missionary personalities.

In part, the response of the Board to this issue of the

personality of the missionary was to improve the pre-service training

of its personnel. Interest in adequate preparation of missionary

candidates had increased substantially just before World War I. After

1910, the American Board had begun to send greater numbers of its

candidates to Hartford Seminary Foundation, where they studied in the

Kennedy School of Missions. There they took courses of general interest

to all fields of mission as well as courses of special utility, accord­

ing to the country in which they intended to serve. In the former

category, courses were in the Bible, linguistics, the history of

missions, anthropology, and a general orientation of the missionary

to his work and relationships. The area studies included specific

languages, the history, the culture and the religions of the particular

countries where the missionaries would serve.

A second phase of the response of the American Board to the

obvious need for more adequate preparation of its missionaries in the

^ L e e Vrooman, "The Place of Missions in the New Turkey," International Review of Missions (July, 1929)> P» ^07; see also William Allen Harper, ^Character Building in the New Republic," The Missionary Herald (May, 1933)t P* 1^0*

68Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses, pp. 184-185; see also Goodsell, They Lived Their Faith, p. 36 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

light of the evolving context in which missions operated was to found

a language school in Istanbul, for the specific training of the per­

sonnel destined for service in Turkey. Missionaries in Turkey were not

given work assignments during their first year on the field. Their job

for that year was to attend the Language School, which in reality

taught more than languages. There, they learned to read and write

Turkish, they were given the opportunity to develop conversational

skills through actual conversation with Turks paid by the Language

School for this service. While the new missionaries were thus engaged

in language studies, they apparently lived with veteran missionaries 6q who complemented the work of the Language School. 7

In addition to the language courses there, the new mission­

aries studied Turkish history and geography. They received some orien­

tation to Turkish ideals and customs. One new missionary remarked that

she was convinced that the mission authorities in Turkey meant for the

newcomers to see and understand Turkey from the point of view of the

Turks. 70

In 1925, the school was recognized by the Turkish government,

a step which accorded it legal standing. 71 Between the years of its

founding in 1920 and of its closing in 1932 , the school was to know

^Edith Sanderson, Statement prepared for her defense and given orally at the Bursa school trial on April 25, 1928 (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64BST/30, Bursa, March, 1928.

71ABCFM, Annual Report 1925 (Boston: ABCFM, 1925), p. 60.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

erratic growth and decline, not because of the value of the school

itself, but because of the capricious fortunes of the American Board

in securing personnel for the mission. While the Language School 72 was in existence, the enrollment varied between two and eighteen.

At the peak of its activity, in 1928 and 1929 > course

offerings were considerable, not only in Turkish, but in many other

subjects. Among them were courses in Arabic as used in Turkish, and

such topical studies in changing conditions in Turkish life as a study

of Turkish women. Studies of Turkish religious life included a general

treatment of religions in Turkey and a specific study of the history

of Protestantism in T u r k e y .

The mission encouraged its missionaries to continue their

study of Turkey, of Turkish and of Turkish culture, even after their

year of orientation in the Language School at Rumeli Hisar. Hie

Language School offered assistance to its former charges in this

respect, directing their program of continuing studies as they were

engaged in the performance of their tasks. A number of missionaries

took advantage of the opportunity.^ At least one missionary followed

up her period of study at the Language School by living with a Turkish

72ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927)* P* 80 J see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1929 (Boston: ABCFM, 1929), p. 200. It would be helpful to consult the Annual Report of the American Board through­ out this period in order to appreciate fully the program of the Language School.

73ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), p. 82.

7J|ABCFM, Annual Report 1926 (Boston: ABCFM, 1926), p. 87.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

family, and continuing to study Turkish and Turkish history. She also

enrolled in practical courses in order to learn silk raising and how to

cook in the Turkish style. She learned Turkish folk dances, and even

attended services at the nearby mosque.^

Finally, in order to provide some reorientation for the

veteran personnel of the field, there were sporadic sessions of the

Language School, held in localities other than Constantinople during

the Summer, coinciding in time and place with the annual meeting of

the mission. In 1928, such a session was preceded by a spiritual

retreat. Those who attended felt that such meetings were quite helpful

to them in a personal way.

We have seen in this chapter how the concepts and methods of

orientation of missionaries and of the educational personnel of the

American schools and colleges in Turkey developed from the beginnings

until well into the Kemalist period. Changing notions of what a mis­

sionary was and what his function was have been outlined. Some strong

points in the whole process and some deficiencies have been noted. The

positive aspects of training of personnel as an approach to missionary

problems in international relations will be further discussed in

connection with the conclusions in Chapter 8.

75 Lucille Day, Statement prepared for her defense to be de­ livered orally at the Bursa School Trial on April 25, 1928 (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367«H6UBST/30, Bursa, February l6, 1928.

76ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), pp. 70-71.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter h

TURKISH NATIONALISM AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS

EFFECTS OF THE CAPITULATIONS

When Mehmed II took Constantinople in 1^53, he found there

three existing independent religious communities--the Orthodox Church,

the Armenian Gregorian Church, and the Jewish community. All three

were made up of ahl-al-kitab, or people of the Book. They had the

rights of dhimmls under Muslim rule.1 During the expansion of Islam,

in an earlier period, they would have been granted certain privileges,

including the right not to have to change their religion, in exchange

for the loss of other rights. Under the Ottomans, these distinct

religious communities were known as millets.^ These millets were

free to continue to speak their own language, maintain their own

religious and educational institutions, preserve their own culture, and

they were responsible for the collection of their own taxes. The head

■^Ahl-al-kitfib were those who based their religion upon a divinely revealed book, transmitted to them by a prophet. Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians were among those so categorized. These people had the privilege under Muslim rule of maintaining their faith, and in doing so became dhimmts, or second-class protected citizens. They could not bear arms, were obliged to distinguish themselves by their dress, their manner of riding horseback, etc. They judged their own affairs in their own courts, and paid taxes in exchange for their rights. 2 Literally, "nation." An independent community of people under Ottoman rule characterized by their common religion, or religious sect.

78

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

of each millet subsequently paid any taxes due the Sultan by his

millet. In a sense, the millets constituted parallel states within

the Ottoman state, but all were subject to the ultimate authority of

the Sultan.^ The basis of belonging to one or another of these millets

was not so much cultural or linguistic, although culture and language

were a part of the distinctiveness, as it was religious.^

Ten years after the arrival of Fisk and Parsons in Smyrna,

there were still only three millets in Turkey. Eighty years later, on

the eve of the outbreak of World War I, the number of millets had

grown to seventeen. In many cases, there was some relationship between

the millets and foreign powers.-* In all cases, one can see that the

millet system represented some hobbling of absolute sovereignty of the

Ottomans over their entire territory. In all cases, too, the members

of the various millets were citizens of Turkey.

Closely paralleling the millet system in Turkey in the nine­

teenth century was the system of capitulations. The capitulations were

first granted to foreign merchants in Turkey not long after the fall of

Constantinople, as a means to encourage foreign commerce with the Otto­

mans, especially commerce between Christian countries and the Ottomans.

They conferred extraterritoriality upon both the property and the per-

3Sydney Nettleton Fisher, The Middle East A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), pp. 215-216.

^Lewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye, The United States and Turkey and Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), P*

^Fisher, op. cit., p. 301.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. sons of foreign nationals residing in Turkey, whenever their native

state had negotiated an agreement with Turkey establishing capitulations

for their nationals in Turkey. These were occasionally known as

"national millets" as opposed to the other, religious millets. At

first, these capitulations offered some advantages not only for the

foreign merchants, who did not belong in the religious millets in

Turkey but who felt they could not submit themselves to the provisions

of Muslim law in the conduct of their affairs, but also for the Turks

themselves. In time, however, the capitulations became less and less

attractive to the Turks. One of the abuses of the system was that of

adoption of a nationality, whereby a Turkish subject could acquire

some foreign nationality while remaining a Turkish subject. Sometimes

the foreign nationality was purchased outright.^

An interesting aspect of the capitulations is that of how

they contributed to the identification of nationality with religion,

and vice-versa. France and Russia, notably claimed rights of protection 7 of Catholic and Orthodox subjects, respectively, of Turkey.

With the rise of Turkish nationalism, in a very real sense

in competition with the nationalisms of the millets and the quasi-

^Ibid., pp. 299-301; see also Thomas and Frye, op. cit., pp. 68, 97. The consular post records of the period, including those of the United States of America, are particularly interesting to read in this regard. Occasionally the letters claiming protection as nationals of the United States, although in a barely decipherable English, nevertheless reveal that the author has never set foot in the United States.

^Fisher, op. cit., p. 301.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

foreign communities under the capitulations, it became apparent that

either these little enclaves of non-Turkish sovereignty must be done

away with, or the state must inevitably suffer fragmentation. The

millets were incompatible with a centralized state, and the capitu­

lations were incompatible with uniform application of the law.®

Both were eventually done away with. The capitulations

were abolished in two steps, the first being by Turkish fiat on

September 9, 1914 and the second being Western acquiescence in the

deed at Lausanne, in 1923 .^ The millet system was effectively abolished

by Article 69 of the Constitution of the Turkish Republic. 10

The capitulations did not die quietly. Western powers fought

their abolition vigorously. The United States, which had signed a

treaty in I83 O establishing capitulatory rights for its nationals in

Turkey, also fought energetically for their preservation. 11 The

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, because all of

its work in Turkey had been protected by the capitulations for nearly

a century, was actively interested in the fate of the capitulations and

in what new treaty provisions might replace them.

®Feroz Ahmad, The Young Turks (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1969), PP. 156-157» 23.

^Ibid., pp. 156-1571 see also above, Chapter 2, pp. Vf-53*

10Fisher, op. cit., p. 395; see also Thomas and Frye, op. cit., p. 163 . A translation of Article 69 of the Constitution of the Republic of Turkey issued by the Turkish Information Office is as follows: "Art. 6 9. All Turks are equal before the law and are ex­ pected conscientiously to abide by it. Every group, class, family, and individual special privilege is abolished and prohibited."

^U.S., Congressional Record, 68th Cong., 1st Sees. (192*0, 10292-10295; see also Speakers Denounce Treaty," New York Times (November 25, 1923), Sect. II, p. 1, col. 8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

The notion of recovery of national sovereignty was only one

of several themes of Turkish nationalism, hut it was a very important

one. Nationalism in Turkey also contained elements of recovery of

national pride, of recovery of national unity, of recovery of Turkish

culture, of recovery and revitalization of the Turkish language. It

opposed Ottomanism and its elitist mentality and emphasized Turkism

and its populist mentality. 12

Ironically, those factors that seemed to call most clearly for

a kind of universality, especially that of universal Christian brother­

hood, the ummah of Islam as contrasted with wajan, and the like, were

precisely those factors which tore at the fabric of Turkish unity. One

unity set itself in opposition to another. Universality was divisive

in the particular. The problem was not peculiarly Turkish, but it was

genuinely Turkish.1^

As Turkey began recovering its sovereignty, the idea of

Turkey for the Turks began to take hold, and became the rallying force

in Turkish progress for a number of years. As this happened, certain

reactions against the old capitulatory regimes crystallized. One began

to see just how deeply resentment against the system actually did run.

Because one element of the capitulations was religious, and because the

religious had been divisive, the nationalist faction in Turkey began to

12 Fisher, op. cit., pp. 390-400; see also Thomas and Frye, op. cit., pp. 46-47, 52.

1^Fred Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: ABCFM, 1959), P* 31i see also Cass Arthur Reed, Report to the trustees of International College of Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59)/ Izmir, January, 1934; see also Ziya GSkalp, The Principles of Turkism, trans. Robert Devereux (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1968), pp. 12 -16, 62 -71.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

vent itself in opposition to organized religion, and in fact to set

itself up as a religion in a certain sense.^

This Turkish nationalism vhich had dealt severe blows to

Islam in Turkey would be no less jealous of its acquisitions where

Christianity was concerned. If any Christians rejoiced at the secular­

ization of the Turkish state because they hoped for greater freedom

to evangelize thereby, their rejoicing was short-lived.1^ In fact,

the very privileges which the missions had enjoyed under the capitu­

latory regime, as well as those advantages they had seized for their

wards under the millet system, now all proved to be disadvantageous

because of the suspicion with which the Turks viewed them. Not only

their Muslim heritage but also their corporate national experience had

proven to the Turks that somehow religion and nationality were

related.1^

Some Turks themselves recognized that a part of what charac­

terized Turkish nationalism under the Republic was principally emotion­

ally charged reaction to the past. One Turkish newspaper of Istanbul

pointed out that the years of foreign domination contributed to over­

reaction, and prompted otherwise clear-thinking Turks to give undue

importance to events that in another day, or in another country, might

lifCa8s Arthur Reed, Report of the President of International College of Izmir to the Board of Trustees (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/213, Izmir, January, 193k.

^James L. Barton, "How Others Feel About Work in Turkey," The Missionary Herald (August, 1923), PP* 332-333; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 192k Tboston: ABCFM, 192k), p. 6 7.

^James Thayer Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem, (New York: Columbia University Press, 19k2), p. 107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

have caused less excitement. This was a negative aspect of the other­

wise laudable Turkish nationalism, according to the article.1"^

The missionaries of the American Board, and especially those

connected with the American schools and colleges, were certainly aware

that the direction that nationalism might take in Turkey could have a

profound effect on their presence there. Although they were pleased

with Ismet's declaration of their usefulness and welcome in Turkey, they

recognized at the same time that Ismet could not speak for all elements

in Turkey. They saw that there was also a radical nationalism in Turkey

that pushed the idea of Turkey for the Turks to the extreme, wishing to

remove all foreign influences from the Republic. The missionaries were

aware, too, that there was a reactionary opposition to the policies of

the government, especially in regard to the treatment of religion. The

missionaries saw the possibility that the government might take in hand

all phases of Turkish education, so that there would ultimately be no

foreign educational institutions in Turkey. This would be an extreme

reaction against the privileges of the foreign communities and the in­

stitutions they fostered during the capitulatory regime.1®

The presence in Turkey of these institutions was due to the

activities of religious groups. Their continued presence represented in

Turkish eyes a potential extension of Western power and influence

^"The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), trans. High Commission, Constantinople, September 4, 1924; see also Robert M. Scotten, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 12, 1924.

l8ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 67.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

to the detriment of the Republic. The state had no intention of

relinquishing any of its authority and power to any internal or ex­

ternal religious group.^

These attitudes did not disappear overnight. In 1930, Eski

Masut Bey, Deputy of Edirne to the Grand National Assembly, spoke out

against the new "imperialism of the mind." He called on the government

to do battle against this type of continued foreign domination, a

direct result, in his opinion, of the capitulations.2^ Earlier in the

same year, Ambassador Grew reflected upon Turkish hypersensitivities

to any sort of diplomatic representations which might "savor of the old

capitulatory regime." He felt that if the institutions wished to con­

tinue their presence and activities in Turkey, they must do so not so

much under the protection of any kind of agreement as under the pro­

tection of Turkish good will. 21 Two years later, Alexander Smith,

reporting to the board of trustees of Robert College, observed that

Turkish nationalism was "going to make the lot of the foreign insti­

tution...a difficult one." He remarked that especially the foreigner

coming from a so-called Christian country would be regarded with 22 suspicion.

^Addison, op. cit., pp. 93, 103.

20Jefferson Patterson, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367»ll6U/l31, Istanbul, June 13, 1930.

21Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7*116^/130, Istanbul, April 17, 1930.

22 H. Alexander Smith, Report to the board of trustees of Robert College in 1931 visit (National Archives Record Group 59)» 367.1l6kR5U/72 » Princeton, New Jersey, February 15, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Turkish nationalists seemed to be particularly allergic to

Hellenism of any stripe. At the time of the raid perpetrated upon the

campus of Anatolia College, Merzifon, in early’ 1921, the military inves­

tigating officers were reported to have been most bothered by a collec­

tion of Greek classics in the personal library of the college President,

Hr. George White.2^ When Edward J. Fisher, of Robert College, was under

attack in 1924 because of remarks he allegedly made to tourists while

showing slides of historic monuments of Asia Minor, some Turks seemed

to have been as much upset by the thought that he might have been

praising the Byzantines as by the notion that he might otherwise have

insulted the Turks. Agaoglu Ahmet Bey, the deputy from Kars to the 24 Grand National Assembly, seems to have been Just such a person. He

called for the departure from Turkey of all those who were prone to

give credit to Greeks for civilization in Turkey.2^ Emin Bey, the

Vali2^ of Constantinople in 192k, expressed the desire to tear down

the Byzantine walls of Constantinople, because they constituted an

unwanted reminder of Justinian.2^

2^Efthimios N. Couzinos, Twenty-Three Years in Asia Minor (1699-1922) (New York: Vantage Press, 1969), PP* 99-100.

2^Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/4, Constantinople, September 12, 1924.

2^Agaoglu Ahmet Bey, Editorial, Hakimiet-I-Milliye (Ankara), August 28, 1924; see also Robert M. Scotten, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*h64r54/50, Constantinople, September 12, 1924. 26 Governor.

2^Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/4, Constantinople, September 12, 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

Cass Arthur Reed, President of International College at Izmir,

reported that there was deep-seated nationalistic feeling among certain

members of the college faculty. He thought that these nationalistic

feelings must also have been communicated to the students. According

to Dr. Reed, these faculty members felt that, in addition to the sub­

jects that the law required be taught by Turks, any others related to

the feelings or ideals of the Turks should only be taught by Turks.

They maintained that only Turks were capable of adequately understanding

Turks; therefore for foreigners to teach such subjects could only mean

offending the Turks' sense of nationalism.2^

They pushed the matter even farther, insisting that no

foreigner had the right to meddle in any fashion in the social, cultural

or extracurricular interests of the students of any school or college.

Their interest and activity should be confined to the class, and there 29 to only the purely scientific courses or foreign languages.

They contended as well that foreigners had no business being

involved in matters of disciplining Turkish students. This was 30 offensive to Turkish nationalism. Superpatriotic elements among

students and faculty of the college felt that even speaking or singing

2^Cass Arthur Reed, Report to the Board of Trustees of International College at Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 367.116^/213 , Izmir, January, 193^* 29 Ibid.; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367«ll64/l55, Istanbul, June 29, 1931.

^°Reed, Report to Trustees (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367.1164/213 , Izmir, January, 1934; see also "An Incident at the American College at Gbztepe," Anadolu (Izmir), trans. American Con­ sulate at Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*ll64/l87, Izmir, December 29, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. in English outside the regular English classes in the college violated

the spirit of Turkish nationalism. ^

Confronted with this anti-foreign spirit in their schools and

colleges, which resulted at least in part from the capitulations, and

which also had its echos in the community beyond the campus boundaries,

the missionaries, school officials, teachers and other foreigners

associated with the American schools in Turkey were forced to tread very

carefully. Sometimes they had to react too severely to relatively minor

breaches of discipline by non-Turkish students. On one occasion, in the

Spring of 1928, two little foreign pupils in the preparatory department

associated with Constantinople Woman’s College defaced a map of Turkey

displayed in the study hall. They were of Greek and Maltese nationality.

In defacing the map, they made uncomplimentary remarks about Turkey in

Greek. The school officials felt it necessary to expel the girls for

their deed. Although the reaction of the school seemed unduly severe,

it was no doubt necessary, given the spirit and the temper of the 32 times.

Some Americans associated with diverse activities of the

American Board in Turkey understood better than others how the situation

had evolved. Among the latter were those who did not appear to have

3^Cass Arthur Reed, Report to the Board of Trustees of Inter­ national College at Izmir (Rational Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/213 , Izmir, January, 193^.

■^Eleanor I. Bums, Letter to Joseph C. Grew (Rational Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367.II64/HO, Constantinople, March 22, 1928; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Frank B. Kellogg (Rational Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/110, Constantinople, March 23 , 1928; see also "A Distasteful Incident at Robert College," Miliett (Constantinople), March 22, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. been able to make the necessary adjustment in their comportment after

the abolition of the capitulations, and continued to act as if they

were still living under the capitulatory regime. The Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of the Turkish Government even went so far as to

submit a complaint to American officials in Ankara over the conduct of

one missionary, a physician living in Central Turkey. 33 whatever the

reasons may have been for his conduct, his brusque mannerisms, his

impatience, his lack of appreciation of Turkish sensitivities were

interpreted by the Turks as reminiscent of the capitulations; that

missionary was counterproductive in his witness, and his actions oL. reflected in the same negative manner upon the rest of the mission.J

Dr. Caleb F. Gates, for many years President of Robert

College, was highly respected in Turkish educational circles. However,

his views on the aims, rights, privileges and duties of an American

school or college in Turkey were diametrically opposed to those of

the Minister of Public Instruction. He seemed unwilling or unable to

adjust to new Turkey. Perhaps it was because of the singular history

of Robert College. Perhaps it was because of the special provisions

of the Charter of Robert College which called for the institution to

have a distinguishable Christian character. Perhaps it was because of

his own personal background of having been a missionary in Turkey for

33Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg, reporting visit to mission stations by F. Laramot Belin (National Archives Record Group 59), 367»ll6Vl03, Constantinople, November 7» 1927*

3 **Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

several years. Whatever his reasons may have "been, Dr. Gates did main­

tain a definite Christian character for Robert College during his presi­

dency, somewhat in defiance of Turkish desires to see the institution

more secuxarized..-’-'- ^

The phenomenon did not appear to have teen peculiar to only

Dr. Gates and Robert College. Several of the educators in the American

schools and colleges gave the impression of maintaining as much of their

rights from the capitulatory regime as possible under the new regime.

They did this as a matter of principle, yielding only what was

absolutely necessary. To a certain degree, this policy enjoyed the

blessing of the American Board.^ Ambassador Grew felt that there was

too much of the missionary in the educators for them to subjugate

successfully that part of their nature to the changing situation in

the Republic of Turkey. ^ Besides, the educators were distinctly of

the opinion that the supporters in the United States of the American

^Admiral Mark L. Bristol, Letter to Frank B. Kellogg (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59)} 3 6 7.II6 U/8 7 , Constantinople, June 18, 1925; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 5 9 ), 367«ll6Vl35> Istanbul, July 29, 1930; see also H. Alexander Smith, Report to the trustees of Robert College (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll6hR5V72, Princeton, New Jersey, February 15, 1932; see also Caleb F. Gates, Report of the President 1923-192^ (Constantinople: Robert College, 192h), pp. 5-6, 9 -10,* see also Near East Colleges Association, Annual Report 19 2 8- 1929 (New York: NECA, 1 9 2 9), p. 6.

^Ernest W. Riggs, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 3 6 7.1164/22, Boston, February 23, 1923*

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Ar* chives Record Group 59), 3 6 7.116 4/1 5 5, Istanbul, June 29, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91

educational enterprise in Turkey would continue to support them only

if they were persistently religious, irrespective of what Turkish

law demanded.3®

It would he quite unfair to leave the impression that this

sort of response to the abolition of the capitulations was charac­

teristic of all the missionaries. Some of them, in fact, had not felt

it necessary to attach much importance to their rights as such, even

when the capitulations were in effect. Dr. Alexander MacLachlan found

that he was given a much better reception among Turkish officials by

taking care of his business with them directly and personally than if

he had made representations through the channels specified by the

capitulations.39 Other missionaries, whether educators or engaged in

some other occupation, experienced no significant change in their way

of living and dealing with the Turks after the abolition of the

capitulations, not because they persisted in believing that the

capitulations were still in effect, but because they had had no

occasion to make use of them at all.*4'0

Ambassador Grew took pleasure in the manner in which Luther

R. Powle conducted himself in his relations with Turkish officials.

He never appeared to lose patience. He was always courteous. Above

^Stephen P. Duggan, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7•Il6k/l67, New York, February 6, 1932. 39 "Dr. MacLachlan on the Treaty," Hie Missionary Herald (July, 1924), p. 297.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

all, he studiously avoided any action, word or intimation which might

recall the capitulations.1*'1"

The American Board and its missionaries underwent some

excruciating soul-searching at the birth of the Republic of Turkey.

They were by no means unanimous in deciding whether or not to continue

in their work there, especially in light of the fact that the capitu­

lations were abolished and were not replaced by any sort of treaty

guarantees. In the absence of capitulations, they had hoped at

least for treaty provisions guaranteeing them certain rights and 42 privileges.

After having lived in Republican Turkey for a few years,

missionaries and their American supporters in education appreciated

the achievements of Turkey in many fields, including that of education,

made possible in part by the sort of national pride engendered by

nationalism, and nurtured by the recovery of control over her own

destiny, represented by the abolition of the capitulations. Although

missionaries recognized the source of the Turkish spirit of nationalism

as residing in the abuse of the capitulations, now they were able to ho look with a greater degree of objectivity on the transitional period. J

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/123, Constan­ tinople, June 30, 1929. 42 if James L. Barton, Missionary Problems in Turkey, International Review of Missions (October, 1927), P* 489.

^Philip Marshall Brown, Memorandum after visit to American Schools in Turkey prepared for Wallace Murray (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164/198, Princeton, New Jersey, December 15, 1933*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

The American Board, too, appreciated the advantages that

might accrue to their program in Turkey due to the improving image

of himself that the Turk was acquiring in his new sovereignty over

a nation on the move. Both the Board and the missionaries felt that

friendship and openness were taking the place of hostility and

suspicion. The missionaries were beginning to feel that they might lik have a specific contribution to make to the advancement of Turkey.

Now it was becoming possible for missionaries to look upon the

dynamics of Turkish history, and to regard all that was happening as

"outstanding accomplishments" rather than simply as instability in kS a society in transition.

THE NEW TURKISH PERSONALITY

The Turks in the Republican period began to undergo a marked

personality change, gradual, to be sure, but a definite and noticeable

change nonetheless.^ Turks began to regard themselves as no longer

inferior specimens of humanity, but rather as men worthy of respect

within the whole community of mankind.^ Turkey was making a great

leap forward across several centuries of lagging behind. Someone has

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927), P* 60,

^L e e Vrooman, "The Place of Missions in the New Turkey," International Review of Missions (July, 1929), P* ^02.

^6ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927), P*

^"How Terrible Is the'Terrible Turk'?" The Missionary Herald (January, 1928), pp. 18-20.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9h

characterized that period of change as bringing the people of Turkey-

out of the fifteenth century to drop them suddenly into the twentieth L.8 century. Improved roads, an amelioration in commercial life, new

schools and a vastly expanded educational program were all a part of

the new life in Turkey. Just as interesting, however, were the

changes that were taking place in the socio-cultural realm, and in the

realm of values. Individual human life and the importance of the

individual began to take on another significance. Missionaries reported

an emphasis in education upon "kindness, respect, obedience, forgive- ,,k9 ness, thoughtfulness, self-support and generosity.

No less interesting, from the outsider's point of view, was

the clearly discernible lean to the West that Turkey was taking during

this period. One observer said that the Turks attributed the retard

of Turkey as compared with Western nations to the close ties between

national life and religious life. They felt weighed down by tradition.

They were convinced that Turks were not lazy, but simply restricted in

the bonds of religious tradition.^0

Turkey had wrested her independence from the West, and was

again looking toward the West, and again in quest of her liberation.

In order to make the break as complete as possible, many of the cultural

trappings of their civilization only indirectly associated with religion

were abandoned in favor of Western symbols. One example of this type

W Ibid., p. 18. ^9Ibid., p. 1 9-

5°James L. Barton, "Missionary Problems in Turkey," Inter­ national Review of Missions (October, 1927)> P« W36.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

of Westernization was the exchange of certain items of wearing apparel

that had been in use in Turkey since the very earliest days of the

Empire; the fez was replaced by the hat,'*1 and the Turkish pants were 52 replaced by the European trousers.

The American schools and colleges in Turkey had pioneered

in the field of education for girls and for women. This was not

entirely without adverse reaction on the part of the Turks. The first

girl to graduate from Constantinople Woman's College was punished, not

so much for having acquired an education as for being too liberal. Her

father, however, was punished by exile.^3 Much of the emancipation of

women in Turkey, although it is interpreted by many as being the product

of Western influences and the Westernization process in the Republic,

actually was set in motion during World War I, when most of the manpower

of Turkey was mobilized in the war effort, and when women were obliged

to fill in at running the day to day life of the country.^ The eman­

cipation of women as it was completed under the Republic did, however,

increase the importance of the American college for women in Istanbul,

for the simple reason that it was the only institution of higher educa­

5*The exchange of the fez for the hat was interpreted as having some religious significance, and thus prompted some negative reactions. Hie European hat had a brim, or visor, and did not permit the wearer to touch his forehead to the ground in the course of his ritual prayers as Muslim custom required, without uncovering his head. To uncover the head, especially when praying, was not done. 52 "How Terrible Is the'Terrible Turk1? The Missionary Herald (January, 1928), p. 18.

■^Maynard Owen Williams, "American Alma Maters in the Near East," The National Geographic Magazine (August, 19^5)» P* 2^5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

tion for women in the whole country. Turkey began to make use in this

period of the American colleges in particular in promoting the

westernization of Turkey desired by Ankara.^

One of the most widely applauded innovations in the westerni­

zation program in Turkey was that of substituting a modified Latin

letter alphabet for the script used up to that point based upon a

modified Arabic script. In reality neither alphabet was adequate

without some modification. Authorities in the American Board felt

that the Arabic script had constituted one of the most serious ob­

stacles to broad-based education in Turkey.^ The Gazi^ Mustafa Kemal

himself ejq>ected great things from this program. He anticipated that

the new letters would be easily learned, that illiteracy in Turkey

might be reduced from 90 percent to 10 percent in the space of four

months' time, and that illiteracy might effectively be eliminated in c A two or three years.''''

The new alphabet for Turkey was followed a few months later

by the suppression of Arabic and Persian as languages taught in Turkish

schools. This step in turning away from the East and towards the West

was also a serious one, since much of Turkish literature up to that

.G. Tinckom-Femandez, "American Schools Lead Turkish Youth," New York Times, November U, 1928, Section E, p. 6, col. 3*

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), p. 70. 57 The victorious, honorific title accorded him in 1923*

^^"Kemal Schooling On Today," New York Times, January 2, 1929, p. 20 , col. 2 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

tine had been based on Arabic and Persian.^ They were replaced with

courses in Latin and ancient Greek; Itorkey felt that the advanced

Western culture which they were emulating was based on the thought

for which these ancient languages were the vehicles.^ 0 At the same

time, the importance of English was upgraded. English would thenceforth

be taught in all Turkish schools. This was in furtherance of what one

observer called the "Americanization" of Turkish mentality.^ 1

The American Board highly approved the latter step, crowing

that "English is one of the greatest liberalizing forces in the world

today. The Board in the same article took note of an increased

Turkish demand for textbooks in English, and expressed the hope that

the best literature in English might find its way to Turkish book­

shelves. Thinking in English would be the crowning achievement for

the Turk, according to the American Board.^

Hamdullah Suphi Bey told a gathering of missionaries and

educators in Istanbul that Turkey intended to break with the Arab-

dominated past of Turkish history, and move its civilization from a

stagnant to a dynamic state.^ Several years later, lee Vrooraan stated

-^"Latin, Greek, English Replace Arabic, Persian in Turk Schools," New York Times, October 6, 1929, sect. Ill, p. 8, col. 2.

6°Ibid. 6lIbid.

^ "The Wise Turk," The Missionary Herald (June, 1923), P* 234.

63Ibid.

James L. Barton, Missionary Problems in Turkey, Inter- national Review of Missions (October, 1927), P» ^91; see also Luther R. Fowle, Notes on address delivered by Hamdullah Suphi Bey to a conference of American educators and missionaries (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/89, Constantinople, June 26, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. that Turkey no longer stood simply as one among the Muslim nations, but

rather had assumed a mantle of leadership among Muslim countries because

of its program of Westernization.®-*

As for the American Board, it could only applaud the whole

process of Westernization, of the economic and industrial development

of Turkey, of the application of Western methods of agriculture in

Turkey, of social and cultural changes in Turkey.®® These things were

the fulfillment of its dream of the crumbling of barriers separating

Christian and Muslim in Turkey.The Board hoped that schools and

colleges might develop normally in their relationships with Turkey and

its leaders through what it called the new "enlightenment."®®

Another changing aspect of the Turkish personality directly

attributable to the phenomenon of nationalism was the emergence of a

certain Turkish pride. Turks were, of course, quite aware of "their

lack of international experience," as a report of the American Board

put it. This lack was seen by the Turks, however, not as a reason to

hold back timidly, but as an impetus to seek information, as an opening

of doors to sources of knowledge. Whether or not the Board and its

personnel acted correctly upon their conclusions, one might debate. The

®-*Lee Vrooman, "Hie Place of Missions in the New Turkey," International Review of Missions (July, 1929), p. ^01.

®®ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927), p. 60.

®^"How Terrible Is the'Terrible Turk'?" The Missionary Herald (January, 1928), p. 18.

68ABCJM, Annual Report 1925 (Boston: ABCFM, 1925), p. 5^-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99

point is that the Board did recognize that f a c t . ^9 This helped the

Board to recognize and reject the old epithets70 that the world had

for so long been accustomed to pinning on Turkey as out-dated and

inappropriate. The Board and its missionaries in Turkey were becoming

ardent proponents of this New Turkey, and in a very real sense shared

in the new feeling of pride growing there. 71 They did find it chal­

lenging, if not difficult, to keep their program and methods of service

attuned to the changing social and political climate in Turkey-Chal­

lenging when they understood the changes, and difficult when they

did not. 72

Ambassador Grew had a deep interest in Turkey, and he was

also interested in the activities of the American Board there. The

American schools, in particular, demanded a considerable amount of his

time and energy during the five years he was in Turkey. He was also

concerned over the American image being projected there by the American

schools and colleges. He wrote to Secretary of State Stimson that the

growing nationalism should lead the mission, and especially its schools 73 and colleges, to adopt a policy of non-proselytism.

Kemal Zaim Bey, of the Ministry of Public Instruction, told

Luther R. Powle and other representatives of the American Board that the

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 192*0, P* 72.

7°"Sick Man," "Effete," "Unchanging," "Terrible Turk," etc.

71ABCFM, Annual Report 1926 (Boston: ABCFM, 1926), p. 78.

72ABCFM, Annual Report 1925 (Boston: ABCFM, 1925), P* 54.

"^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 387*1184/158, Istanbul, July 30, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100

Turkish authorities would be most sensitive on the issue of nationalism

and the respect of foreigners for Turkish national pride. He traced

a number of difficulties that had confronted the institutions of the

American Board, or their personnel, to this very question. He said

that in his opinion this question was much more important than the one

„7ii of what he called religious propaganda. '

In 1924, in entirely another connection, the author of an

editorializing article in Vatan, a daily newspaper of Istanbul, had

some remarks to make on the subject of national pride. Displaying

gross hypersensitivity on relatively minor incidents, making a show

of narrow-mindedness, being petty in reactions all did more harm to

the Turkish sense of national pride, said he, than any unintended

slight on the part of foreigners. Misinterpretation and obstinacy

on the official level did not protect national pride, but rather 75 sacrificed national dignity on the altar of misdirected pride. '

No small amount of credit for the emergence of national

pride as a characteristic of the Turks must go to Mustafa Keraal himself.

He was a Turk, and proud of it. He was a "fiery patriot."^ Although

he was not the author of Turkish nationalism, he certainly agreed with

its aims, especially with respect to making Turks proud of "their race

and heritage."^

^Luther R. Fowle, Paraphrase of remarks made to him and others by Kemal Zaim Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 3&7«1164/123, Constantinople, June 30, 1929* 75 "The Donkey Case," Vatan (Istanbul), September 10, 1924.

^Sidney N. Fisher, The Middle East: A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), P- 3 9 ^

77Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101

Ziya G8kalp says that prior to what he called the "Anatolian

Revolution" the expressions "Turk" and "Turkish" were eschewed as

identifiers of Ottoman subjects.^® He says that all that was changed

by Mustafa Kemal, whom he was already qualifying as Gazi and "great

savior."^ Now it was not only defensible, but commendable to refer

to oneself as a Turk, and to the country as Turkey. Now all religious

thought, religious literature, sermons, philosophy, political thought,

legal philosophy, economics, and anything that might touch the national

life and personality were to be expressed in Turkish, rather than

Arabic, for instance.®0 As for any backwardness in philosophy, Ziya

Gtfkalp was not ready to concede the total advantage to the West. He

felt that the West was certainly more advanced in what he called "ad­

vanced philosophy," but he steadfastly maintained that Turks were

superior in "folk philosophy."®^ He traced Turkish conquest and

dominance in Europe, Africa and Asia to the spiritual and philosophical

superiority of the Turks, in the period when Turkey was strong in

those areas. He felt that Turkey had fallen behind the West only in

material civilization, but continued strong spiritually and philo­

sophically. He was convinced that Turkey could catch up to the West

in the material realm; when she did so, then she would again become

the dominant power of the world.®2 Writings such as those of Ziya

GiJkalp were highly instrumental in the development of Turkish pride.

^®Ziya G5kalp, The Principles of Turkism, trans. Robert Devereux (Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1965), pp. 17-21, 125-126.

79Ibid., p. 125 . ®°Ibid., pp. 118-128 .

®1Ibid., p. 128 . 82 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102

Although Ziya Gtfkalp seemed inclined to give the major part

of the credit for rebuilding Turkish national pride to Mustafa Kemal,

others called Ziya GSkalp the architect of the foundations of this

development by M s earlier efforts in the realm of religious reforms

and reforms in the rights of women. Ahmed Emin Yalman says that

Mustafa Kemal only built upon the foundations laid by Ziya G8kalp.®3

Whatever the parentage of the development of a renewed sense of pride

at being a Turk, characteristic of the new Turkish personality in the

Republic, it is certain that these two men played an important part.

Edward T. Perry saw inevitable repercussions on the whole

missionary outlook which had its roots at least partially in the issue

of the emergence of Turkish pride. Perry was a missionary of the

American Board working among students in Istanbul. He advocated a

much less exploitive missionary relationship with the people of Turkey,

regardless of the specialty of the missionary. He called for a certain

mutuality and reciprocity in dealing with the Muslim Turks. He urged

a strict avoidance not only of giving the impression of a feeling of

superiority on the part of the missionary with respect to the Turks and

their religion, but also of having the attitude at all. A missionary

among Muslims is there to share, to enrich his interlocutor, and in

turn to be enriched by him.®^ Perry felt that Christian and Muslim

could and should be brought closer together. He had been convinced,

®3Ahn»ed Emin Yalman, Turkey in My Time (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956), p. 180. Bk Edward T. Perry, "Thoughts from the East, The Missionary Herald (April, 1927), P* 12b.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103

through personal experience, that Muslims had quite valuable and

interesting insights on Christianity, the Church, and the Bible, and

that Christians would do well to listen.8^ Perry's attitude went much

deeper than a superficial recognition of the right of his interlocutor

to a certain amount of pride. It recognized as valid the source of

that pride. This kind of thinking was important in that period.

A third aspect of the emerging Turkish personality was that

of Turkification. The term can be taken to mean either of two develop­

ments in Turkey beginning in the late nineteenth century, and continuing

throughout the Kemalist period. The first of these is the revaluing of

Turkism, the re-establishment of the name of Turk as applied to a people

in a non-derogatory sense, the resurrection of the name of Turkey as

applied to the whole people of the nation rather than narrowly to a

class of Anatolian peasants, and a renascence of Turkish as a spoken

and literary vehicle of thought, culture and science. The second of

these is an extension of the whole principle of recovery of national

sovereignty in many domains. It refers specifically to the insertion

of Turks and Turkish into realms where they had hitherto been excluded.

In January, 1923/ Dr. James L. Barton, foreign secretary of

the American Board, announced that the valis of Constantinople and

Smyrna had asked the administrators of American schools and colleges

in their vilayets8^ to agree that Turkish geography and history be

85Ibid., pp. 12 U-125 .

^State or province. A vilSyet (from the Arabic Wilayah) is that territory governed by a Vali (also from the Arabic).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104

taught in the Turkish language by Turkish teachers.®^ This was one

instance embodying both elements of Turkification, an instance that

would be multiplied many times over throughout the decade that followed.

Barely more than two months later, the action of the two valis was

applied to the whole country, as the Government in Ankara decreed that

Turkish history and geography must be taught in the Turkish language

in all foreign schools in Turkey, without, however, the stipulation

that those subjects be taught by Turkish teachers.®®

John E. Merrill saw the possible development of an internal

struggle dealing not only with this particular issue, but also with

the whole question of the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the citizenry

of Turkey, especially with respect to religious faith. He saw radicals

insisting on a "Turkey for the Turks," which would exclude both

foreigners and autochtonous Christians from roles of leadership and

development of the corporate personality. Opposite the radicals, he

saw moderates accepting foreign assistance, admitting a heterogeneous 89 population, and seeking a place in the West for a modernized Turkey.

Although he did not determine how the struggle might be resolved, he

maintained a passably pessimistic point of view on how events might

turn in the future.

Miss Lena M. Dickinson supposed, based upon her experience

®^"Turks Reassure Dr. Barton," New York Times, January 21, 1923, P. 2, col. 7. 88 "Pursuing Its Policy of Nationalism," New York Times, March 27, 1923, p. 3, col. 4.

®^Jo'nn E. Merrill, "Spirit in the Near East," The Missionary Herald (March, 1 9 2 3), p. 115-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105

in her school, that the intensity of feeling against foreigners and

non-Muslims would fade away in a relatively short time. She cited the

example of the student government, established as an experiment, to

which the senior class of 1923 elected a Greek boy as its representative.

She did, however, mention in passing that of the eighteen members of

the class, only three were Turks, while ten were Armenian, and four

were Greeks. The other member was a Syrian. She reinforced her

example much more credibly by the inclusion of the previous year's

experience, in which the senior class of 1922 had elected a Syrian

Christian as its class president, when the class was composed, besides

the Syrian boy, of six Turks, four Greeks, three Armenians, and one

Persian. She felt that the students were basing their choice upon

qualities of leadership and personal ability rather than upon consider­

ations of nationality.9°

In 192k, in the area of Constantinople, all schools and

colleges of the American Board were under the supervision of the

Ministry of Public Instruction. In addition to the two subjects

mentioned above, courses in the Turkish language had to be taught by

Turkish teachers, and the Turkish teachers were appointed by the

Ministry of Public Instruction at the appropriate level. All other 91 teachers had to be approved by those educational authorities.

American school personnel had been somewhat concerned over

9°Lena M. Dickinson, "Letter from Miss Lena M. Dickinson," The Missionary Herald (February, 1923), P* 75*

91ABCFM, Annual Report 192k (Boston: ABCFM, 192k), p. 6 8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106

the treatment by the educational authorities of their Armenian and

Greek colleagues. They were particularly concerned over the whole issue 92 of their right to employ persons of those ethnic groups.

In 1922, the Ministry of Public Instruction had declared that

foreign schools might be opened in Turkey only if the number of nation­

als of the country establishing the school was sufficient to justify

one in a given place. It also demanded that reciprocal rights for 93 Turkish schools be granted by that nation in its own territory. Some

Turkish authorities used that declaration as a pretext for closing 94 foreign schools around the country. Americans interpreted those acts

to signify a general Turkish governmental policy of eliminating all 95 foreign schools from the country. Admiral Bristol lamented the

fact that Turks seemed at the time to be confusing intransigence with

patriotism.^ Finally, in 1924, the apparent ban on foreign educational

J.B. Jackson, Telegram to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7.1164/10, Aleppo, Syria, December 29, 1922. 94 Ibid. 95 J.B. Jackson, Letter to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/15, Aleppo, Syria, December 30, 1922. 96 Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 36?*ll64R54/34, Constantinople, March 9, 1923* 97,, Ban on Foreign Schools Lifted," The New York Times, October 8 , 1924, p. 21, col. 7*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107

In the Spring of 1925, just a month before school was to let

out for the Summer, the American School for Girls in Scutari^® was

without warning ordered closed by the authorities. Among the charges

brought against the school was that Armenians were employed by the

school in diverse capacities, when they had not been approved by the

government.99

Luther R. Fowle, the newly-appointed treasurer of the

American Board in Turkey, replied to the charges for the school. He

said that while there were in fact Armenians working in the school,

none were there who had not been regularly approved by the Ministry of

Public Instruction.100

When the reopening of Miss Kinney's school was authorized in

early June, the causes of the incident became immediately clear.

Turkification was the main issue. Teaching in Armenian was to be

halted, and examinations planned to be given in Armenian were to be

cancelled; all Armenian teachers were to be discharged forthwith; the

service staff was to show a greater proportion of Turks; and, finally,

the proportions of Turks and Armenians in the student body must be 102 changed in favor of the Turkish students.

9®0skiidar

^Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*116^x62/1, Constantinople, May 7, 1925*

Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*116^x62 /3 , Constantinople, June k, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108

Also in June, 1925, the Minister of Public Instruction

advised Dr. Caleb F. Gates that Robert College should no longer

distinguish between Turkish citizens of different ethnic or linguistic

origins in its reports. They should not be classed as Greeks or

Armenians, but simply as Turks.1(^3

In 1926, the government continued to assert its authority to

appoint teachers of Turkish, of history and geography. It also under­

took to establish its right to determine salaries that might be paid

those teachers, even in private institutions10^

During the Summer of 1928, when permission was finally

granted for the opening of the school in Talas, in exchange for the

one closed at Bursa, the conditions imposed by the Ministry of Public

Instruction still centered around the issue of Turkification of educa­

tion. Not only were the Turkish language, Turkish history and Turkish

geography to be taught by Turks, but these courses were to be given a

special emphasis in the school curriculum. Turkish teachers were also

to be employed for courses in Morals and Civics, as well as in Turkish

Commercial Law. Finally, although the principal of the school might

be a foreigner, the vice-principal must be a Turk.10^ The mission,

again, was ready to accept these conditions.10^

10^G. Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/88, Constantinople, June 4, 1925.

10i|ABCFM, Annual Report 1926 (Boston: ABCFM, 1926), p. 79.

10^Fred Field Goodsell, Letter to Joseph C. Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 67.1164/116, Talas, Turkey, August l6, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109

A year later, Resimll A y , a Turkish monthly illustrated

magazine, was clamoring for Turkey to take in hand all development of

Turkish intellectual life. Zekeria Bey, the editor-in-chief, felt that

the influence of foreigners upon the minds of school children, particu­

larly in the early, impressionable years, could not fail to be detri­

mental to the best interests of Turkey. He called for Turkish families

to boycott the foreign schools in the hope that once they had no pupils

they would close permanently, and that the missionaries would also

leave Turkey.10^

By the end of that year, the government in Ankara had indeed

undertaken to prevent Turkish children from seven to twelve years of

age from attending foreign schools. All primary education would be

carried out in Turkish public schools. Such a law was tantamount to

an order closing the primary departments of any foreign schools, in- 108 eluding those of the American Board.

Ambassador Grew confided in Fred Field Goodsell in the Summer

of 1930, just months after Goodsell had become executive vice-president

of the American Board, that the life of the American schools in Turkey

would be measured in direct proportion to their usefulness to the

Turkish government. That is, as long as the evident and effective

goal of these schools was to turn out good, useful, loyal Turkish

-L°7Zekeria Bey, Editorial, Resimli Ay trans. American Embassy, (National Archives Record Group 59), 367,1163 /0 , Constantinople, May, 1929*

Turkey Restricts Schools," New York Times, December 31? 1929, p. 6, col. 2 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110

citizens, according to Turkish standards, the schools would be welcome.

If, on the other hand, the American schools should be found to be

putting the accent on the non-Turkish, whether American, international

or some other national emphasis be chosen, then the schools might

anticipate a relatively short l if e - s p a n .

10^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59)> 3^7•Il6h/l35> Istanbul, July 29, 1937.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 5

RELIGION AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS

SECULARIZATION

The secularization of the Muslim state of Turkey, for cen­

turies the seat of temporary authority of Islam, was not a sudden deed

to which one can ascribe a specific date. Several significant events

in the process would give a rough idea of the time-span involved, and

also of the scope of the movement. As late as 1920, such influential

thinkers as Ziya GiJkalp were not thinking so much of the secularization

of Turkey as they were of the Turkification of Islam. Ziya Gtikalp

called for much more of Muslim ritual and literature to be translated

into Turkish than there had been up to that point. There were Turkish

poems, hymns and religious music already common in Turkish Islam.

Occasionally, one encountered a Muslim sermon in Turkish. The Turks

seemed to have derived such pleasure from these elements of Islam that

some thought that the Qur'an itself should be translated into Turkish

end read in worship services in the mosques, and that the services

themselves should be in Turkish. Thus, he felt, not only would Islam

be more Turkish, but more vital to the Turks.1-

^Ziya G

Ill

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112

On November 1, 1922, when Sultan Mehmed VI was deposed, and

the Sultanate abolished, the caliphate was left in place. Thus, one

could suppose that the intention to that point was only to remove the

religious authority from the realm of civil government. At that point,

it could not be said that the Turkish peasantry was solidly behind

Mustafa Kemal in his ambition to make of Turkey a secular state, an

irreligious state, or an anti-religious state. They were scarcely

aware of where this new Republic might lead.^ They were certainly more

conservative than their leadership.

Many of Kemal's followers understood the movement as intended

to open up new possibilities for the future--a future which would be

based on reason, would be resolutely scientific, would provide for

education for as many as could profit from it, and would be deeply

imbued with a sense of justice. They believed that the only way they

could accomplish these aims in Turkey was to free the Turks from the

stifling hold of religious dogma. They felt that religion had a place

in the life of Turks, but that this place was simply as a source of

"altruism and love."^ They meant that religion could no longer be

used as a tool of reactionary obstructionism in the realm of Turkish

politics.^

There remained among the Ottoman upper classes a certain

^Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in Modem History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957), PP- 172-173*

^Ahraed Emin Yalman, Turkey in My Time (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 195^), pp. 172-173- k Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113

opposition to the Kemalist reforms and reformers. This opposition

was focused upon the remnant religious leadership, notably the caliphate

and the Muslim brotherhoods, or religious orders. This leadership could

possibly catalyze the conservative peasantry against the liberal reform

proponents.'*

Mustafa Kemal was well aware of the sort of danger to his

reforms that these people represented. He felt, however, that it would

be far better for the country to take his reforms by degrees rather than

to run the risk of losing whatever broad base of support he laready 6 enjoyed.

Although few others thought it could successfully be accom­

plished, Kemal judged in early 1924 that the second major step in re­

moving religion as a factor in Turkish political life could be under­

taken. On March 3, 1924, the caliphate was abolished, and with it the

Ministry of Religious Affairs. Ahmed Emin Yalman said that on the

morrow of this singular coup a great majority of the Turks were not only

convinced that it would succeed, but privately wondered why there had

ever been any doubt about it. It did, however, require what Yalman

called a "barrage of publicity" against the defunct institution, ex­

posing the abuses of the office and the general corruption of those

who held it.^

5Lewis V. Thomas and Richard N. Frye, The United States and Turkey and Iran (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951), P* 75- 6 , Ibid.; see also Yalman, op. cit., p. 140.

^Yalman, op. cit., p. 142.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114

One should not conclude that acceptance of the fact came

easily, nor that there was not a certain deeply-felt opposition to the

abolition of the caliphate. The Ottoman dynasty was exiled from Turkey

at the same time, however, and there seemed to be no nucleus afterwards

around which to organize an opposition in a more dynamic sense.® In an

attempt to blunt the opposition, and still change the emphasis of re­

ligious tradition, Kemal decreed in 1924 that Friday should become a

compulsory day of rest throughout the country. On the surface, this

would appear to be a move counter-balancing the abolition of the caliph­

ate, and re-emphasizing Muslim values. It could also have been inter­

preted, however, as taking some of the religious emphasis off the Muslim

day of prayer; in addition to being a day of prayer and worship, it was

to become a day of rest and recreation.^

The next significant step in the secularization of Turkey came

in mid-Summer of 1925, when the Muslim religious orders, brotherhoods,

and their tekkes^ were ordered dissolved. Mausoleums, shrines and

places of pilgrimage were closed.^

Although many Turks had long before adopted European dress

styles, the fez remained a symbol of the distinction between the Chris­

tian European and the Muslim Turk. Kemal felt that such a reminder of

these differences might be detrimental to the economic and scientific

®Thomas and Frye, op. cit., p. 75*

9Sydney Nettleton Fisher, The Middle East: A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), P- 394.

^Dervish monasteries.

^^Fisher, op. cit., p. 394.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115

progress he had envisioned for Turkey. Although the fez was itself 12 supposed to have come from Europe, and the adoption of the hat as

standard head-gear for Turks would represent merely an up-dating of

borrowed style, Kemal anticipated resistance to the change, and he

took the bull by the horns. According to Yalman, he arranged a visit

to Kastamonu, a reactionary conservative center in north central Ana­

tolia. There he met with the most influential reactionaries of the

town, and presented each man present a hat, complete with brim. He

reminded them that the fez was of Venetian origin, and showed the men

the protective advantages of the hat as contrasted with the fez. He

pointed out to them that every other change in Turkish headgear had at

first met with resistance. Thus, he won the conservatives over. The

group strolled in the street, each wearing his new hat, and word

spread rapidly throughout the country. After that, it was an easy

matter to outlaw the wearing of the fez. The change succeeded.

The discarding of the women's veil was another matter. Not

only were there religious prejudices to cope with, but also emotional

jealousies of husbands. The notion of veil-less fashion was allowed

to spread abroad. Gradually the veil did disappear, without any 14 visible government program, and certainly without legislation.

In 1926, the ^eri^ was abolished, and replaced by a new

^ I bid.; see also Yalman, op. cit., p. 174.

^Yalman, op. cit., pp. 174-175* ^Ibid.

^Muslim religious law.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116

civil code based upon that of Switzerland. Although the |eri was

primarily religious, it touched also upon many matters which in another

country would have been considered distinctly secular. The new code

would change many facets of Turkish legal and civil life. Inheritance

and property rights would be only two of them, but nonetheless important

ones.-1-® The same coup brought Turkey into line with the West in the 17 use of the common Gregorian calendar, and the use of common era dates

instead of the hegirian year. The Muslim calendar was maintained for

religious purposes, however, specifically for the fixing of religious

holidays and festivals, Ramadan-1-®, the month of the Muslim fast, and

other events dependent upon the lunar calendar.^ Thus, 1342 A.H.

became 1926 of the general calendar.

The first constitution adopted in the Republican era of Turkey

had maintained Islam as the religion of the state in the second article.

In 1928, however, secularism had progressed enough in Turkey that the

constitution was emended by the exclusion of the phrase in the second

article specifying Islam as the religion of Turkey. Further, the oath

of office for government officials provided simply that they swear on 20 their honor rather than in the name of God. Although the whole

program of secularization had been several years in the making, and

had already achieved several of its goals, some have considered that

^Yalman, op. cit., p. 136 . 1^Fisher, op. cit., p. 394.

^Ramazan, in Turkish. The ninth month of the hegirian lunar year.

^Fisher, op. cit, p. 394. 20 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117

layikgilik2'*' really began on April 10, 1928. 22 T&at date marked a

watershed in Turkish history and politics, because after that date

there would no longer be any religious qualifications upon Turkish

citizenship or as a prerequisite for holding public office.2^

The adoption of a modified Latin letter alphabet, replacing

the Arabic script for writing Turkish took place in 1928, too. Although

this changeover was not strictly speaking a religious reform, it still

had some religious overtones, because the use of the Arabic script had

come to the Turks through Islam. It was a continual reminder of the

role that Islam had played in their national life. In reality, the re­

jection of the Arabic script and the adoption of the new alphabet proved

beneficial in several ways. First, the Latin letters provided more

latitude in describing sounds than did the Arabic script. The reason is

simple. There are twenty-one basic letters in the unmodified Latin

alphabet describing consonants. Five others designate a limited number

of vowel sounds. Arabic script, on the other hand, has an alphabet made

up of about thirty percent fewer shapes of letters for consonants, of

which three lengthen vowel sounds. There are only three vowel symbols.

Vowels are more important to Turkish than Arabic. The consonantal

symbols are already overburdened with diacritical marks in the form of

^Secularization.

22Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367»ll6UBST/33, Constantinople, April 10, 1928. T5ie emendation was approved by the Grand National Assembly on April 9, 1928, and by the Republican People's Party on April 5, 1928.

2^Thomas and Frye, op. cit., pp. 75-76; see also the Turkish Constitution, Articles 88 and 92.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 118

dots above or below the letter symbols, either singly or in clusters

of two or three. Turkish sounds and Arabic sounds did not always

coincide: some Arabic sounds did not occur in Turkish, and their

symbols were superflous. Several Turkish sounds had no Arabic

equivalents. The use of the new script became obligatory on

January 1, 1929.

Those were the basic moves in the secularization of Turkey,

along with the fundamental recognition of certain human rights granted

at the founding of the Republic. Distinctions among Turkish citizens

according to class or creed were eliminated in the Constitution. Other­

wise, ministerial decrees removed religious instruction from the public

and private schools.2-* The Muslim religious schools, nsedreses, were

abolished in March, 1924, along with the caliphate and the Ministry of

Religious Affairs.2^

Even though some of these developments appeared super­

ficially to allow more freedom of conduct of missions, which led

some to conclude that conversion had been facilitated by the Con­

stitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience, in reality the

results were quite different. The provisions of religious liberty in

Article 75 of the Constitution seemed to be interpreted as insti-

2^Thomas and Frye, op. cit., pp. 81-83; see also Fisher, op. cit., p. 395; see also Yalman, op. cit., pp. 175-176; see also Wilfred Cantwell Smith, Islam in Modern History (Princeton: Princeton Univer­ sity Press, 1957)> P* 173*

25ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), p. 6 7; see also James Thayer Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942), p. 103; see also the Turkish Constitution, Articles 6 8, 75, 88 and 92.

2^Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), vol. II, p. 759-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119

tutionalizing the religious distinctions made among citizens under the 27 Ottoman government and the millet system. '

Change involving long traditions and deep-seated cultural

habits seldom comes entirely without opposition. Turkey was no excep­

tion to the rule. Even in Constantinople women who went out unveiled

during the transitional period were ill thought of, and called tangos2^

by complete strangers. Disagreements over such a simple matter as

whether or not to wear the gapka2^ rather than the fez sometimes led

to fisticuffs. Old men warned their juniors not to give in to the

impious new style. Innovators were the targets of stone-throwers in

the streets. Fez-wearers were arrested. Defiantly, they covered

their heads with paper caps or handkerchiefs, and were again arrested.

All the while, the most conservative remained adamantly unwilling to

accept these changes.

Although some supposed that Kemal was an atheist, or at

the very least anti-religious, others were more inclined to believe

that he had no intention of banning religion. They felt that he meant

to remove the state from the clutches of Muslim religious leaders, on

the one hand, and from the divisive effects of the fragmented multitude

of non-Muslim religious communities on the other.

2^Emest W. Riggs, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367.II6J+/22 , Boston, February 23 , 1923 ; see also William Allen Harper, "Character Building in the New Republic,” The Mis­ sionary Herald (May, 1933 ), p. 139.

^Brazen woman, hussy. ^Peaked hat with brim and visor.

^°Irfan Orga, Portrait of a Turkish Family (New York: MacMillan Co., 1950), pp. 222-228.

^Smith, op. cit., pp. 172-183; see also Richard Harrison, Meet the Turks (London: Jarrolds, 1961), PP» 95-98.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120

Much of the effective Turkish opposition to Kemalist reforms

came from "religious reactionary elements in outlying sections of Ana­

tolia. Their intense feelings were fueled by Muslim sentiments in

the face of "pragmatic republicanism."^

Missionaries and American educators were occasionally as

distressed by events as were the Turks themselves. Schools of other

nationalities were touched by the movement, too. French and Italian

schools in Constantinople were closed in 192*4- when they did not remove

religious symbols from public areas of their schools.^ Six months

passed before the Vatican and the Turkish Government agreed on the

issue of crucifixes in Catholic schools.^ Jefferson Patterson felu in

1930 that Turkish officialdom was not as adamantly opposed to American

schools in Turkey as it appeared to be to those of European religious

congregations. He did feel that the independent colleges under the

umbrella of the Near East Colleges Association were in a much better

situation in this respect than were the schools and colleges still 36 affiliated with the American Board.

32W.G. Tinckom-Fernandez, "Angora’s Attitude Calmly Pater­ nal," New York Times, May 20, 1928, sect. E, p. 8, col. 1.

Turks Close Foreign Schools," New York Times, April 8, 192k, p. 2, col. k; see also "Schools in Turkey Close," New York Times, April 10, 192k, p. 8, col. 1.

^"Denies Crucifix Report," New York Times, September 5, 192k, p. 19, col. 8 ; see also "Agree on Turkish Schools," New York Times, October 12, 192k, sect. X, p. 8, col. 5»

^Jefferson Patterson, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6k/l31, Constantinople, June 13, 1930.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121

Caleb P. Gates wrote in 1924 that Robert College was complying

scrupulously with the new school regulations. He said that the French

and Italian schools had brought trouble upon themselves because they

resisted complete compliance on the question of religious emblems in the

schools. He congratulated himself on not having to be concerned about

that question, as a Protestant, because Robert College was adorned with

no religious objects.37

The American schools still did not escape their share of at­

tention in the secularization of Turkey. In early 1924, the Turkish

government sponsored a bill to suppr religious instruction alto­

gether. Within a fortnight it closed an American school at Mersin,

charging that the Bible was being taught to Muslim students.3®

In June, 1925, G. Howland Shaw was asked by the Minister of

Public Instruction why the Americans found it so difficult to secularize

their schools. The minister pointed to his own schools as an example

of what could be done in a very short time.39 He also said that the

English school at Constantinople gave him no problems in the matter of 40 secularization.

3^Caleb P. Gates, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Constan­ tinople: Robert College, 1924;, p. 5.

^"Turkish Assembly Deposed Caliph," Hew York Times, March 4, 1924, p. 3, col. 5; see also "Turks Close a Mission." Hew York Times, March 19, 1924, p. 11, col. 1.

^Luther R. Powle, Notes on conversation with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 5 9), 367*1164/89, Constantinople, July 11, 1925. 40 G. Howland Shaw, Memorandum of interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/88, Constan­ tinople, June 4, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122

Although the minister was prepared to show severity with the

foreign schools on the question of complete secularization of education,

he intimated that the Turks, too, had encountered some difficulties

in the implementation of their own program. Uxey had been forced to

recognize that religion still played an important part in the life of

Turks, and therefore in the life of the country. Thus, they had to

move slowly enough not to lose their base of support. Eventually, he

hoped, religion would lose all importance in the life of the individual

and of the nation, but that day had not yet arrived. In the meantime,

the Turkish schools were also carrying on a program of limited religious

instruction, teaching religion two hours per week.^

The minister told Mr. Shaw that he thought it would be much

more acceptable for the American schools to inculcate American culture k2 in their Turkish students than to teach religious moralism. He said

that the Turks would be glad to have that kind of program. It is

difficult to believe that he was altogether candid in this respect,

because later on that issue was among those that created problems for

the schools.

One month after Mr. Shaw's interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey,

Luther R. Fowle, treasurer of the Turkey Mission of the American Board,

spoke with the minister. In the course of that conversation, the

minister repeated essentially the same challenge to Mr. Fowle that he

Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)* 3^7.1164/88* Constantinople, June 4, 1925. ho Ibid.

^ S e e especially below, Capter 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

had a month earlier laid before Mr. Shaw. He warned that the difficul­

ties of the French schools came from the fact that they were operated by

religious orders, and thus had a definite religious character. He

pointed out that the English school had been experiencing no difficulty

because it was a secular school. The minister felt that priests, and

by extension Protestant clergymen, would of necessity not find it easy

to yield to the necessity of secular education, either in Turkey or

elsewhere. He invited the American schools to join with the state in

putting education on a completely secular footing.^ His challenge

echoed sentiments expressed a year earlier by Agaoglu Ahmet Bey, Deputy

of Kars, writing an editorial in Hakimiett-I-Milliye, in which he asked

that the foreign schools not employ priests or pastors as teachers, but

rather "real and plain teachers."1^

Up to that point, the American Board had interpreted the

guarantees of freedom of religion in the Turkish Republic as giving a

rather wide latitude for pursuit of religious purposes as long as the

peace was not disturbed and religion was not taught to the pupils

in the class rooms.^ The American Board felt that there was still

quite a bit of freedom to practice Christian principles of living

openly enough, and to apply those principles to the operation of the

schools freely enough, that there would of necessity be some effect

^Luther R. Fowle, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*116^/89, Constantinople, July 11, 1925*

^Agaoglu Ahmet Bey, "Is the Word ’Ass’ an Insult or Not?" Hakimie11-I-Milliye (Ankara), trans. High Commission (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367.II64R5V 50, Constantinople, August 28, 192k.

^ABCFM, Annual Report 192k (Boston: ABCFM, 1924),pp. 67-6 9.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 i* hi upon the life of the student body. Thus, Christianity would not be kA taught, but caught.

This position was interpreted by the Turkish government as

indifference to its program of secularization on the part of the

American educators, and it was disappointed, since it had expected the

Americans to be much more cooperative.^ The Minister of Public

Instruction sent a circular to all the American schools in and around

Constantinople cautioning them on the question of their religious

atmosphere. He further pointed out that they were guests of the Turkish

Republic, by then a secular state, and that they should not take advan­

tage of their position as guests to engage in activities which the

government had eschewed for itself.^ The thrust here was definitely

against proselytism, and not aimed at restricting the religious

liberties of any part of the Christian community. Christian students

could still participate in religious assemblies."^

It would appear that there were sufficient grounds for

misunderstanding the thrust of the secularization program in the

first few years after the foundation of the Republic. Certainly Turks

and Americans seemed to be thinking of different things. G. Howland

^Ibid., pp. 68-69. 48Ibid., p. 73 . kq R.A. Wallace Treat, Notes on Interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*116^/85, Ankara, June 3, 1925.

•^Admiral Mark L. Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/86, Constantinople, June k, 1925.

51G. Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6V 88, Constantinople, June h, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125

Shaw stated in mid-year of 1925 that Americana and Turks appeared to be

in fundamental disagreement on the meaning of secular education and

secular government. He said that in America the concept of secularism

in government meant that the government was neither anti-religious nor

identified with any particular religion. Public schools were the

responsibility of the state, and were completely secular, and therefore

did not teach religion. Private schools constituted a parallel system

of education in the United States, and the government was not competent

to authorize or forbid religious instruction in them. That was a matter 52 between the schools and the parents of the children enrolled.'

Hamdullah Suphi Bey, the Turkish Minister of Public Instruc­

tion at the time, said that the fundamental difference between the

Turkish idea of secular education and those found in Europe or the

United States resided in the fundamental political differences between

the states. Prance and the united States, cited as specific examples,

were stable countries with established and stable governments. The

minister pointed out that Turkey had not yet achieved the measure of

stability of Prance and the United States. Turkey had just abolished

its religious sc h o o l s - ^ and could not allow foreigners now a liberty

which was denied to its own citizens. This was especially true in the

light of the fact that these foreign schools had in the past been so

closely identified with certain religious communities which had been 5k the source of trouble for Turkey.

52g. Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-ll6k/88, Constantinople, June k, 1925.

■^Medreses. ^See above, note 52.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126

Understanding that in the United States secularism meant

governmental non-interference in religious matters, and that in Turkey

the same expression meant governmental antipathy to religion, or at

least officially divorcing religion from the daily life of the people,

then it is easy to see how an organization such as the American Board

working in Turkey might fall into the trap of failing to seize the full

significance of Turkish secularization. Mr. Shaw himself told the

minister as much, insisting that the government was not consistent with

itself, especially in the matter of religious symbols in the classrooms

of private schools.^5

Another inconsistency, although the American Board and its

educators would not have argued the point, was the minister's indif­

ference fo intra-faith activities in the foreign schools. Christians

could attend chapel exercises and receive religious instruction in the

schools, regardless of the branch of Christianity to which they be­

longed. In spite of that concession, the minister insisted that the

overall character of the American schools should not be religious.^

The American educators' position was that it would be quite

impossible for them to achieve complete secularization of their schools,

because education did not consist so much in the transmission of a

certain quantity of facts as it did in the transmission of certain

qualitative attitudes about those facts and about life in general. They

^G. Howland Shaw, Hotes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-H6U/88, Constantinople, June k, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127

felt that character-building was an important part of the whole educa­

tional process, and that genuine education would not be possible apart

from religion.5?

Admiral Bristol thought that there might be some accomodation

possible in the government's apparent willingness to concede the privi- S8 lege of religious exercises for the Christian students' as long as the

American schools went along with the government's program of "naturalis­

tic ethics" rather than religious instruction for the Muslim students in

those s c h o o l s . 59 The aim of the government was to forge a homogeneous

and united people, and educational was the anvil. The Minister of

Public Instruction considered that all parental prerogatives in this 6o regard were automatically derogated to the state.

That the American Board had not fully grasped the significance

of the direction that secularization was taking is reflected in the

series of articles by James L. Barton in The Missionary Herald in 1927*

He recalled that once the idea of a Christian school in Turkey had

always entailed a ritual of sorts, including readings from the Bible and

audible prayer.^1 He had come to feel since then that Christian

^Admiral Mark L. Bristol, Letter to Frank B. Kellogg (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164/87, Constantinople, June 18, 1925*

58Ibid. 59Ibid.

^Admiral Mark L. Bristol, Letter to Frank B. Kellogg (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164/90, Constantinople, July 2 3 , 1925.

^James L. Barton, "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," The Missionary Herald (March, 1927), P* 97*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128

education meant communion of a Christian spirit with another spirit. He

fell into basic misprision of the Turkish concepts of secularization of

government and education on the question of how a missionary might take

advantage of the new situation in Turkey for religious purposes. He saw

the role of the teacher in the American schools as offering more oppor­

tunity for evangelism than that of a Christian worker in any other

occupation. The teacher had great influence upon a stable audience.

Thus, his advantage in promoting the Kingdom of God was tremendous.^3

William Sage Woolworth, Jr., writing in the Moslem World in

1927, intimated that so long as religion was kept distinct from the

classroom, nothing should prevent the teacher or any other missionary

from engaging in a definitely aggressive Christian witness, even among

children, in a non-scholastic environment or activity. He cited the

example of Iftirkish children who attended Protestant services of worship

without official, interference because, according to Woolworth, a school 6k was not involved.

James L. Barton contended that restrictions upon religious

instruction in Turkey concerned only the classroom. He felt that those

restrictions did not extend to the character of the schools, which might

continue to be openly and clearly Christian, nor to private religious

conversations outside the classroom between pupil and teacher, which he

considered perfectly l e g a l . ^

62Ibid. 63Ibid.

^William S. Woolworth, Jr., "The Moslem Mind in Turkey Today," Moslem World (April, 1927), p. IkS.

^James L. Barton, "Missionary Problems in Turkey," Inter­ national Review of Missions (October, 1927), P« ^90.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129

Bie missionaries in Turkey realized that proselytism was

proscribed by Turkey. They communicated this understanding to Larnmot

Belin, first secretary of the Embassy of the United States, when he

toured the mission stations of the interior in 1927. Kiey also let him

understand that they considered that situation to be only temporary.

They expected eventually to be permitted to resume a more openly

evangelistic type of mission activity.^

In the meantime, the Ministry of Public Instruction continued

to insist upon an increased observance of the secularization program by

the missionaries, and even went so far as to suggest guidelines for

compliance in the case of certain schools. Nureddin Bey, General

Director of Primary Instruction in the Ministry of Public Instruction,

suggested that the American school in Merzifon adopt a program of

technical instruction rather than attempt cultural or religious

instruction. 3he instruction suggested included a broad program of

practical subjects related to home and family life, property care and

marketable home craft skills.^

The educational missionaries persisted in finding their

vocation in character training. This was carried on in part through

the regular school curriculum, and in part through a variety of

extracurricular activities.®®

66f. Larnmot Belin, Report to Joseph C. Grew on visit to interior mission stations (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/103, Constantinople, November 7, 1927-

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Prank B. Kellogg (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 3^7.1164/107, Constantinople, December 7, 1927*

68ABCFM, Annual Report 1927 (Boston: ABCFM, 1927), p. 6l.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130

These missionaries made a distinction between teaching re­

ligion in the schools and religious discussions outside the classroom.

'Hiey felt that the laws of Turkey gave complete liberty for conversation

on religious subjects with adults outside the academic context. Some

missionaries welcomed the restrictions, saying that living under the

restrictions forced them to think more clearly about what they wanted

to communicate, and also to determine to communicate in in their daily

living. One intimated that there was no useful purpose to be served in

theologizing, but that a dynamic illustration of Christianity in life

was definitely in order.^

Luther R. Fowle recognized that Turkey had her own ideas about

what constituted religious freedom. Those ideas included the responsi­

bility of the state to protect minors from religious influences. He

contended, however, that Turkish youth, in a new spirit of intellectual

inquiry, very naturally asked questions of the Christian teachers about

their faith, as they no doubt also did of their Muslim teachers. Fowle

felt that replying to such unsolicited Questions wss in no wise a viola­

tion of the principles of secularization. He condeded nonetheless that

Turkish opinion was probably not in agreement with him on the cuestion

for the time being.

Lucille Day, a teacher in the school for girls at Bursa, said

that when such honest questions were raised spontaneously, the teachers

^"H o w Terrible Is the ’Terrible Turk’?" Tie Missionary Herald (January, 1928), p. 18.

^°Luther R. Fowle, "Religion Only Minor Factor Under Turkish Rule Today," The New York Times, February 19, 1928, sect. Ill, p. 5, col. 4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 131

politely declined to answer the questions, reminding the students that

the teachers had taken an engagement with the government not to discuss 71 religious matters with them. 1

Apparently not all missionaries were as cautious as Miss Day

seems to have been. Ambassador Grew noted in 1931 that missionaries

were inclined by their very nature to take chances. If they did not

take great chances, then they took small ones, just on the borderline

of what was and what was not permitted them by law. The ambassador

felt that the effect of this attitude did not serve well the cause 72 for which they were in Turkey. 1

A part of the reasoning behind this conduct was the apparent

attitude of the Board in Boston, and the churches in the United States.

Ernest W. Riggs told Wallace Murray in 1931 that the situation in

Turkey made it extremely difficult to secure funds to support the

work there. Congregations were unwilling to give money for secular

education, and religious education was impossible under the circum- 73 stances.

Turkish officials remained concerned for some time over the

tenor of the American schools and colleges. The government as well as

influential Turks in other domains recognized the fact that all of the

^Miss Lucille Day, Statement prepared for her defense at the Bursa School Trial (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6UBST/3 O, Bursa, February 16, 1928. 72 Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6k/l55, Istanbul, June 29, 1931* 7-3 Wallace Murray, Memorandum on conversation with Ernest W. Riggs (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll6Vl57, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1931.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 132

American schools and colleges in Turkey had more or less missionary

backgrounds. Some of the personnel in the schools and colleges were

missionaries. Some of the teachers, even though not missionaries in

all cases, were ordained ministers. The distinction between being

employed by the American Board and being an ordained minister, of

definite Christian and evangelistic sentiments, employed by the

schools or colleges independently of the Board, was one which did not

seem obvious to the Turks. Some of them openly desired the departure 7I1 of such missionaries in disguise. 1

PROSELYTISM

All of the American schools in Turkey were founded by

missionaries. The mission of the American Board of Commissioners

for Foreign Missions everywhere had a religious purpose. Its mission

in Turkey was no exception. The religious purpose of the mission in

Turkey, however, varied in scope and aim according to the period of

history, and even within a given period according to the missionaries,

as one might well suppose.^

T V Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64/l87, Izmir> January 18, 1933; see also Charles Allen, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/190, Istanbul, February 21, 1933; see also Philip M. Brown, Memorandum of visit to American schools in Turkey, prepared for Wallace Murray (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/198, Princeton, December 15, 1933; see also Cass Arthur Reed, Report to the trustees of International College of Izmir (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/213, Izmir, January, 193^*

^Rao Humpherys Lindsay, Nineteenth Century American Schools in the Levant (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, 1965), p. 221.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 133

Goodsell says, for instance, that the only aim of the American

Board's educational program in the early period of mission was to pro­

vide a platform for evangelism, that being understood in the narrowest

terms of verbal witness, preaching and teaching of the Bible. Schools

were meant to lead to conversions, and conversions would build Christian

communities. Child evangelism would lead to the family behind the child

and schools offered that entry into the homes. Only on those terms

wes a program of general education acceptable in the early days of 76 mission.

Even in the case of Robert College, founded after a break

with the American Board over the question of the validity of secular

education, particularly in the field of higher education, a dominant

religious tone was one of the primary characteristics of the institu­

tion. This could be partially explained by the predominance in the

student body of Greeks, Armenians and Bulgarians, who were Christians.

Very few Turks were to be found among the students before World War 1 , ^

The religious tone of the college, however, was not an accident of the

composition of the student body. It was a deliberate policy from the

very founding. Qyrus Hamlin told a gathering in the United States a

few years after the founding of the college that all students were

required to attend the three Sunday services— one in the morning, a

^^Fred Field Goodsell, You Shall Be My Witnesses (Boston: ABCFM, 1959), P. ^9. 77 Paul Monroe, Circular letter to friends in the United States (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-ll6UR5k/86, Istanbul, November 23, 1932; see also H. Alexander Smith, Report to the trustees of Robert College (National Archives Record Group 59), Princeton, New Jersey, February 15, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13U

second service vith group Bible study in the afternoon, and a third in

the evening. By the same token, all students were required to partici- rjQ pate in religious studies as a part of the academic program.

Yet, Richter and Addison are agreed that proselytism and

conversion vere nob the primary aims of Robert College. The purpose

of the religious teaching, the services and other aspects of the

Christian character of the institution vas to influence the lives of

the students, without making Protestants of them. Through the

students the college intended to make a Christian impact upon the whole 79 society.

Less than a decade before the outbreak of World War I, some

voices in the American Board were calling for a more direct address

to the Muslim populations in Turkey in all aspects of the Board's in­

volvement in Turkish life. Stephen Van Rensselaer Trowbridge, a new 80 missionary destined to be sent to Aintab, was among those voices.

He recognized some of the values of Islam, but on the whole was

severely critical of Islam, and called for a concerted effort among

the Muslims of Turkey, and predicted remarkable successes.®^ James

L. Barton added his support to such an emphasis, denouncing the

7®Robert College, Statements in Regard to Robert College, (New York: Board of Trustees of Robert College, fci.drj ), pp. 7-87

Julius Richter, The History of Protestant Missions in the Near East (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910), p. 130; see also James Thayer Addison, The Christian Approach to the Moslem (New York: Columbia University Press, 19^2), p. 91; see also George Washburn, Fifty Years in Constantinople (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1909)> pp. 296, 298. 80„ J Gaziantep.„

8lABCFM, The One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting (Boston: ABCFM, 1907), PP* 160-162.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 135

notion that the Board had no intention of converting Muslims. He said

that the silence of the past in this respect had only been strategic,

and that thenceforth a more vigorous prosecution of this work would 8? characterize the work of the Board.

All students were required to attend religiously oriented

services at Constantinople Woman's College in late 1922- The opening

of the thirty-third academic year of the college was marked by such a

service, during . ;h a new organ was consecrated. The college hymn,

sung at all assemblies, was clearly religious, although its tone was

non-sectarian. 84 Robert College was attacked in Tevhid I Efkiar in February

and March, 1923, on the ground that Muslim students were still forced

to attend chapel services against their will, and in spite of their

protests. The paper condemned the college policy as being reminiscent

of the crusades, and incompatible with the spirit of the twentieth

century. It maintained that the purpose of such a policy could only

be proselytism. Ileri^ joined ranks with Tevhid I Efkiar in March,

and asserted that the American schools and colleges were not really

^Ibid., p. 289. It should be noted in this regard that Dr. Barton was referring as well to other areas of the world besides Turkey where the American Board had missions, and pursued the work in contact with Muslims. He was defending the Board against a general charge of failure to evangelize Muslims, based on the experience in Turkey.

^Constantinople Woman's College, Fall newsletter, 1922 (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-H64CWC, New York, October, 1922 . 84 Newspaper of Constantinople.

^Newspaper of Constantinople.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 136

educational institutions, but rather "centers of Christian propaganda."

Ileri broadened the attack begun by Tevhid I Efkiar to include the

other schools of the American Board, singling out in particular the

American school at Gedik Pa^a. Ileri charged that students of the

school had come to the paper's editorial offices to protest the

atmosphere of the school, and to appeal to the paper to save them from

proselytism,®^

Admiral Bristol believed that the attacks were inspired by

elements of the population more radical than the national leadership.

He felt, however, that it was definitely not the time for missionaries

to be thinking in terms of aggressive evangelistic programs. He

thought that proselytism or the appearance of proselytism in that

period would be especially unwise. He disputed what appeared to be the

claim of some missionaries to a "theoretical right to proselytize."®^

He was not convinced of the existence anywhere of such a right. But,

even if it did, it would not be a good policy to try to assert any

such right in Turkey at that time. He felt that most missionaries in

Constantinople accepted the wisdom of such a low-key policy, and that

86 "The Moslem Students at Robert College Are Obliged to Go to Chapel," Tevhid I Efkiar trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6^R5k/3^j Constantinople, February 21, 1923; see also "An Example of American Extreme Fanaticism," Tevhid I Efkiar trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164- R5V35> Constantinople, March 22, 1923; see also "They Convert Our Children.’" Ileri trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6kR5U/35, Constantinople, March 23, 1923.

^Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 3&1-ll6UR5^/3^, Constantinople, March 9> 1923.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 137

they agreed that quiet example could speak louder and more effectively

than verbal witness accompanied by an insistence on rights not clearly

established.®® He wrote to the Secretary of State that there was a

sizable number of Turks who were convinced that the sole purpose of

American schools was the conversion of Muslim Turkish children, and

he expected the group to attempt to inflict whatever damage it could

upon the schools 89

By the end of the academic year 1923-1924, Robert College had

yielded in the matter of requiring non-Christian students to attend re­

ligious services and receive religious instruction. Religious services

and Bible study were still obligatory for Christian students.The

government had required in the course of the year that Friday be

observed as a national day of rest.9^ The American schools obeyed the

regulation, giving both Friday and Sunday off from classes as days 92 of rest.

The following year, even though non-Christian students were

excused from attending religious services, attendance at "chapel

exercises" was still required of them three mornings a week. The

^°Caleb F. Gates, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Constan­ tinople: Robert College, 1924), p. 5.

^Sydney Nettleton Fisher, The Middle East: A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959), P* 394; see also Caleb F. Gates, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Constantinople: Robert College, 1924), p. 6.

James L. Barton, 'Vhat of the Future in Turkey?" The Mis­ sionary Herald (September, 1923), P* 391; see also Caleb Gates, Report of the President 1923-1924 (Constantinople: Robert College, 1924), p. 6.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 138

exercises were not of a religious character. Dr. Gates talked to the

students on such topical practical subjects as citizenship.

In spite of the fact that the thrice-weekly exercises held at

Robert College treated patently non-religious subjects, it would seem

that Gates was courting disaster in continuing to require attendance of

Muslim students at what he still called "chapel exercises." There is no

doubt but that he was observing the letter of the law. Nonetheless

there was at least an appearance of an element of winking at the law

in that regard.

Gates also conducted a discussion group with students. Of the

fourteen members, six students were Turkish. According to Dr. Gates,

subjects of discussion ranged from the deity to nationalism and inter­

nationalism, passing by way of the individual and the home.^ Given the

latitude which such discussions might take, and the presence of Muslim

Turks in the groups, Dr. Gates seemed to be just on the edge of

possible difficulties, although none seemed to have arisen. The

potential was nevertheless present.

That kind of activity met with the approval of the American

Board. The 1924 Annual Report cites the existence of Turkish discussion

groups as an encouraging trend of activity among students.It said

that direct attempts at proselytism were to be eschewed, but pointed

^Caleb P. Gates, Letter to Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59)# 367*H64R54/59* Constantinople, December 20, 1924.

9Sbid.

9^ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), pp. 72-73*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 139

out that religious subjects could be taken up, and that comparative

discussions of Christianity and Islam were not uncommon. The Board

felt that this type of approach was likely to be the most effective in

reaching out to the young Turkish Muslim.^

One should also keep in mind that in 1924 a conference of the

International Missionary Council was held in Jerusalem. Dr. John R.

Mott, then chairman of the Council, tcld the gathering that there was

undeniable evidence that Islam was dying, on the one hand, and that

Muslims were more receptive than ever to the Christian message, on the

other hand. He reproached the Council for the failure of Protestant

missions to have been sufficiently active among Muslims in 'the past.

The Turkey Mission of the American Board felt itself directly challenged

by the message of Dr. Mott, and declared that the Jerusalem Conference

would be of great value to its work in the area.^

The challenge inferred by the Board and its missionaries as

a result of Dr. Mott's address to the International Missionary Council,

coupled with their own experiences or observations relative to the

secularization of Turkey in the Republican period, could well have had

some effect on the conduct of missionary activity in Turkey, at least

on the part of individuals likely to lean towards evangelistic mission

and conversion. The inference that the mission generally thus oriented

^Caleb F. Gates, Letter to Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l64R54/59> Constantinople, December 20, 1924; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), pp. 72-73*

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1924 (Boston: ABCFM, 1924), pp. 73-74.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lUo

its program in Turkey does not appear to be justified. Tbe Board and

its mission leaders in Turkey repeatedly emphasized the necessity of

adjusting to new conditions in Turkey, which included greater restric­

tions, a greater understanding and appreciation of Islam as an absolute

necessity for new missionaries, and eschewing any polemics, negative,

or critical approach to Muslims.98

The Turks did continue to be concerned about proselytism, and

on occasion expressed that concern openly in one form or another. In

April, 1925, when permission was finally accorded to reopen the

American College in Tarsus, which had remained closed for eleven months,

Mr. Paul E. Nilson, the acting head of the college, was warned by the

Turkish authorities to discontinue the conduct of services of worship

for the Christians of Tarsus on Sunday mornings. Failure to comply

with the instructions would result in a re-closing of the college. The

authorities were apparently concerned that the dominical pastoral

activity might be carried over into the daily secular responsibilities.

Mr. Nilson agreed to the restriction, and informed his congregation 99 that he could no longer lead them in Sunday worship.

Despite Dr. Gates’ disclaimer that Protestants had to remove

religious symbols from their establishments,^^ Hamdullah Suphi Bey

complained to Mr. Treat in 1925 that religious emblems and Biblical

98Ibid.

^Ernest W. Riggs, Letter to Allen W. Dulles (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 367*ll6^TlT/l, Boston, May 8, 1925*

^^Caleb F. Gates, Report of the President 1923-192** (Constantinople: Robert College, 192k), p. 5*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 141

inscriptions were in conspicuous evidence in the hospital of the

American Board at Aintab. 101 He further stated that the personnel

of the hospital took advantage of the patients' dependency by intro­

ducing religious topics into conversation with them. The minister

categorized the activity of the hospital as proselytism. 102 In the

course of the same conversation, he asserted that the same charges

could be made against the American schools and colleges. He was

particularly annoyed by a processional which had taken place during

the Easter recess at Robert College in 1925- In the course of this

processional, the non-Muslim students had carried crosses. One of

the students, an Armenian, was alleged by the minister to have been

made up to represent a Turk converted to Christianity. This signified

to the minister the goal of proselytism in the educational institutions

of the American Board and in the independent American colleges in

Turkey. 103

Hamdullah Suphi Bey told G. Howland Shaw in mid-June of that

year that he felt it should be entirely within the realm of possibility

that the American schools and colleges become perfectly adapted to the

Turkish program of secularization. It could not, however, in his

^°^Gaziantep. 102 R.A. Wallace Treat, Notes on Interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 6 7.1164/85, Ankara, June 3, 1925.

^ 3 Ibid.; see also Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59)> 3 6 7.H 6 4/8 6 , Constantinople, June 4, 1925; see also G. Howland Shaw, Notes on Interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 6 7.II6 4 /8 8 , Constantinople, June 4, 1925*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 142

opinion, be achieved by the administration and faculty which had been

in Turkey already for decades, and were thus imbued with the traditional

missionary spirit and outlook. He thought that those persons should be

replaced by new ones who, as he saw things, would be more responsive to 1 04 the Turkish point of view.

A month later, Hamdullah Suphi Bey spoke with Luther R. Fowle,

treasurer of the Turkey Mission of the American Board. Fowle says that

the minister continued to feel that those responsible for the American

schools and colleges were not making a sincere effort to secularize

their institutions.^^

The December, 1925, issue of The Missionary Herald carried

the translation of an article which had appeared some time before in

Cumhuriyet, a daily newspaper of Constantinople, written by a Turk

complaining of the religious character of the schools and their efforts

at proselytism. He described what he alleged to be a typical Christmas

celebration in the American School for Girls at Bursa. The author

stated that there were only Turkish students in the Bursa school, and

that all the students were still gathered into a room festooned with

Christmas decorations, a tree with lights, fruit hanging from the

branches, and gifts suspended from the boughs. Noelbaba made his

appearance, dressed like the American Santa Claus, and distributed

10li G. Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives. Record Group 5 9), 367.1164/88, Constantinople, June 4, 1925

Luther R. Fowle, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*1164/89, Constantinople, July 11, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1^3

gifts to students and teachers. An unspecified "Protestant prayer"

was played on the piano, followed by a religious message by the

directress.10®

The writer of the Cumhuriyet article claimed that the "Protes­

tant marauders" were present in all the American schools, and made 107 tekkes of them. He cautioned his readers that the Protestant prose­

lytizing was neither verbal nor direct, but that its peculiar effective­

ness lay in the concrete example of the life style of the missionaries

in the schools.10® He concluded by warning his readers of the intention

of the American Board to put a greater effort into libraries and dis­

cussion clubs, and to help a certain number of Turkish students to pur­

sue their studies in the United States.10^

Early in 1928 a storm arose centering upon the American Lyceum

for Girls at Bursa. A certain Behice Hanim110 had been a student and

then a teacher in the Bursa Girls' School until June, 1927, when

she was discharged upon the orders of the Ministry of Public

Instruction. 111 The school was to become a lyceum, and there was

some question as to the adequacy of her diplomas for teaching at the

10^"Ourselves As a Turk Sees Us," The Missionary Herald (De­ cember, 1925), pp. 552-553-

10^Convents; literally dervish monasteries.

10®"Ourselves As a Turk Sees Us," The Missionary Herald (De­ cember, 1925), pp. 552-553.

10^Ibid. 110Hanim: title of respect; cf. Miss, Madame, etc.

111Henry Elisha Allen, The Turkish Transformation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935), PP« 155-158.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. lk k

higher level. 112 Since she had been employed by the school for ten

years, she requested employment in another capacity, but was refused.

She and the school had disagreed over contract terms. She obtained

copies of Silas M a m e r and Longman's Grammar, both of which were used as

textbooks in the school, copied out and translated every Biblical re­

ference in them.-^3 she also secured the diaries kept by some of the

girls. Other students, reportedly jealous of the attention given those

girls, spirited away their compromising diaries. 11*1 Behice Hanim was

reported to have become embittered over her dismissal, and to harbor a

desire to get revenge upon the American women.11^

On January 22, the government dispatched a team of investiga­

tors to Bursa to inquire into the accuracy of the charges made against

the school that four girls had been converted to Christianity there.

112Edvard T. Perry, Informal report concerning the closing of the Bursa school (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 Brousa School Trial (hereafter abbreviated BST)/l8, Bursa, February 3, 1928; see also H.H. Kreider, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164BST/18, Constantinople, February 8, 1928; see also "Deposition Made by Behice Hanim During the Trial of the Teachers of the Closed Bursa School," Milliyet trans. American Embassy, Constan­ tinople, February 20, 1928.

11^John Kingsley Birge, Report of the Bursa Trial (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6*fBST/33, Bursa, April 2, 1928.

11^Joseph C. Grew, Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367.II64BST/I, Constantinople, January 22, 1928; see also Helen B. Calder, Letter to Mabel E. Emerson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6I+BST/6, en route Bursa to Constantinople, Janu­ ary 12, 1928; see also Joseph C. Grew, Memorandum of conversation with E.T. Perry (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*H6UBST/29, Constan­ tinople, March 6, 1928.

■^Fred Field Goodsell, Memorandum for Ambassador Grew (Na­ tional Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6UBST/18, Constantinople, Febru­ ary 15, 1928; see also H.H. Kreider, Letter to Goodsell (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367.II6I1BST/18, Constantinople, February 8, 1928; see also Lucille Day, Letter to Mr. Hutchison (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-H64BST/38, Bursa, February 22, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 145

Miss Jeannie Louise Jillson, principal of the Lyceum, and Misses Lucille

Elizabeth Day and Edith Sanderson were being accused of violating a

Turkish law against teaching religion in schools in Turkey. Fred Field

Goodsell announced that the investigation was welcome, since he thought

it would prove that the accusations were unfounded.

On January 31, the Ministry of Public Instruction announced

that the investigation had been completed, and that the charges were

substantiated. In consequence, the school was being closed, the princi­

pal and the two American teachers were being charged with contravention

of the terms of the school license, and the three women would be brought

to trial rapidly. The four girls alleged to have become Christian were 117 reported to have been minors according to Turkish law. The trial was

to begin within two weeks in the lowest of the courts in Bursa, which

usually tried only minor offenses.^"®

Ambassador Grew, after talking with Goodsell, Vice-Consul

Raymond A. Hare, and Associated Press correspondent Priscilla Ring,

concluded that the charges of religious teaching at the school and

proselytizing were undeniable. Miss Ring recounted the visit of an

116Joseph C. Grew, Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg (National Ar­ chives Record Group 59), 367.1l6i*3ST/l, Constantinople, January 22, 1928; see also "Looks Into Conversion ofMoslem Students," New York Times, Jan - uary 2 3 , 1928, p. 5, col. 2 ; the books and diaries had been turnedover to the police about two months earlier, and the investigation began on a more informal scale on January 3> 1928. 117 "Turkey Shuts Doors of American School, New York Times, February 1, 1928, p. U, col. 5; in Turkey, youth attained their majority at eighteen years of age.

"Turkey to Tiy Americans," New York Times, February 12, 1928, p. 12, col. 2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 146

American to the Bursa school in 1927. Edith Sanderson pointed out a

group of students reading under a tree, and told her visitor that they

were studying the Bible, but that he should not let anyone else know

about it.'119

At the time of the inquiry, Miss Sanderson freely admitted

that she had engaged in informal religious conversations with the

students in question. She maintained that she had done so only in

response to their questions. Miss Ring said that the girls had re­

ceived Bibles as well. Miss Sanderson accepted full and sole respon­

sibility and sought to clear Miss Jillson of any responsibility or

prior knowledge in the matter.120

Ambassador Grew said that he could find no basis in Turkish

law for the action of the government, with the possible exception of

articles 266 and 272 of the Turkish Civil Code, which provided that

parents should have full and sole responsibility for the religious

education of their minor children, and that in case parents should

abdicate this responsibility, a judge of the court must assume the

responsibility. Fred Field Goodsell was not aware of the existence of

any specific law prohibiting religious instruction in schools, but

stated that each school principal had been required to agree not to

engage in religious teaching in the schools. He assumed that such an

Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), Vol. II, pp. 755-756; see also Joseph C. Grew, tetter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 BST/5, Constantinople, February 1, 1928.

^^Joseph C. Grew, tetter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164 BST/5, Constantinople, February 1, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 147

agreement had been concluded between Mi3 S Jillson and the Ministry of

Public Instruction. 121

After the formal accusation at Bursa, other schools of the

American Board found themselves under Intense investigation. The

Turkish press was especially inflammatory, and urged Turkish parents

to withdraw their children from the American schools. Ambassador

Grew reported that there had been some concern that Turkey might move 122 to close all the schools of the American Board in the country. He

was told at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Ankara a week later,

however, that the Bursa case was an isolated one, and that there would

be no untoward repercussions on other American schools or colleges. He

was also told, erroneously, as it turned out, that the government would

probably allow the school at Bursa to reopen once opinion had quieted

down sufficiently. ^23

On the first point, the Minister would appear to have been

only partially correct, and on the second entirely wrong. Within a

few days, Tevfik Ru^tti Bey found it necessary to inform Ambassador Grew

that the government had in hand evidence against other American schools

which would not be used for the time being, and that the Ministry of

Public Instruction would "continue to observe a benevolent attitude

towards them." The minister explained that he had overstepped his

authority in saying that the Lyceum at Bursa might be reopened after a

121 Ibid. 122 Ibid. 123 Joseph C. Grew, Telegram to Secretary of State Kellogg National Archives Record Group 59), 367-1164 BST/9, Constantinople, February 8, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 148

reasonable delay. He explained both to Ernest L. Ives in a personal

interview, and to Ambassador Grew in a personal letter, that because of

Turkey's obligation to the principles of secularism to which she had

committed herself, and because of the pressure of public opinion, there 124 could be no possibility of reopening the Bursa school.

As for the issue of repercussions on other schools, one

immediate effect was the suspension of Miss Edith F. Parsons, principal

of the American Collegiate Institute in Smyrna, on February 4. Miss

Parsons had at one time been principal of the Bursa girls' school. On

February 8, she was reinstated, but the investigation of other foreign

schools in the city of Smyrna was continuing. No evidence of religious

activity was found in the American schools in Smyrna.

Miss Ethel Putney's school at Gedik Pa.^a was another which

underwent a rudely efficient investigation. According to Miss Putney,

the investigators were "nasty," and made the students answer a list of

questions in writing. At the conclusion of the inquiry, she was

felicitated by the inspector on the fine way in which she ran her school.

He expressed the hope that the school would continue to serve the

people of the city. Even after the inspector had made his favorable

124 Joseph C. Grew, Telegram to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 BST/l4, Constantinople, February 12, 1928; see also Ernest L. Ives, Telegram to Ambassador Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 BST/18, Ankara, February 9, 1928; see also E.L. Ives, Memorandum for Ambassador Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 BST/18, Ankara, February 9, 1928; see also Tevfik Rustii Bey, Letter to Joseph Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 367!1164 BST/18, Ankara, February 9, 1928.

"^^Julius C. Holmes, Letter to Joseph Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 BST/18, Smyrna, February 8, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. report on the Gedik Pa9a school, reporters from Son Saat called on her

at the school and sought to lure her into making some sort of compro­

mising statement. She refused to be interviewed, preferring to tell

them that the government inspector had already made his report. The

paper printed an article anyway.12®

At the same time, the school at Merzifon was experiencing dif­

ficulties. The inspector insisted that the school give Monday and

Thursday afternoons free, and that classes be held all day Sunday. He

urged the school to abandon all but the kindergarten and primary depart­

ments.1^ He ordered the American flag flown at the school struck on

the ground that Turkey and the United States had concluded no agreement

covering the practice. He spent two days examining all the books to be

found anywhere in the school, including the girls' closets and the

teachers' parlor. He reprimanded Miss Pohl for not having had the

library books approved as she had done with the textbooks.12®

Vakit reported on February 15 that parents had withdrawn

eighteen girls from the Merzifon school. It further suggested that 129 soon all Turkish girls would be withdrawn from the school.

"^Fred Field Goodsell, Notes for Ambassador Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.ll6i4.BST/l8, Constantinople, February 13, 1928; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), p. 8l; see also Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, p. j62.

^ ^ A n especially interesting suggestion, considering the later restrictions against foreign primary education.

^^Grew, Turbulent Era, pp. 762-763; see also C.R. Willard, Letter to Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6UBST/18, Merzifon, February 4, 1928. 129 American School at Merzifon, Vakit trans. American Em­ bassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 367• ll6kBST/l8, Constan­ tinople, February 15, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 150

At this point occurred the unfortunate incident at Constant

tinople Woman's College involving two ten-year-old pupils in the pre­

paratory department.*30 act of punching holes in a map of Turkey

hanging in a study hall of the school, and of making derogatory remarks

about the country had very little relationship with any question of

proselytism. Hie only obvious relationship between the two for the pur­

poses of this study is that of time, occurring as it did coincidentally

with the Bursa school trial and the investigations of other American

schools in Turkey. Although there is no way of testing the theory, one

could speculate that there was a causative relationship between the

spirit of the times in Turkey and the tots' deed in the study hall. The

act did, however, fall into the context of negative attitudes towards

the American schools, and a vitriolic press campaign that had character­

ized the earliest reporting of the Bursa incident and the subsequent in­

vestigations of other schools. One might also suppose that the action

of the children might not have been reported to the press outside that

context. Ambassador Grew felt that the expulsion of the pupils which

occurred was not exactly a just punishment for what they had done, but

agreed that the college had no other choice in the matter because of the

intense feelings in Turkey at the time.1^1

^■3®See above, p. 88; see also Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, p. 771.

^•'■Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, loc. cit.; see also note 32 , p. 88 above.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 151

Miss Jillson, Miss Sanderson and Miss Day were charged and

brought to trial in the Suhl Ceza1^2 Qf Bursa for having violated

Article 37 of the Regulations for Private S c h o o l s 1 ^ and Article 526 l^k of the Turkish Criminal Code. J Nizameddin Bey presided over the

trial, and Ali Haidar Bey defended the women.^ 5 r^g first session

of the trial was held on February 13 , 1928. At that session, a number

of witnesses for the prosecution were heard. Nihal Rasim Hanim, a

pupil, charged that prayers were offered before meals, that pupils were

not allowed to play on Sunday, and that they were obliged to listen to

records of religious music. She also said that another pupil had told

her that two of the girls, Madelet Necdet and Nemika Riza, had become

Christians. Both of the latter kept diaries, in which they recorded

their religious feelings and reported their conversations with Miss

Sanderson. These diaries were entered in evidence before the court.

Nihal Hanim accused Miss Jillson of complicity in the proselytism.^^

"^Criminal Court of the First Instance, corresponding roughly to the court of a Justice of the Peace in the United States. 133 Prohibits religious coercion of any degree in the schools. See appendix F. 13k Covers disobedience of orders given by a Turkish official duly constituted. See appendix G.

•'•35joseph c. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59); 367»ll6k BST/18, Constantinople, February 15, 1928; see also Fred Field Goodsell, Memoranda for Ambassador Grew (National Archives Record Group 59); 3^7*ll6k BST/18, Constantinople, February 15, 1928; see also Joseph C. Grew, Notes on Conversation with Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59); 367.116k1 BST/18, Constantinople, February 11, 1928. Hamid Bey, the regular lawyer of the mission, could not be present at the first session.

136,'Trial of the American Teachers of the Bursa School," La Republique trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59) 367.116k BST/18, Constantinople, February lk, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 152

Munever Hanim, another pupil, confirmed the previous testimony

of Nihal Hanim, and added that the girls alleged to have become

Christian read the Bible regularly in secret. She also stated that

Nemika Hanim had once told her that she did not fear for herself

because of her beliefs, but that she was afraid the school might be

closed. She ended her testimony by saying that two of the girls had

gone to one of the Turkish teachers in the school to tell him of

their charge of conversion, but that his reaction had not been very

vigorous. 18 7

Behice Hanim, too, was heard in the first session. She

accused Miss Jillson of undue severity in imposing rest upon the

students on Sunday. She said that Miss Jillson permitted no kind of

recreation on Sunday. The former teacher asserted that most of the

students were being weaned away from Islam and were adopting Protestant

ideas, even to the detriment of Turkish nationalism.^®

The four girls who were supposed to have been converted to

Christianity gave testimony in the first session, and all denied

that they were Christian. Even while reporting their denials, however,

the Turkish press identified the girls as having in fact become

Christian.1^

Leman Hanim, a day-student, testified, making vague allega-

137 Ibid. 138lbid.

■^Ibid.; see also "The Proceedings Instituted Against the Directrice (sic) and the Teachers of the American College at Bursa Who are Charged with Proselytism," L'Akcham trans. American Embassy (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59)> 3^7•H64 BST/l8, Constantinople, February 14, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 153

tions of favoritism shown by the teachers towards the three girls.

She said that when there were visitors to the school, only the three

were presented, even though some others were better students. The

rest of her testimony consisted of hearsay and personal conclusions.

In addition to her categoric denials of being a Christian

offered in her trial testimony on February 13, Kiamouran Riza Hanim

wrote a disclaimer to Le Milliett which appeared on February 20. She

was the nineteen-year-old elder sister of fifteen-year-old Nemika Riza.

She had graduated from the school in 1926, and had then become a matron

of the boarding department. In her letter to the editor, she protested

the fact that the press persisted in calling her and her sister con­

verts despite their denials. She reminded the paper that she was legal­

ly of age, and declared that both of them were Turks and Muslims, and

would remain such until their death.

In the course of the first session, Miss Jillson was free to

interject questions and to answer testimony, which she did in good

Turkish.By her questions, she was occasionally able to correct

erroneous or misleading depositions by witnesses. One such example

^° 0 f the four girls reported to have become Christian converts, one hsd graduated previously, and was a matron at the school. The other three were currently enrolled in the lyceum. l 4 l "Detailed Report of the Trial of the Teachers of the Closed American School at Bursa," Milliyet trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164 BST/25 , Constantinople, February 18, 1928.

■^^Ciamouran Riza Hanim, Letter to Le Milliett trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^ BST/25 , Constan­ tinople, February 20, 1928. 143 >• J "The Proceedings Instituted Against the Directrice... L'Akcham trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367.II64 BST/18, Constantinople, February 14, 1928; see note 139 above.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15b

occurred after Leman Hanim testified that too little was made of the

importance of Turkish national holidays in the school. Miss Jillson

showed by her questions that the holidays were observed in a proper

and worthy manner.1^ In addition to her cross-examination of the

other witnesses, she was heard in her own right as a witness in this

session.other two teachers were interrogated, but responded

through an interpreter. They set about preparing statements which

they would memorize in Turkish to be used at the proper time in

their own defense.1^ Ib7 As the trial developed in five sessions, the charges of

violating Article 37 of the Regulations for Private Schools and Arti­

cle 526 of the Turkish Criminal Code rested upon nine accusations.

First, the teachers took walks with the girls during which they were

said to initiate religious discussions, prayer and reading of the

Scriptures. Second, they played religious music on records and on

the piano, and taught the girls religious songs. Third, they made

the girls observe Sundays as a religious holiday, and made them pray

before meals. Fourth, the teachers gave the girls religious litera­

ture, including the Bible. Fifth, the teachers displayed religious

Detailed Report of the Trial of the Teachers of the Closed American School at Bursa," Milliyet trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59)> 3^7-H^BST/25, Constantinople, February 18, 1928.

1^5"The Proceedings Instituted Against the Directrice..." L*Akcham trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H6^BST/18, Constantinople, February lk, 1928.

^^The five sessions were on February 13, March 5> April 2, April 11, and April 2 5 . Sentencing was on April 30*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 155

art in places where the girls would see it. Sixth, the teachers pre­

vented the celebration of Muslim holidays, and imposed the celebration

of Christian holidays. Seventh, even after the teaching of religion

had been banned in the schools, the teachers persisted in teaching

religion under the cover of courses in ethics and character develop­

ment. Eighth, the teachers manifested open favoritism towards those

students who seemed favorably inclined to Christianity and engaged in

blatant unjust discrimination against faithful Muslims. Last, the

teachers used Kiamouran Hanim to distribute Christian literature and

to urge the girls to become Christians.^1®

Most of the evidence for the prosecution supporting its case

was developed in the course of the first two sessions. The first was

described above. The second featured testimony by Muhtar Bey as well

as the questioning of six pupils, some of whom had given evidence in

the session three weeks earlier. Muhtar Bey's deposition consisted

mostly of hearsay and conclusions. The responses of the pupils would

not appear to have strengthened the case of the prosecution in the

second session. Two written depositions were heard by the court, the

first reporting rumors, and the second, by a former student, corrobo­

rating the previous allegations of the school's imposing the religious

observance of Sunday. She asserted that religious books had in fact

"^Lucille E. Day, Statement prepared for her defense (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 6 7.II6 I+ BST/3 0, Bursa, February 16, 1928; see also Lucille E. Day, Statement made in her defense (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^ BST/41, Bursa, April 25, 1928. The counsel for the defense, Ali Haidar Bey, found twelve accusations against the teachers, according to the defense he presented before the court. The difference lies primarily in the fact that Haidar Bey separated accusations against individuals, and separated similar acts which might have been grouped together.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 156

been given to the girls, but that they had subsequently taken back by

the teachers. Finally, all three American women were again questioned

in this session.

The only new element introduced into the third session was

that of opinions offered by the Bursa superintendent of schools and by

the investigator. Both men considered standing in silence before meals

constituted religious ceremonies. The prosecution charged that the

use of Silas Marner and Longman's Grammar, in spite of the fact that

the latter had been approved by the local educational department, and

that the former had been included in a collection approved by the

department, were means of religious instruction.

At the fourth session, Behice Hanim testified again. In the

course of her testimony and the cross-examination, it became clear that

the only religious picture at the school was in the teachers1 private

parlor. Three teachers and the concierge stated that they had seen no

evidence of proselytism or of anti-national propaganda at the school.

They averred that all national holidays were observed, that Fridays

were respected and that Muslim holidays were observed. They said that

the teachers had shown only respect for Islam. This session lasted

only forty-five minutes, and set the stage for the presentation of the

defense two weeks later. ^ 1

149 ^ The Bursa Trial,' Milliyet trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59773^7*1164 BST/29, Constantinople, March 6, 1928. 150 . John Kingsley Birge, Report of the Bursa Trial (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164 BST/33, Bursa, April 2, 1928.

^Edward Tyler Perry, Notes on the Fourth Session of the Bursa Trial (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*1164 BST/41, Bursa, April 11, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 157

The defense made its case at the fifth session, held on

April 25, 1928. Ali Haidar Bey, counsel for the defense, addressed

the court for seventy-five minutes. In the course of his statement,

he reviewed the history of the school, attacked the witnesses for the

prosecution and their testimony, addressed himself to the accusations

brought against the teachers, and attempted to show that the charges

on which the teachers were being tried had no logical relationship

with either Article 37 of the Regulations for Private Schools, or

Article 526 of the Criminal Code. When Ali Haidar Bey had finished,

Mustafa Hamid Bey, the regular lawyer of the mission, spoke for twenty-

three minutes in the personal defense of Miss Jillson, and concluded

with an appeal for the acquittal of all three women. Miss Jillson was

invited to speak to the court, but declined to do so. Miss Sanderson

spoke in Turkish for thirteen minutes, admitting having discussed

religion with the girls, and asserting that those conversations were

outside of school and without Miss Jillson's knowledge or consent.

Miss Day spoke in Turkish for nine minutes, confining herself for the

most part to a statement of her intense interest in Turkey and in

Turkish culture. ^ 2

1^2Edward Tyler Perry, Notes on the Fifth Session of the Bursa Trial (National Archives Record Group 5 9), 367.1161* BST/U3 , Bursa, April 25, 1928; see also "The Bursa Trial," Le Milliett trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7-116** BST/4.3 , Constan­ tinople, April 26, 1928; see also Edith Sanderson, Statement prepared for her defense (National Archives Record Group 5 9), 367.1164 BST/30 , Bursa, March, 1928; see also Lucille Day, Statement prepared for her defense (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7.1164 BST/30 , Bursa, February l6, 1928; see also Lucille Day, Statement made in her defense (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7.1164 BST/41, Bursa, April 25, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 158

Judge Ahmet Nizameddin found the three vomen guilty as charged

and based his verdict on ten conclusions established during the trial.

First, the three women admitted culpability in some of the accusations.

Second, witnesses for the prosecution corroborated each other's testi­

mony. Third, the evidence in the diaries tended to confirm the women’s

responsibility. Fourth, religious books and pamphlets were indeed

found among the belongings of some of the girls. Fifth, the girls

themselves testified that the school had changed their outlook on re­

ligion and their country. Sixth, the material evidence submitted by

the school at the time of the preliminary investigation indicated

non-compliance with the regulations in force. Seventh, standing

reverently in silence before meals did constitute a religious ceremony.

Eighth, not all books used in the school had been duly submitted for

approval by the educational department. Hinth, disrespect of the

nation and Islam had been encouraged. Tenth, in all these elements,

the school was in violation of Articles 35 and 37 of the Regulations

for Private Schools, of General Orders numbers 28 and 3^9 of those

same regulations, and thus also in violation of Article 526 of the

Criminal Code. Under Article 39 of the Regulations for Private

Schools, and various articles of enforcement, the women were sentenced

to three days of imprisonment, and a fine of three l i r a s ^ 3 each.

They were to serve their sentence at home. They were also assessed 1514- court costs. ^

153flOUghiy one and one-half dollars.

Judge Ahmet Nizameddin, Verdict in the Bursa School Trial trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6I4BST/I43 , Bursa, April 30, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 159

Counsel for the defense charged errors in the trial and in

the verdict, and appealed.^ 5 rp^g appeai was successful, in that the

verdict was vacated, and on August 30, 1928, a new trial was ordered. ^ 6

The Court of Appeals in Eski^ehir ordered a new trial because, in the

first place, the women had not been provided with an interpreter in

every session. In the second plsce, the defense had not been permitted

to challenge witnesses for the prosecution on the basis of their

personalities. In the third place, the verdict rendered had not

taken into account some arguments of the defense.The retrial was

scheduled for the Criminal Court of the First Instance at Bursa,

Judge Nizameddin to preside again on September 17, 1928.

At the second trial, Ali Haidsr Bey spoke for half sn hour,

but developed no new arguments. The judge and the lawyer debated

points of procedure, and the trial was recessed until September 26,

when the verdict would be read.^9

-^Aii Haidar Bey, Summary of arguments in appealing Bursa School Trial verdict (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6UBSTA3» Bursa, May 7, 1928.

^^Joseph C. Grew, Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6kBST/50, Constantinople, August 30, 1928. 157 Fred Field Goodsell, Memorandum for Joseph C. Grew on conversation with Ali Haidar Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116UBST/52, Constantinople, September 8, 1928.

Fred Field Goodsell, Memorandum concerning the retrial of the American teachers at Bursa (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6kBST/5^, Bursa, September 17, 1928; see also H.H. Kreider, Report on the retrial of the Bursa school teachers (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6kBST/55, Bursa, September 26, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. l6o

When the court convened again on September 26, the original

verdict was confirmed, and the arguments for the defense were discounted

as invalid. The counsel for the defense again appealed immediately. 1^0

The appeal was unsuccessful, and attempts to reopen the

school afterwards were without success. The teachers paid their fines

and served their sentences, whereupon they were all transferred to

other countries to continue their service under the American Board. 1^1

Ambassador Grew felt in retrospect that the government had

been forced to take the steps it did against the American school for

a number of quite understandable reasons. In the first place, Bursa

was a fanatically Muslim community, and set its opposition to the

government on religious grounds. Religion, however, was only one of

the reasons for the government's action in Bursa. The fact that re­

ligious influences undermined the unity of the Turkish people, and that

weakening of this one element of national unity on the part of indivi­

duals was interpreted as weakening the allegiance of those people to

the state was also to be considered. Nor was the notion to be ignored

that the foreign schools undermined the aims of cultural nationalism,

because they represented a dilution of the Turkish character. Turkish

youth were being drawn away from their own nation, their own culture

and their own society by these foreign schools. These schools, be-

Kreider, Brief Report of the Session of Court at Bursa (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*116^ BST/55, Bursa, September 26, 1928; see also Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952) Vol. II, p. 792. l6l Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (Na­ tional Archives Record Group 59), 3^7-1364/123, Constantinople, June 30> 1929; see also ABCFM, Annual Report 1932 (Boston: ABCFM, 1932), pp. 92- 93-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. i6i

cause they were relatively expensive, attracted primarily children of

well-to-do families. The external aspect of the schools contributed

to this general feeling. The effect of this was that foreign education

in Turkey appeared to promote class distinctions, in diametric contra­

diction of the Turkish ideal of homogeneity and unity.

Mr. Grew wrote in his journal on July 3> 1928, that experi­

ences of the sort encountered in Bursa, while they had not been

accompanied by so much publicity and a public trial, were nevertheless

not uncommon. He pointed out that American schools in Turkey had

been closed for exactly the same reasons in the latter nineteenth

century. He recalled that Oscar Straus, a previous ambassador to

Turkey, had had a number of occasions to see to the protection of

American schools. He remarked that even in the nineteenth century

empty promises had been made, and that interminable delays had

characterized the American experiences.^^

The issue remaining seemed to be whether or not the American

schools and colleges in Turkey would derive the maximum benefit from

their collective experiences. The annual Mission Conference held in

July, 1928, at the school in ffsktldar, devoted several sessions to

studying and analyzing the Bursa affair. They concluded that on the

whole the experience would prove to have been positive rather than

"^Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1952), Vol. II, pp. 780-783 . Ambassador Grew also pointed out that the disestablishment of Islam as the religion of the state on the eve of the fourth session of the trial was of some possible significance.

163Ibid., p. 784.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 162

Turkish suspicions did not die away rapidly, however. Near

the end of the academic year 1928-1929, Haraket attacked the mission­

aries and their schools anew. The publication dredged up again the

charges of favoritism of the educators towards those students who

were receptive to their ideals. It claimed that all speakers in the

schools happened to be clergymen, and that through character training

Christian principles were being taught.

Still two years later, Ambassador Grew lamented the spirit

in which the missionaries approached restrictions on their activities.

He agreed that the educators were observing quite faithfully the letter

of the law. As for the spirit of the law, however, he concluded that

the very nature of the missionary educator prevented him from under­

standing it, not to speak of observing it. He felt that the educators

would continue to give expression to their missionary impulses in l66 one way or another.

The colleges did not escape notice or criticism. Dean Lee

Vrooman, of International College, Izmir, was quite active in inter­

national mission conferences, a fact which attracted a certain amount

of attention.Chapel services and religious instruction continued

"Autopsy," Haraket trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II63 /6, Constantinople, May 18, 1929.

Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 3<>7.116^/155, Istanbul, June 29, 1931.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 163

at Robert College until the retirement of Caleb F. Gates as president

in 1932. Mr. Grew reminded Fred Field Goodsell in 1930 that Robert

College was almost defiantly religious. Prayer meetings, Bible classes

and religious services were an important part of its total program, in

spite of numerous attempts by the authorities to have Dr. Gates under­

stand their insistence upon the necessity of secularizing the

institution.

Both the American Board and its educators and other mission­

aries in Turkey found it most difficult to accept and adapt to the

idea of genuinely altruistic service as a valid form of missionary

presence in a non-Christian country. The 1932 Annual report of the

American Board defined the role of the missionary in Turkey as that of

demonstrating the enduring values of religion. It gauged the effective- 169 ness of its missionaries in the number of Turkish changed lives.

Ernest W. Riggs told Wallace Murray, of the State Department, that

missionary educators in Turkey were undergoing a profound soul-

searching to determine whether or not they should stay on in Turkey,

torn as they were between their overwhelming desire "to spread Christ’s

^^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-H 6U/13 U, Istanbul, July 28, 1930; see also Joseph C. Grew, Personal and confidential letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 367»ll6U/l35, Istanbul, July 29, 1930; see also H. Alexander Smith, Report to the Trustees of Robert College (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6kR5U/72, Princeton, New Jersey, February 15, 1932. 169 ABCFM, Annual Report 1932 (Boston: ABCFM, 1932), p. 1^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 164

teaching among the heathen," and the imperative necessity of obeying

Turkish lav with respect to their educational activities.

Ambassador Grew was telling Secretary of State Stimson at

the same time that the chapter of primarily religious activity of the

American Board in Turkey had been concluded, and that it was not likely

to be reopened. He said that distinctively missionary work, in the

traditional sense of the term, had come to a halt, and that in spite

of the optimism of certain missionaries, there was no likelihood that

Turkey would ever again allow proselytism within her borders.

In fact, the Vali of Izmir told Mr. W. Perry George in 1933

that religious zeal on the part of missionary educators had in the

past been the real source of most of their difficulties. He recognized

that all proselytism had been eliminated from the American schools,

but pointed out that there was an abiding residual resentment of some

of the older personnel of the American Board because of the experi- 172 ences of the past.

•*-7%allace Murray, Memorandum on conversation with Ernest W. Riggs (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/157, Washington, D.C., July 29, 1931- 171 Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/158, Istanbul, July 30, 1931. 172 W. Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson citing Vali of Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II64/187, Izmir, January 18, 1933*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 6

CULTURE AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS

THE DONKEY INCIDENTS

For several years, Dr. Edgar Jacob Fisher, professor of

history and sociology at Robert College in Constantinople, gave

lectures on various aspects of the history of Asia Minor aboard

tourist ships calling at the Port of Constantinople. The tourist

companies asked him to do this as a means of better acquainting the

tourists with the city and country they were about to visit. Professor

Fisher was an American citizen, and he considered it a privilege to

contribute materially to the appreciation and understanding of Turkey

by American tourists.

On March 7, 1924, Dr. Fisher by invitation lectured aboard

the tourist ship Reliance in the Port of Constantinople on the subject

of "Historic Monuments of Turkey." 2 Besides the tourists and the ship's

•^Edgar J. Fisher, Letter to Caleb F. Gates (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Vienna, Austria, August 23, 1924.

^R. Southgate, Memorandum of conversation with Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7»1164R54/58, Washington, D.C., August 26, 1924j see also Vassif Bey, cited in "The Donkey Case," Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 10, 1924. Turkish newspapers reported the lecture as entitled "Heroisms of Byzantium Civilization."

165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 166

company, a number of Turks and American residents of Constantinople

were present at the lecture.^ Among the American residents of the city

present was Dr. Black, acting head of Robert College in the absence of

Dr. Caleb F. Gates, who was in Switzerland at the time.^

In the presentation of the evening, Dr. Fisher showed a

collection of slides, for the most part depicting buildings and monu­

ments of the city, some from the Byzantine, and others from the Ottoman

period. A number of the buildings shown had been churches prior to the

Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453* They had since been trans­

formed into mosques, and, according to at least one account, were

adorned with minarets.^ Dr. Fisher apparently called these buildings

churches rather than mosques--the Church of Saint Sofia, the Church of

Kahrie, etc.^

During his slide show, Dr. Fisher showed one picturing three

men and a donkey before the ruins of a building. The men wore full,

flowing garments, two were coiffed in turbans, and the third wore an

astrakhan cap. The latter was seated upon the Donkey between his two

^Caleb F. Gates, Memorandum on Fisher Case prepared for Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l64R51+/5,r, Constantinople, September, 192k. k Ibid., see also R. Southgate, Memorandum of conversation with Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6UR5U/58, Washington, D.C., August 26, 1 9 2 k.

^Caleb F. Gates, Memorandum on Fisher case prepared for Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^*5 V5^, Constantinople, September, 192k; see also "The Fisher Case," Akcham trans. High:Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6UR5V 5O, Constantinople, September 5, 192^. 6 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 167

companions, who were standing.? By way of jest, Dr. Fisher cap­

tioned his slide by saying "three friends."®

Akcham reported six months later that graduates of the

International College at Smyrna had learned of the lecture and had

secured permits to attend from the Port Police. The article stated

that their presence at the lecture went unnoticed by Dr. Fisher.

Shocked by what they saw and heard, according to Akcham, they re­

ported the incident to the authorities who began an investigation.9

In reality, such students were not likely aboard, or if

they were, they badly misinterpreted what they saw. The description

of the slide carried by the paper differed somewhat from reality.

The paper reported that the slide was of "two donkeys and between

them their miserably clad owner with a fez, and (Dr. Fisher) charac­

terized it ironically as 'three friends.’"1^ Cumhuriyet said the

day before that the picture was of several boys playing with a

donkey. 11 Vatan said the three boys playing with their donkey were

?See Figure 6 for a photograph made from the offending slide.

®"The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^ 5^/50, Constantinople, September k, 192k.

^"The Fisher Case," Akcham trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6hR5k/50, Constantinople, September 5> 192*U

10Ibid.

llMThe Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59)> 3o7»H6UR5U/50, Constantinople, September U, 192^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 168

"gypsies," and added that one of them had "victoriously mounted the

donkey while the remaining two (were) close by."12 On September 8,

Vakit carried a statement by Vassif Bey, Minister of Public Instruction,

declaring that Dr. Fisher had shown a slide showing three donkeys and

three persons wearing fezzes and had remarked that these were six

friends,1^ and quoted the minister as saying that the facts had been

verified by investigators from the Ministry of the Interior. Those

statistics were taken up by Tevhid I Efkiar the following day, and

repeated in successive articles.1** On September 10, Vatan carried the

declaration of the minister, including the reference to three donkeys,

three persons and six friends, and in an editorial made mention of the

three playing gypsies and the singular donkey, and attributed to Dr.

Fisher the words, "four friends.

Cumhuriyet reported in early September that Dr. Fisher had

been obliged to punish a student at Robert College for unknown reasons.

The student had heard of the lecture and slide show, along with the

offending slide, and, wishing to avenge his punishment, reported the

12 "Still the Donkey Case," Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367»ll64R54/50, Constantinople, September 3, 192k.

^"The Expressions of an American at Robert College," Vakit trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 8, 1924. Ik "Again the Old Case,' Tevhid I Efkiar trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59) 3^7.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 9, 1924; see also "The Fisher Case," Tevhid I Efkiar trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59)/ 3^7»H^4R54/50, Constantinople, September 11, 1924.

^"The Donkey Case," Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367»ll64R54/50, Constantinople, September 10, 1924; see also editorial, same issue.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 169

alleged offense to the authorities who set in motion an investigation

of the matter.1® Vatan reported at ahout the same time that an uniden­

tified auditor falsified the details in reporting the lecture to the

authorities accusing Professor Fisher of having called the Turks

donkeys. ^

Agaoglu Ahmet Bey, the deputy from Kars to the Grand National

Assembly, added quite a bit of fuel to the fire in tying together what

he considered two elements of the lecture, both offensive in his mind.

The first was the alleged intention of Dr. Fisher to glorify the pre-

Ottoman period of the history of Constantinople. He accused the

American professor of believing and stating publicly that all traces of

Constantinopolitan civilization and culture came from the Greeks and

out of +he Byzantine period. The deputy said that Dr. Fisher's purpose

in showing the donkey slide at the end of his lecture was to illustrate

an unfavorable opinion of Turks in contrast to the glories of Byzantium.

Dr. Fisher, he said, "pointed out the moving picture (sic) of some Turks

with asses and said, 'There are the friends together.'"1®

Re^id Bey, Vali of Constantinople, indicated to Dr. Caleb F.

Gates a few days before the appearance of Agaoglu Ahmet Bey's article

in the newspaper that he had gotten the same impression of Fisher's

^"The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6hR54/50, Constantinople, September 4, 192k. 17 "Still the Donkey Case, Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 3?/f7Tl6hR5V50, Constantinople, September 3, 192^. 18 Agaoglu Ahmet Bey, "Is the Word rAss' an Insult or Not?" Hakimlet-I-Mllliye trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6hR5U/50, Ankara, August 28, 192h.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 170

presentation as that later shown in the Hakimlet-I-Mi11iye article of

the deputy from Kars. When Dr. Gates told him that the Fisher incident

was having a had effect on Turkish-American relations, the Vali replied

that the whole affair had made a bad impression in Turkey as well as

in the United States. He interpreted the slide as depicting two

donkeys and one Turk, and quoted Dr. Fisher as having labeled the

picture "three friends." That was in effect putting the animals and

the man on equal footing, according to the Vali, and that was an

insult. "It is an insult," he said, "to compare us to any animal, and ti 19 especially to a donkey. '

There is no doubt whatsoever that not all the facts were

clear in everyone's mind. It is perfectly clear, in the first place,

that Dr. Fisher did give an illustrated lecture aboard the steamship

Reliance on March 7, 192b. Everyone was agreed on that. Everyone was

equally agreed that slides of buildings and monuments in and around

Constantinople were shown. Everyone agreed, too, that at some point

in the presentation, Dr. Fisher showed the slide described above. The

number of men and of animals was rather loosely treated, probably be­

cause people were more concerned with sentiment, intention and reaction

than they were with statistical details. The discrepancies in numbers

nonetheless do demonstrate that there may have been deficiencies in the

investigation which led the Ministry of Public Instruction to demand

on July 31 that Dr. Fisher be dismissed as a teacher in Robert College.

Caleb F. Gates, Memorandum of conversation with Refid Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64R54/50, Constantinople, August 23, 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 171

No one appeared to question the fact that in showing the slide, Dr.

Fisher made some remark about friends. How the remark was brought to

the attention of the authorities— whether by an auditor, by several

eye-witnesses, or by a disgruntled student— is not absolutely clear,

but that detail is not essential to an adequate understanding of the

incident.

The essential ingredients are the illustrated lecture, the

investigation, the demand for Dr. Fisher's dismissal, public reaction,

and Dr. Fisher's reinstatement. The Minister of Public Instruction

said that he took cognizance of the charges against Professor Fisher

five weeks after the lecture, on April 15, 1921+, when the Ministry of

the Interior made a report to him. Two weeks later, he informed the

administration of Robert College through the usual channels that

Fisher's relationship with the college should be terminated because

of the charges. The college authorities replied that Professor Fisher

should be considered a friend of Turkey, and requested that he be per­

mitted to continue in his position. They also asked the Ministry of

the Interior to continue the investigation. Some time later, the

Ministry of the Interior reaffirmed its findings previously communicated

to the Minister of Public Instruction.^ On July 311 1921+, Robert

College received a second letter from the Ministry of Public Instruction

announcing that the further investigation had done nothing to change

the orders given in April, and that the college would have to comply

2 0 . .. Vassif Bey, cited in The Donkey Case, Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 3^7. Il61+R5h/50, Constantinople, September 10, 192k.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. forthwith with his orders to dismiss Dr. Fisher, or face immediate

closure. The college was given four days in which to notify the

ministry of its effective compliance with his orders. Since Dr. Gates

was in Europe, Dr. Black requested an extension of time, which was

refused. Robert College was notified on August 4 that it was con­

sidered closed. Dr. Black yielded, and notified the ministry that

the college would dismiss Professor Fisher. On the same day, the

college was notified that it would be allowed to continue its work.^

Professor Fisher was expelled, and went to Vienna to await further 22 developments.

Admiral Bristol telegraphed Dr. Gates in Switzerland, telling

him that he should return quickly to see to the affair. Dr. Gates

returned to Constantinople on August 17, and began calling upon

officials. He learned that the charge of calling mosques churches

had been dropped, since Dr. Fisher was referring in his lecture to

the time when the buildings had not yet become mosques. He still

had to defend the professor against the charge of insulting the

Turkish people.^ He obtained the controversial slide, secured a

21 Caleb F. Gates, Memorandum on Fisher case prepared for Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6I1R5J+/5U, Constantinople, September 23, 192U. 22 "Turkey Expels American Professor, The New York Times, August 7, 192U, p. 17, col. k. 23 Caleb F. Gates, Memorandum on Fisher case prepared for Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6UR5I+/5I+, Constantinople, September 23, 192^.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 173

declaration from Professor Fisher, wrote a personal letter of

explanation, and submitted them to Nusret Bey, the Minister Pleni­

potentiary of the Turkish Republic at Constantinople. Nusret Bey 24 forwarded them to Ankara on September 2, 1924.

In late August and early September, a public debate erupted

in the Turkish press on both sides of the issue. Seven major papers

participated in the debate--five attacking Professor Fisher, and two

25 generally favorable to him. ' The editors of both papers def-nding

Dr. Fisher had been to the United States, and Admiral Bristol found

them "well disposed towards American activities in Turkey."^ A

parallel debate on a much smaller scale took place in the United

States, with letters to the editor of the New York Times appearing on

both sides of the question.^

2^Robert M. Scotten, Note to Nusret Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II64R54/5O, Constantinople, September 2, 1924; see also Caleb F. Gates, Letter to Admiral Bristol (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, August 28, 1924; see also Caleb F. Gates, Memorandum of Fisher case prepared for Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7.1164R54/54, Constan­ tinople, September 23, 1924. 25 Those opposing Dr. Fisher were Akcham, Ikdam, Tevhid I Efkiar and Vakit, all of Constantinople, and Hakimiet I Milliye of Ankara. The two papers favoring Dr. Fisher, Cumhuriyet and Vatan, both of Constantinople, took their position more from a concern for Turkish prestige than from a desire to be of service to Dr. Fisher personally, although their editorship was considered Americanophile. 26 Admiral Mark. L. Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 12, 1924. 27 William Steams Davis, "American Rights in Turkey, New York Times, September 2, 1924, p. 18, col. 7; see also Hadije Selma Ekrem, "Expulsion of Dr. Fisher," New York Times, September 11, 1924, p. 22, col. 7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 174

The defense of Dr. Fisher, and the campaign to have him rein­

stated, centered upon three major themes, all rather closely interre­

lated, and even somewhat overlapping. The first of these was that,

although Dr. Fisher may have in fact uttered the expression under

attack, it was misinterpreted when seen with the slide, because in

using the word "friends" he was referring only to the men, and not

to the animal as well. The second theme was that Dr. Fisher had

been in service in Turkey since 1913> his goodwill towards Turks had

never before been questioned, he was widely considered a Turcophile,

and he would never have dreamed of insulting the Turkish people or

their government, and that he had had no intention of insulting them

during his Reliance lecture.^ The third theme was the disingenuous

one initiated apparently by Dr. Gates, averring that the persons

photographed with the donkey were gypsies^0 and that it therefore

didn't ^eally matter what Dr. Fisher said, nor what his intentions

might have been.31

^®"The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet trans. High Commission (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59), 367.1i64R54/50, Constantinople, September 4, 192k. 29 Edgar J. Fisher, Letter to Caleb F. Gates (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367»ll64R54/50, Vienna, August 23, 192k; see also "The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September k, 192k; see also "Vassif Bey's Explanation," Ikdam trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.h64r54/50, Constantinople, September 10, 1924. 30 Therefore not of any readily and quickly determined nation­ ality, and so not to be culturally or religiously identified with the Turks.

^Robert M. Scotten, Note to Nusret Bey (National Archives Re­ cord Group 59), 367.ll6ij.R54/50, Constantinople, September 2, 1924; see also Caleb F. Gates, Letter to Admiral Bristol (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, August 28, 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 175

Dr. Fisher's critics responded to those arguments that, in

the first place, considering the matter of interpretation, one must

keep in mind the usual way of interpreting expressions in they place

where they are uttered. In Turkey, as in most Muslim countries,

associating people with donkeys is insulting, and especially calling

them donkeys.^ To the argument that Dr. Fisher was a Turcophile of

eleven years1 residence in Turkey, and that he had no intention of in­

sulting the Turks, the critics replied that considering his long stay

in Turkey Dr. Fisher must have heen perfectly aware of Turkish cultural

sensitivities: he could not have used such an expression without some

intent to belittle his hosts, or at the very least without displaying

a gross lack of concern for their sensitivities.^3 To the contention

that the men photographed were gypsies, the critics retorted that

ethnicity made no difference. Nationality was the issue. The gypsies,

too, were of Turkish nationality.-’

^ Ageoglu Ahmet Bey, "Is the Word 'Ass' an Insult or Not?" Hakimiet I Milliye trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.I164R54/5O, Ankara, August 28, 1924; see also "Vassif Bey's Explanation," Ikdam trans. High Commission (National Archives Re­ cord Group 59), 367.H 64R54/5O, Constantinople, September 10, 1924. The deputy assumed that Fisher used the word donkey and that he referred to people, a fact not established. He also ignored the fact that Fisher's primary audience was American, not Turkish. Fisher certainly knew that the lecture was in Turkey with Turks present. 33 "Vassif Bey's Explanation, Ikdam trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59)> 3^7•11&4R54/50, Constantinople, September 10, 1924; see also Caleb Gates, Memorandum of conversation with Re^id Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64R54/50, Constantinople, August 23, 1924.

^*"The Fisher Case," Tevhid I Efkiar trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H^>4R54/50, Constantinople, September 11, 1924; see also "Again the Old Case," Tevhid I Efkiar trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 9, 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 176

In part because of the return to Turkey of Dr. Gates and his

subsequent campaign in Constantinople and Ankara, and in part because

of Admiral Bristol's representations to the Turkish government, the

order for Dr. Fisher's dismissal and expulsion was rescinded, and he

was permitted to return to Turkey and take his teaching post at Robert

College.35 The persuasive arguments of Turkish journalists were prob­

ably even more important than the combined efforts of Dr. Gates and

Admiral Bristol. They contended that Turkish hypersensitivity over

remarks that may or may not have been intended in the way in which the

Turks interpreted them, and the publicity that resulted from the expul­

sion of Dr. Fisher did much greater harm to Turkish pride and prestige

than did the remarks of Professor Fisher.^

The whole incident should have served as a warning to the

American Board, to its missionaries in Turkey, and to all personnel

of American schools and colleges in Turkey that there were certain

areas of cultural awareness that could prove to be extremely sensi­

tive. Touching upon them without a full awareness of everything

^Admiral Mark Bristol, Telegram to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/51, Constantinople, October 6, 1924; see also Amdiral Bristol, Telegram to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367«H64R54/52, Con­ stantinople, October 9, 1924; see also R. Southgate, Memorandum of con­ versation with Albert Staub (National Archives Record Group 59), 367. 1164R54/58, Washington, B.C., August 26, 1924. 36 "Still the Donkey Case, Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164R54/50, Constantinople, September 3, 1924; see also "The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64R54/50, Con­ stantinople, September 4, 1924; see also "The Donkey Case," Vatan trans. High Commission (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II64R54/5O, Constantinople, September 10, 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 177

involved, would certainly provoke unforeseen reactions. Of course, it

is important to realize that Turks misinterpreted Dr. Fisher’s lecture,

and that, without having talked with him or having seen the slide, they

had no means of readily ascertaining his intent. Still the whole issue

does not reside in that fact. Americans in Turkey would have to learn

that their words and actions would not always he interpreted as they

meant them to be. Their life was not in the Western context of the

United States, but situated in Turkish culture. A profound awareness

of that fact, and a thorough knowledge of the culture were imperative.

Americans would always have to be cognizant of the fact that they were,

in a manner of speaking, on display.

The argument advanced by the administration of Robert College,

and passed on by the Near East Colleges Association, that the action df

the Turkish authorities constituted an undue and unwelcome interference

in the internal affairs of the c o l l e g e ^ was an anachronistic conundrum.

The capitulations had already been abrogated, and this argument was re­

miniscent of them. Besides, even though Dr. Fisher may have been invited

to speak to tourists aboard steamships from time to time by virtue of

his professorial position at Robert College, it does not follow that

his doing so was an extension of that professorate. He was clearly

outside the exercise of his college post, and the action of the Turks,

while depriving the college of an esteemed scholar and teacher, had

■^R. Southgate, Memorandum of Conversation with Albert W. Staub (National Archives Record Group 59)f 367»ll6UR5^/58> Washington, D.C., August 26, 1921*.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 178

little else to do with college affairs. To be sure, pressure was

brought to bear upon the college in order to achieve the departure

of Dr. Fisher, but the college program was not otherwise embarrassed

at that time in connection with the Fisher donkey incident.

Slightly more than a half year after all the brouhaha over

Professor Fisher's remarks aboard the Reliance, there was an occurrence

which could be considered an interesting footnote to this chapter. It

is difficult to say whether or not there was any direct relationship

between the occurrence and the Fisher case, but the coincidence was

strongly fortuitous if not intentional. In April, 1925, the Missionary

Herald, the organ of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign

Missions, published a photograph of Lee Vrooman, dean of the Inter­

national College of Smyrna. The educator was standing beside a donkey.

The caption read, "Mr. Lee Vrooman...and his new-found friend."3®

Another curious development in the cultural aspect of American

educational work in Turkey took plsce near the end of the same academic

year, 1924-1925, after the Easter processional incident at Robert

College, outlined in the previous chapter. ^ A skit was presented at

Constantinople Woman's College in which some Turkish youth were

presented as arriving at the American schools, first having attended

Turkish public schools, in the form of donkeys. After a period of

^Photograph with caption, The Missionary Herald (April, 1925), p. 214.

^ See above, Chapter 5, P- 1^1 •

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 179

study at an American school, the donkeys were miraculously transformed

into bright and intelligent boys.**0 The Ministry of Public Instruction

recognized that it was not entirely clear whether or not the skit was

intended to signify that the donkeys were the product of Turkish

schools. Conflicting testimony was given in that respect by several

witnesses, and the minister himself had the feeling that American kl educators themselves had made the offensive statements.

He was willing to concede that the Americans had not intended

to offend the Turks, nor to violate their cultural sensitivities in the 42 preparation and presentation of such a sketch. He felt that it was

necessary, however, to put the educators on guard against such callous

disregard for Turkish cultural and national sensitivities. He called

the actions of the American schools abuses of Turkish hospitality, and

said that the errors in judgement could easily have been avoided. The

fact that they were permitted to occur in those conditions, he continued,

made one wonder if they had not been intentional affronts.

Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Frank -B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59)/ 867.9111/95/ Constan­ tinople, May 9, 1925; see also R.A. Wallace Treat, Entry in diary con­ cerning conversation with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 5 9 ), 3 6 7.116 4/8 5 , Ankara, May 21, 1925; see also Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59) 3 6 7.1164/88, Constantinople, June l6 , 1 9 2 5; see also G. Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)/ 387.1164/88, Constantinople, June 4, 1925* 4l G. Howland Shaw, Notes on interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)/ 367*1164/88, Constantinople, June 4, 1925.

43 Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59)» 367*1164/86, Constantinople, June 4, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 180

In a circular addressed to all American schools and colleges

in and around Constantinople in early June, the Minister of Public

Instruction, through his local representative, Nail Re^id, pointed out

that the skit performed during the previous month "had no intellectual

merit, cleverness or cultural value. He indicated that the presen­

tation of such a play devoid of redeeming qualities left the schools

vulnerable to the dangers of misinterpretation. He informed them that

the Turks present had been quite offended, and that since the matter

had been reported in the Turkish press, the Turkish public in general kS had likewise been offended. J

In the same circular, the Ministry informed the American

schools that Miss Smith, an instructor in physical education at Constan­

tinople Woman's College, was being dismissed as the author of the k6 offending skit. By early June, she had already left the country and k7 was on furlough in the United States.

Mr. Treat, in the course of an interview with the minister

in Ankara, remarked that he thought that the affair had been blown out

of all reasonable proportion by the distorted reporting of the Turkish

press. The minister agreed that subsequent investigations had tended

to disprove some of the details of the earliest reports he had received,

but he did not elucidate. He did tell Mr. Treat that the incident was

^Nail Re^id, Circular addressed to all American schools and colleges in the vicinity of Constantinople (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/86, Constantinople, June k, 1925-

k7 Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 6 7.1l6 k/8 6 , Constantinople, June k, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 181

indicative of a general condition existing among the American education­

al institutions in Turkey vhich would have to be corrected. Mr. Treat

answered that he felt that such incidents were not indicative of any

ill will borne by the educators towards Turkey or its authorities, but

simply of ignorance. He assured the minister that even in their errors

of judgement, the educators were acting in perfectly good faith. He

thought that with patience understanding and excellent cooperation

would come naturally.**®

Hamdullah Suphi Bey asked Mr. Treat the reasons for the

seeming obsession of Americans with donkeys, connecting in his own

mind the Fisher incident of the previous year and the donkey skit of

1925 at Constantinople Woman's College. Mr. Treat did not answer

dirctly, but said only that Americans had usually treated the donkey kg humorously. ^

When the minister was discussing the incident with Mr. Shaw

two weeks later, he asked somewhat the same question, and was told by

Mr. Shaw, who had apparently discussed the incident with the American

educators, that the skit was supposed to have been based upon a well-

known tale about Nasr-ed-Din Hoca.^0 The minister avowed that that

explanation was quite unacceptable, since he had no personal acquaintance

R.A. Wallace Treat, Entry in diary concerning conversation with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6I+/85, Ankara, May 21, 1925* 1+9 Ibid.

"^The hero of many Turkish folk tales, supposed to have lived about five centuries ago in Ak Sehir at the time of Timur I«nk (Tamer­ lane). The teacher-priest was sometimes clever, sometimes foolish. His hill-top grave is marked by a locked gate without a fence. No doubt much of what is attributed to him is legend, as it has parallels in folk tales of many other lands.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 182

with any tale of Nasr-ed-Din Hoca which even vaguely resembled the play

as it was presented at the college. Mr. Shaw said that donkeys did

figure prominently in many of the Hoca stories.

The whole matter seemed to have been settled as far as the

Turkish authorities were concerned, with the dismissal of Miss Smith,

who had been responsible, in the final analysis, for the production of

the skit. The matter was not entirely disposed of with that, however,

for Dr. Paul Monroe, successor of Caleb F. Gates as president of

Robert College and of Kathryn Newell Adams as president of Constantinople

Woman's College,^ wrote to friends in the United States in November,

1932 , that he had to censor all plays and skits produced at the college.

The donkey skit of 1925 was cited as the direct reason of the require­

ment.^

^ Although Mr. Shaw was correct in stating that donkeys were an integral part of many of the Nasr-ed-Din stories, personal research has failed to lead to any tale upon which the skit described might have been based. The one bearing the closest resemblance is one in which the Hoca wins a wager with Timur Lenk by teaching a donkey to turn the pages of a book as if reading them. This is accomplished by hiding grains of wheat between the pages. When the donkey arrives at a page where there is no Theat, he brays, as if reading aloud. There is not, however, a school involved, nor is there any question of transformation of the animal into a human being, much less a bright and intelligent one. Personal conversation with a graduate of Robert College of that time tends to substantiate the conclusion that no specific Nasr-ed-Din tale served as the basis of the skit. 52 Both Dr. Gates of Robert College and Dr. Adams of Constan­ tinople Woman's College terminated their services at the American col­ leges in 1932. For a while, the trustees had sought to find separate presidents for the two institutions. Finally, Dr. Paul Monroe was selected to serve as joint president of the two institutions, which remained separate with separate boards of trustees.

^Paul Monroe, Circular letter to friends in the United States (National Archives Record Group 39), 367»ll6 ^5^/86* Istanbul, November 23, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 183

Memories last for a long time in the Near East, and especially

unpleasant ones. Ambassador Grew reminded Fred Field Goodsell of that

fact in 1930, referring directly to the donkey incidents of 192^ and

1 9 2 5 . Dr. Fisher was finally barred from re-entering Turkey in 1933

in connection with another incident, for which he was ultimately not

responsible. Walter W. Hyde, of the University of Pennsylvania, wrote

an article critical of a new history textbook written for use in

Turkish schools. His severe criticism of the textbook was based upon

a translation of the main sections of it done by Dean Fisher. ^

Although Hyde's article was the direct reason cited by the Turks for

refusing Dr. Fisher the right to re-enter Turkey and to take up his

duties as Dean of Robert College, ^ it is by no means certain that the

donkey incident of 192U was not also in their thinking.

It is difficult to imagine how Constantinople Woman's College

could even conceive of allowing the presentation of a skit which would

associate Turkish children and donkeys, especially in identifying one

with the other, after the furor of the Fisher donkey incident of the

previous Fall. Perhaps they saw no connection between the two. If they

did not, that fact would point to the necessity of adequate orientation

of personnel working in the American educational institutions in Turkey,

irrespective of the manner in which the foreign personnel was recruited

"^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.H 6U/135 , Constantinople, July 2 9 , 1930.

"^Walter Woodburn Hyde, "How Ancient History is Taught in Turkish Schools," School and Society (New York: July 15, 1933), PP* 89- 92.

"^"American Educator is Barred by Turkey," New York Times, September 14, 1933, P» 1, c°l* 2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18U

or under what conditions they were paid as employees of the institutions.

Even though the two colleges of Constantinople and the International

College of Smyrna were independent of the American Board, there was

some degree of cooperation between the American Board and the colleges.

Some of the faculty were missionaries. The fortunes of the independent

colleges were affected by those of the American schools, and vice-versa.

In the Language School, founded in Constantinople in 1920, it would

seem that an adequate program could have been set up to remedy the

situation, and to provide cultural orientation for new personnel as

well as re-orientation for older personnel. There is no indication

that the colleges took advantage of the opportunity.

The lack of evolution of thought among the American collegiate

educators dealing with the Turkish Republic is further demonstrated by

the reaction of some of them to Dr. Fisher's 1933 expulsion. More

than ten years after the establishment of the Republic, and more than

a decade after the West had acquiesced in the abolition of the

capitulations, Philip Marshall Brown charged that the Turks were over­

stepping their authority, and unfairly intervening in the internal

administration of the American schools.57 He maintained that if the

school should yield on this "fundamental principle of immense signifi­

cance," it would constitute a serious blow to the future of the

colleges.'*® One would think that the capitulations were still in

effect.

National Archives Record Group 59) 3^7-116^/198, Princeton, December 15, 1933.

5®Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 185

THE MEAD CASE

Hunter Mead was a young American teacher of science and

arithmetic at International College at Izmir during the academic

year 1930-1931. He had just begun teaching in Turkey in the Fall

of 1930. In the four months from the beginning of the Fall term

until mid-January, 1931* Mr* Mead had been endeavoring to intro­

duce an honor system of sorts in his classes. This represented

an innovation. None of the other teachers had attempted such an

experiment. He gave his arithmetic classes daily quizzes on their

work. His science classes had twice-monthly tests. Despite his

idealistic efforts to make the honor system work as he thought it

should, he was plagued with the problem of copying during the tests

and quizzes. He later said that during all this time he had

tried to make the students understand why the problem was serious,

and to show them the relationship between honesty or cheating on

examinations in school and their preparedness for life beyond the

period of academic study. Mead himself evaluated his experiment as

totally without success. The students usually excused themselves by

saying that "everyone did it," and that students did the same thing

in other classes, but that the other teachers were not u p s e t , 59

Mead could not accept their arguments, nor could he understand why

the failure of his experiment to that point should lead to its

discontinuation.

-^Hunter Mead, Apologia on schoolboy morality (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.Il6k/lb7, Cairo, February 2, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 186

On Thursday, January 15, 1931, Mr. Mead was giving an exami­

nation in science. The students had been given prior notice of it, and

were thus supposed to have prepared for it. As the students were

taking their examination, Mr. Mead saw a paper being passed across the

aisle. He took the paper away, found that it contained the answer to

a question, and took the test papers of both students involved. He

destroyed the test papers, and gave both students zero on the test,

making sure that the class understood the reasons for his actions.^

At the conclusion of the examination, several of the other

students approached Mr. Mead and said that he had been too severe with

the two students. They urged him to reconsider the punishment he had

meted out. He refused to do so, but agreed to talk privately with the

. . 6i two boys.

One of the two students involved was the best student of the

class, and it was he who had been helping another. Mead made an appoint­

ment to talk with the boy. He explained at some length in the course

of the interview with the boy the reasons for his actions, in the hope

that the boy would understand and accept the punishment as just and

not unduly severe. Mead was under the impression that he had been

successful in his purpose with the boy, and felt that the boy then only

was fearful that Mead might reject him personally because of the

cheating incident. Mead assured the student that he need have no fear

in that respect. The student then explained to the teacher that he,

as the best student of the class, was constantly expected to help the

others in their work, whether in examinations or in other work. Mead

6°Ibid. 6lIbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 187

offered to speak to the class to help all to understand that such

requests were unfair to the better students, because they could not

and should not accede to the requests for help in the course of an

examination.^2

The class met immediately after the interview, and Mead began

the period by asking the students their opinion on what he should have

done the previous day when confronted by copying during an examination.

The fact that he asked their opinion without first having delivered

himself of the lecture anticipated may have had some significance in

the direction the discussion took. The way in which he said that he

asked the question probably suggested to them that he was willing to

admit that he may have been too severe the day before. He was not

prepared for the discussion that followed, in the course of which the

students found nothing wrong with copying in examinations, but did

feel that it was wrong to punish cheating students, even when they were

caught in the act. Some of the students were willing to admit light

penalties for those caught, but nothing comparable to the punishment

Mead had already given to two of their comrades. The most severe of

them would agree only to the lowering of the grades of offenders by

a few percentage points.^

He was also surprised to learn that most students felt that

stronger students not only should be permitted to help the others, but

also that it was their duty to do so. They said that they saw nothing

unfair about making such demands upon the stronger students. In fact,

they found fault with the student the previous day who had been so

62 Ibid. 63 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 188

careless as to permit himself to be caught in the act of helping his

classmate.^

It was not until that point that Mead began his own arguments.

He had hoped that he might convince them by appealing to their sense of

national pride. He did not seem to have realized how such an appeal

might possibly backfire on him, as it did in fact. He cited the

example of the United States Military Academy at West Point as being

the kind of ideal towards which Turkish students might strive with

respect to honor systems. He reminded the students that students caught

cheating could be summarily expelled. Therefore those who successfully

completed their studies in such an institution could be justly proud

of their accomplishment. He did not convince them of the correctness

of his point of view by this method. ^

His next tack was to compare copying during examinations with

pilfering of merchandise. Stealing answers, he argued, is not really

different from stealing goods. Both acts were dishonest, he said. The

students again did not accept the comparison as valid.^

Finally, Mead attempted to show the students that there was

a relationship between their condoning cheating on examinations and

the collective integrity of the nation. He compared copying with the

practice of political petty bribery. He attempted to persuade them

that the quality of their academic work would determine the future

quality of government in Turkey, since students would naturally find

places of leadership in the future. The students felt that he was

stretching the point. He replied that he felt he was not, and said

6b 65 66 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 189

that during the four months he had been in Turkey, he had been forced

to observe that the Turks were fundamentally less honest than citizens

of Western nations. He argued that Turkey could not expect to attain

the place among the nations of the world to which she aspired unless

she convinced the West of her basic honesty and integrity. He con­

cluded by saying that unless Turkish students in general displayed a

greater sense of integrity than did those of his classes, the hope of

Turkey for the future would prove to be rather bleak. He admonished

the students to keep that in mind, and returned the examination papers.

He dismissed that class, and considered the matter over and done with.^

The next day, an inflammatory article appeared in Htirriyet,

a daily paper of Izmir.Mead^ was accused of having lost his

temper upon discovering that several students had been "copying from

books." The article made no mention of the fact that the copying had

been done during an examination, nor that it had not been from books,

but rather among the students themselves. The newspaper said that

Mead had then liberally insulted the students, and had asserted that

Turks in general were hilekalar.^0

At this, according to the paper, the students protested that

"Insult to Turks— an Insolent Teacher at the American College Says That the Turks are Crooks," Htirriyet trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 39), 3^7•1164/1^3> Izmir, January 17, 1931• 69 The article actually attacks Dr. Reed, president of the college, as the offending teacher, apparently confusing Reed (Rit in Turkish) with Mead (Mit in Turkish). 70 Crooks, or cheaters.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 190

the teacher was being unfair. It said that the students reminded Mead

that students all over the world copied from books, and that there was

nothing wrong with that as a means of learning. One student, who had

previously been enrolled at Robert College, in Istanbul, was said to

have pointed out to Mr. Mead that such copying took place in the

sister institution, where the majority of students were, according to

the student, Greeks and foreigners.^ To that, Mead allegedly responded

that "the Greeks and the Hellenes (sic) are crooks” and that the Turks 72 must be considered the same.'

The newspaper made a personal attack upon Mr. Mead, calling

him insolent and impertinent. It further characterized him as a

vagrant, but did not explain why, and accused him of cursing. Finally,

it called for his departure, either voluntary or by expulsion.^

By the following Friday, Mr. Mead had been dismissed from his

position at the college by the administration. He was awaiting pro­

secution under article 159 of the Turkish Criminal Code for having

insulted the Turkish nation.^

The Consulate of the United States in Izmir, learning of the

incident, advised Mr. Mead to leave the country quietly. The advice

was not followed quickly, however, and by the time Mead decided to

7 1 1 Insult to Turks— an Insolent Teacher at the American College Says That the Turks are Crooks," Htirriyet trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59), 36T*H64/l43, Izmir, January 17, 1931* 72 j - i Ibid. '^Ibid. 7k 1 Herbert S. Bursley, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367»ll6k/lkk, Izmir, January 29, 1931? see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll6k/l38, Istanbul, January 23, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 191

leave as he had been advised to do, his departure visa had been denied

by the Turkish authorities.^

The Embassy of the United States telegraphed to its consular

offices in Izmir that it had learned that the Turkish Government in

Ankara would not be inclined to oppose vigorously Mr. Mead's early

departure. Herbert S. Bursley, the American Consul in Izmir, obtained

an audience with Kiazim Pa§a, Vali of Izmir, and after discussing the

incident with him for an hour or so, was able to persuade the provincial

governor to grant Mead a departure visa.^

Mead was therefore permitted to leave Turkey before being

tried under the statutes covering insults to the Turkish nation. On

January 26, 1931.» he left Turkey aboard the Khedivial Mail Steamer

Rashid, bound for Egypt.^

Mr. Bursley offered the opinion that Turkish authorities were

no doubt overzealous in their prosecution of alleged violations of the

statutes regarding insults to the Turkish nation and its officials. He

also felt, however, that the reason for this lay in the newly acquired

cultural pride of the Turks. Whereas only a few years previously, many

Turks would deny their origins, by 1931 °ne could notice a clear develop­

ment of pride of national and cultural origins. Mr. Bursley felt that

foreigners with an insufficient awareness of the cultural history of

^Departure visas were the responsibility of the Vilayets, or provincial governments. Mead's departure visa would therefore have been denied by the Vali of Izmir, or his offices. 76 , Herbert S. Bursley, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*ll6U/l44, Izmir, January 29, 1931*

^Ibid., see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/1^3, Istanbul, February 5> 1931.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 192

the Turkish people, and particularly of recent developments in that

respect, might not fully appreciate their significance. He stated

that it was important that any foreigners who intended to work in

Turkey be aware of this cultural development, and be especially

respectful of it.^® When one recognizes that the international outlook

was prevalent in all the American colleges, but especially in the

International College in Izmir, one can appreciate the fact that it

might have been difficult for newcomers to grasp or to accept the

significance of a new cultural and nationalistic pride as being too

narrow for their global consciousness.^

During his investigation of the Mead case, Mr. Bursley

discovered that the Turks characterized cheating by any means in an

examination as 'copying, 1 and that there was no moral issue involved

for them in copying. He further determined that examinations were

generally considered unfair, and that one could fairly use any means

of passing an examination, provided simply that one was not caught

at it. In all that, Mr. Bursley felt that Turkish students were

^Herbert S. Bursley, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)* .llShflkk-, Izmir, January 29, 1931*

^Caleb F. Gates, Report of the President 1923-192^ (Constan­ tinople: Robert College, 192k), p. 16; see also Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/135 , Constantinople, July 29, 1930; see also H. Alexander Smith, Report to the trustees of Robert College (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6^R5h/72, Princeton, February 15, 1932; see also Charles H. Sherrill, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^ 5^/85, Istanbul, December 19, 1932; see also G. How­ land Shaw, Letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull (National Archives Record Group 59)* 387*1183/22, Ankara, AprilI7, 1933* see also Cass Arthur Reed, Report to the trustees of International College at Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59)* 387*118^/213* Izmir, January, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not greatly to be distinguished from those of other countries, including

those of the United States. He said that many Americans were at the

time expressing themselves in exactly the same terms with respect to

the question of examinations.®0

On the other hand, the Consul felt that Mr. Mead’s aims were

quite commendable, and that had he succeeded, it would have promoted

considerably Mustapha Kemal Papa's ideal of incorporating the best of

Western culture into Turkey's culture. Although his tack was correct,

his tact was faulty, and therein lay his undoing, according to Mr.

Bursley. Thus it became necessary for him to leave Turkey hastily and

ignominiously, not only to avoid trial and imprisonment for himself,

but also to avoid serious repercussions for International College and

for the other American schools and colleges in Turkey.®1

A year later, another Consul of the United States spoke

with the same Vali on another matter. The Vali reminded Mr. George

of the Mead case, and expressed the opinion that such incidents grew

out of the youth and inexperience of some of the instructors. He added

that thoughtlessness, too, caused international misunderstandings, but

did not link thoughtlessness only with youth.®2

Although the Vali was probably correct in his evaluation, as

far as it went, youth and inexperience do not necessarily entail lack

®°Herbert S. Bursley, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)/ 3^7.ll6U/lVf, Izmir, February 2k, 1931* 81 Ibid.

®®W. Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson, (National Archives Record Group 59)/ ^6^.Il6k/l6'f, Izmir, January 18, 1933*

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19^

of preparation for service in a foreign country. One can be youthful,

quite without experience in the field of teaching, either in one’s own

country or in another country, and still have adequate preparation for

that service. That is an organizational matter, involving the respon­

sibility of the recruiting agency to give a proper and thorough orien­

tation to the personnel it intends to place in a service post overseas.

On the other hand, the giving of that orientation does not necessarily

mean that it will be effective, if the candidate for a post is not

inclined, for personal reasons, to accept the validity of that pre-ser­

vice training. That is a personal matter. However, the organization

is in a position to determine whether or not the attitude of the

candidate is likely to have an adverse effect on its situation in a

given field of service.

The kinds of cultural assumptions made by Mr. Mead would

tend to indicate that orientation for service in Turkey was inadequate

among the young teachers and instructors in the American colleges and

schools, especially when those teachers came out more directly respon­

sible to the institution in which they were to teach than to an agency

apt to give them at least a basic orientation to the country, its

history, its culture and its language. Mission personnel was required

to attend the language school in Turkey, but non-mission personnel

could not be required to do so. One would think that, since the

schools and colleges were the direct result of missionary presence in

Turkey, the administrations of those institutions would see the value

of adequate orientation, as well as the inherent danger of insufficient

orientation, including an introduction to the new culture.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 195

Mead's basic errors in the incident would appear to have been

the following, although the list should not be considered exhaustive.

In the first place, he made a basic assumption that Turkish students

could be considered to have more or less the same cultural attitudes

towards academic integrity, honesty and classroom cheating that he

saw in the ideal in some American institutions. His assumption was

doubly fallacious, first, in that he universalized the American ideal,

and second, in that he transferred it without question to another

culture. If he had been warned of the differences, there is no in­

dication that he heeded the warnings. In the second place, Mead made

a cultural assumption on how class discussion might be interpreted. He

seemed to feel that through discussion, the class would apply reason,

and thus come to his point of view. It appeared, however, that the

class interpreted his willingness to discuss the matter as a sign

of weakness on his part, and a willingness to give in to them. He was

not prepared to see the students take the offensive in the discussion.

In the third place, when he challenged their cultural and national

pride, he assumed that that challenge would not produce a defensive

reaction, but rather a positive determination to advance the nation.

He was not prepared to see that his challenge might be interpreted as

a direct national criticism. Finally, he assumed that the matter

concerned only his class, that his advice would have a sure effect,

and that the issue would go no farther.

Mr. Mead was apparently unwilling at any point to appear

authoritarian or arbitrary. The fact is that in his act of seizing

and destroying the examination papers he was both authoritarian and

arbitrary. In bringing the matter up for class discussion afterwards,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 196

he geve the appearance of being weak and vacillating. It is entirely

possible that he could have saved the situation at any point up to

the one at which he himself thought he was saving it by challenging

their national pride. At that point, it would seem that the actual

outcome became inevitable.

THE BARBER POLE INCIDENT

On Tuesday, December 20, 1932, the students of the American

Collegiate Institute, situated at Giiztepe at Izmir, were preparing the

school auditorium for a celebration in honor of Nsmik Kemal.^ They

decorated the columns at the entrance to the hall with red and white Ah paper, wound about the columns in alternate spirals.

The following morning, Mr. Ernest C. Partridge, a teacher at

the school looked out from the teachers' office and saw the decorated

face of the auditorium. He asked Miss Hinman, another teacher at the

school, "who was responsible for the construction of the barber

shop."®5 a short time later, Mr. Partridge repeated his jest, asking

some of the students this time who might have built the barber shop.

When the girls reacted with perplexity to his attempted humor, he ex­

plained that in America red and white spiral poles were the identi­

fying mark of barber shops. ^

^ A Turkish poet-patriot of the nineteenth century, honored annually at the school as a great literary figure. Bk Red and white were the colors of the Turkish flag.

^"Investigations Regarding the American College at Gtiztepe Have Been Completed," Anadolu trans. American Consulate (National Archives Record Group 59), 367* Izmir, January 26, 1933 . 86 Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 197

W. Perry George, the American Consul at Izmir, reported that

four of the girls took offense at Mr. Partridge's little joke, and be­

gan organizing a boycott of his classes. They also demanded that he be

investigated, and that, pending the outcome of the investigation, he be

excluded from their festivities in honor of Namik Kemal. The four

girls forced other students who were inclined not to go along with the

strike to seek refuge in the office.®^

Miss Olive Green, the principal of the school, was also a

teacher. She attempted unsuccessfully to reason with her own students

over the matter. Her efforts met only with "sullen demands" that the

entire student body be assembled to discuss the affair. Miss Green

granted their request, but discovered that the students were more in­

clined to stage a boisterous demonstration than a substantive discus­

sion of the issues. Mr. George said that it was quite impossible for

anyone to be clearly understood in the shouting match that ensued. He

reported that one Turkish member of the teaching staff was able to

shout above the uproar at the four girls that they were "behaving in an

improper, ill-advised manner and that their insubordination was

bolshevism.

It seemed that the girls wished to achieve Mr. Partridge's

dismissal from his functions at the school, and, eventually, his ex­

pulsion from the country. Mr. George saw significant parallels between

Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/187, Izmir, January 18, 1933*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 198

the disturbance over Mr. Partridge's joke and the Mead case of tvo

years earlier. There was the apparent threat of a formal charge and

trial against Mr. Partridge for insulting the Turkish nation under

Article 159 of the Turkish Criminal Code.®9 One could also look back

nearly nine years earlier to the first Fisher case, involving a jest

misunderstood or misinterpreted.

When the incident was reported in the newspapers of Izmir a

few dayslater, events seemed to be leading towards a formal charge and

a trial. Anadolu reported not that Mr. Partridge referred to columns

decorated in alternating red and white spirals before the auditorium,

but that he had reacted to the red and white Turkish flags decorating

the classrooms. The newspaper wanted to know why classrooms festooned

with Turkish flags should remind American teachers of barber shops, and

demanded a thorough investigation of the matter, charging that the

incident was by no means an isolated one. It called for the teachers

91 in foreign schools in Turkey to be taught a lesson. -

Anadolu also reportedthat the four girls, all members of the

senior class, reported Mr. Partridge's remarks to Miss Green, who sought

to determine whether or not the girls were reporting them accurately. It

said that Miss Green learned that the girls were telling the truth, but

she was unwilling to dismiss Mr. Partridge, as the students had demanded,

90 "An incident at the American College at G8ztepe," Anadolu trans. American Consulate (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6U/187, Izmir, December 29, 1932 .

91Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 199

because Mrs. Partridge vas also a teacher at the college. If he were

dismissed, his wife would also have to be dismissed, and a staffing 92 problem would follow.-'

According to Mr. George, Miss Green herself requested the

Ministry of Education to open an investigation of the affair at the

school. This was begun on December 26, 1932, when Besim Bey, an

inspector, questioned the four senior girls. He asked Miss Green and

Mr. Partridge to deposit written declarations in Izmir, which they

did. 93

Anadolu indicated that the investigation was begun on the

initiative of Asim Bey, the chief public prosecutor. After having

caught wind of the incident, he undertook a "meticulous and sensitive"

investigation to determine whether or not Mr. Partridge had intended

to insult the Turkish nation. Anadolu said also that Ali Riza Bey,

the first assistant to the public prosecutor, participated in the ,,gk thorough investigation. '

An incident within the incident occurred when the girls were

dismissed for disciplinary reasons. According to Mr. George, Naili

Bey, the local school inspector suggested bo Miss Green that the

girls be questioned by an ad hoc discipline committee at the school,

92Ibid.; see also Charles H. Sherrill, Letter to Secretary os State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/189, Istanbul, February 20, 1933- 93 W. Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367.II64/187, Izmir, January 18, 1933. 94 "Investigations Regarding the American College at Gfiztepe Have Been Completed," Anadolu trans. American Consulate (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64/l87, Izmir, January 26, 1933*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 200

and that their answers he forwarded to Ankara as a part of the dossier

being constituted. The girls refused to answer the questions, and

were sent home until Miss Green could talk with their parents. When

the girls asked if they were being suspended, Miss Green replied that

they were not, but that they should not attend classes until she had

talked the matter over their parents. The parents came, and the

girls returned to classes.95

Again, the newspapers reported a somewhat different version

of the secondary incident. The Izmir press alleged that the questions

which the girls had refused to answer were relative to a "cultural

group" about which the school had some concern. When the girls would

not answer questions about the group, which had in fact been formed,

Anadolu alleged that the teachers lost their temper and expelled the

students "with great vehemence." The newspaper further charged that

the girls were not permitted to return to the school for some time.

The newspaper demanded to know why students should be expelled for

forming a cultural group.^

In the school's version of the question, after the girls

returned to classes, a second discipline committee was formed to decide

upon any eventual punishment to be meted out to the girls. Three Turks

95w. Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 3^7.1l6U/l87, Izmir, January 18, 1933-

■^"An Incident at the American College at Gflztepe," Anadolu trans. American Consulate (National Archives Record Group 59 )> Izmir, December 29, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 201

and three Americans made up the ad hoc committee. Of the four degrees

of punishment which could be given,the97 committee elected to apply 98 the two least severe.-7

The administration of the school was surprised by a second

request, this time on the part of the police, to question some of the

students. The police official summoned nineteen girls to testify before

the public prosecutor on Thursday and Friday, January 12 and 13, 1933*

Although neither the school administration nor the American Consul knew

certainly what was told the police investigator, nor what his recommen­

dations to the examining magistrate were, they suspected that the girls

had sworn that Mr. Partridge made his jest in a room adorned with a

Turkish flag, and that he was speaking about the flag rather than the

columns of the auditorium. They also suspected that a petition had

been addressed to Ismet Pa^a supporting a full governmental inquiry,

although many of the girls who were supposed to have been involved

claimed to know nothing about any such petition. 99 '

In those circumstances, the American Consul at Izmir called

upon the Vali. He felt that it would be wise not to take official

cognizance of the incident in his long conversation with the provincial

governor on Tuesday, January 17, 1933- He did, however, feel that it

^The four degrees of punishment were, in increasing order of severity, advice, censure, suspension and expulsion.

^W. Perry George, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/187, Izmir, January 18, 1933.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 202

was appropriate to seize the opportunity "to remind (the Vali) of the

interest of the Consulate." 100 The Vali replied that most of the

difficulties of the American schools in Turkey could be traced to

inexperience and thoughtlessness, and to a general religious atmosphere

in the schools, which he felt should have long since been secularized.

As if to remind Mr. George of the Mead case, the Vali pointed out the

difficulty of obtaining good results in international cooperation with

inexperienced or ill-prepared personnel in the context of a growing

spirit of Turkish nationalism. He underlined the high degree of

sensitivity of the Turkish people and their government in the face of

any sign of lack of respect or understanding of Turkish culture, its

symbols or its ideals, whether cultural or religious. 1^1

The fears of the United States Consul and of the school

administration were unfounded. The investigation proved that Mr.

Partridge had no intention of insulting the flag, the colors of the

flag, or the Turkish nation. Since his remarks were intended only as

an innocent joke, no malice was understood by the police, and no offense

was taken officially by the Turkish state. Therefore, Mr. Partridge

was not prosecuted. Anadolu issued a final warning that teachers must

be very careful in making jokes likely to be misunderstood in a highly 102 sensitive foreign culture.

100W. Perry George, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367-ll6^/l87, Izmir, January 18, 1933*

1°^"Investigations Regarding the American College at Gflztepe Have Been Completed," Anadolu trans. American Consulate (National Archives Record Group 59 J> '3^7-H61*-/l8T» Izmir, January 26 , 1933•

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 203

The epithets of youthful and inexperienced could not accurately

be attributed to Mr. Partridge, since he was not far from the age of

retirement, and since he had already served in Turkey since 1 9 0 0 .^ 3

In that respect, the criticism of American school personnel offered by

the Vali should be considered more general than specific. There is a

possibility that religious issues may have been at the origin of the

incident, since Mr. Partridge was indeed an ordained clergyman. If that

were the case, however, it would seem that the issue might have surfaced

as well at other points than simply the quiet discussion between the

Vali of Izmir and the United States Consul. To ascribe thoughtlessness

to Mr. Partridge would not appear to have been exaggerated in the cir­

cumstances. Since the columns were indeed decorated in alternate red

and white spirals, it is not at all surprising that they should remind

an American of barber poles. It is not surprising, either, that he

should wish to give voice to his thoughts. Expressing them to Miss

Hinman could do no harm. The difficulties began when Mr. Partridge

pursued his jest in the presence of students and for their benefit.

The evidence at hand does not permit one to suppose that such

striped poles identified barber shops in Izmir. The fact that the

teacher had to explain the meaning of his remarks to students would

indicate that they did not. Striped poles were to be found before 10li barber shops in Istanbul, however.

■^^ABCFM, Annual Report 1932 (Boston: ABCFM, 1932), p. 93*

■^"Investigations Regarding the American College at GSztepe Have Been Completed," Anadolu trans. American Consulate (National Archives Record Group 59773^7.ll6Vl87, Izmir, January 26, 1933.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20k

Anadolu1s admonition that foreign teachers should be very-

careful in their public remarks, particularly in attempts at humor,

was a point well made. Humor is a highly cultural phenomenon, and

jests risked being misunderstood by persons of another culture. This

does not mean that the foreigner should avoid humor because of possible

misinterpretation, but it does mean that he should be constantly aware

that his humor might be misinterpreted because the humor of differing

cultures does not overlap exactly. The innocent jest in one culture

is occasionally understood as cultural criticism in another. The

foreigner must make a determined effort to learn the culture in which

he must function. Even if his work throws him primarily among his

compatriots, his social and cultural context is still that of another

country. The orientation of foreigners to serve for more or less

protracted periods in another culture should also include at least

a survey of the humor of that culture. In addition to providing some

insight into the culture, it offers a vehicle for facilitating the

learning of the language.

No doubt the American Board and its personnel could have

profited more from the donkey incidents which backfired twice less

than a decade before. Had there been a concerted effort at analysis

of the difficulty after the fact rather than a primarily defensive

reaction, the results would certainly have been more beneficial in that

case. People working in a foreign culture will almost inevitably run

into one kind of trouble or another. Whenever that happens, it should

become an occasion for learning from the experience, adjusting, and

making corrections. Difficulties thus become advantages.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 205

Mr. Partridge had already been in Turkey for more than three

decades at the time of the incident. Although one might think that

such a long service would offer nothing but advantages, the very

opposite can occasionally result. Mr. Partridge may have been too

familiar with Turkey end its people. In such a case, he might not

have considered himself as foreign and different from the Turks as

they considered him. Turkey had changed greatly in that time, and

Partridge had been an eyewitness to the change, if not a participant.

However, his closeness to it may have prevented his full appreciation

of its significance. This does not mean that missions and other

international agencies should refrain from allowing their personnel'

to remain in a given culture over a long period of time. It does

mean that periodic reorientation within a. culture could be beneficial

to long-term personnel. It would certainly minimize the likelihood

of personal stagnation.

Turkish nationalism had, for a decade or more, given every

opportunity for the foreign community to recognize how sensitive the

Turks were on questions of their nationhood, their peoplehood, and the

symbols attached thereto. Mr. Partridge was no doubt aware of how

Turkish nationalism touched his work organizationally. He may not

have applied that awareness sufficiently in his personal conduct. He

knew the significance of Namik Kemal Day at the American Collegiate

Institute. He knew that the decorations being put up by the girls

were in the national colors. He knew that the Turks were allergic to

anything resembling criticism of the nation and the culture. Both

Mead and Fisher were ample signs of that. He did not appear, however,

to have drawn the three phenomena together in a personal application to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 206

his own conduct. Had he done so, he might have refrained from making

such a jest as he did, playing upon the mundane and humorous with

reference to the national symbols, especially at a time when the girls

were consciously preparing to celebrate a nationalistic and cultural

hero.

Ambassador Sherrill suggested to Dr. Luther R. Fowle on

February 20, 1933* that Mr. Partridge had been indiscreet in his

remarks, and that, in spite of what the press had made of it, the

cause of his trouble need be traced no farther than that. The American

had been defended by his compatriots, and the ambassador felt that that

was perfectly right: "no matter what an American does abroad, he should

be defended by his compatriots."10^ Mr. Sherrill did feel, however,

that the defense of Mr. Partridge which had rested upon an attack of

the students involved was entirely inappropriate. He further suggested

to Dr. Fowle that it might be appropriate, now that the matter had been

settled in Mr. Partridge's favor, to move him to another country. This

suggestion was based upon the the feeling that, rightly or wrongly,

Mr. Partridge had been perceived as making fun of the country which

was his host. Therefore the ambassador concluded that Mr. Partridge's

effectiveness was impaired in Turkey by sentiments that might linger

beyond the decision that he had intended no offense.10^

105charles H. Sherrill, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7.II6U/I89, Istanbul, February 20, 1933- lo6ibn.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 207

Mr. Fowle pointed out to the ambassador that, while this might

have been done in another situation, it had not in this case, because

Mrs. Partridge was a valuable asset to the teaching staff of the

American Collegiate Institute. Thus, Mr. and Mrs. Partridge were not

moved to another field of service. They remained in Turkey until the

end of the school year, when they returned to the United States for

retirement.

107ABCFW, Annual Report 1933 (Boston: ABCFM, 1933), p. 19*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 7

BUREAUCRACY AND THE AMERICAN SCHOOLS

ETATISM

Etatism1 was not a phenomenon unique to Turkey. It was a

growing political force in many areas of the world at the time covered

by this study. It was not widely accepted at the time in the Anglo-

Saxon West. It did, however, accurately depict certain tendencies of

the Turkish state under Mustapha Kemal. Dr. Cass Arthur Reed saw the

centralization of Turkish life and thought, as well as the key economic p sectors, as one of the most important aspects of new Turkish politics.

He pointed out that Turkey had taken control of the most important

railways, was building new railroads, and already controlled shipping.

Banks, too, came under governmental control. Thus, the government held

the reins of commerce and of international trade. Reed foresaw the

extension in the future of state monopolies.3

He predicted that the whole enterprise of education in Turkey

would also come increasingly under this same etatist umbrella. All the

^■Increasing state control and ownership, particularly in the economic realm, without completely and formally excluding the private sector. 2 Cass Arthur Reed, Report to the trustees of International College (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-116^/213, Izmir, January, 193^-

3 Ibid.

208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 209

religious schools in Turkey had been closed. and their funding had been

appropriated for public education. The state vas becoming increasingly

active in the social and recreational life of the Turkish people. He

fully expected foreign schools to suffer the same fate as the Turkish

religious schools, leaving the educational enterprise at all levels

in the hands of the state as a state monopoly.^

He said that there was not at the time of his report a clearly

defined governmental policy pointing in that direction. He added, how­

ever, that a good number of individuals had told him privately that the

presence of foreign-controlled educational institutions in Turkey did

violence to the principle of etatism which was gaining in strength. He

understood them to say, therefore, that foreign education would have

no more than an abbreviated future in the country.^

Dr. Reed said that he could perfectly understand how Turks

felt on the subject. He felt somewhat the same way about parochial

education in the United States. He did not feel that it was right to

identify too closely opposition to foreign educational institutions

with good Turkish patriotism.^

What Dr. Reed had observed in Turkish policy was a tendency

that had been some time developing, not simply towards the end of the

first decade of the Republican era. One can cite a specific example of

the movement as it related to American schools eleven years earlier in

Kayseri.^ Carl C. Compton, a representative of Near East Relief, an

^Ibid. ^Ibid. 6Ibid.

^Formerly Cesarea, in central Turkey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 210

American post-war emergency service agency, reported that Muhamer Bey,

the Mutasarrif,® told him in the course of a conversation that he

intended to establish a Turkish kindergarten in the city. He had already

asked the Americans residing in the city permission to use the school

buildings of the American Board there, which were not in use at the

time. He said that the resident Americans replied that they could

not grant that permission without an authorization from the American

Board. They added that they thought that permission might be difficult

to obtain unless the Mutasarrif allowed the program to function under

American direction. They told him that the American Board could offer

the services of Miss Richmond, a kindergarten teachei) for this purpose.

He rejected the compromise as unacceptable, and pursued through other

channels his quest to gain access to the buildings. He offered to pay

rent, to guarantee the proper care of the buildings, and to return them

to the American Board at any time they might become necessary for the

program of the Board.^

An echo of this unbending attitude was to be found in a con­

versation between Admiral Bristol and Prime Minister Ismet Pa^a nineteen

months later. They spoke of the American schools in general, but speci­

fically of the schools at Tarsus, Maras and Mersin, which had been

closed arbitrarily some time previously over minor infractions

^Provincial governor, administering a sancak.

^Carl C. Compton, Letter to the Near East Relief authorities (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/22 , Constantinople, January 11, 1923*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 211

of technical aspects of Turkish lav. The Prime Minister told Admiral

Bristol that the Minister of Public Instruction was not inclined to act

fovorably towards the reopening of foreign schools, because their aims

were "contrary to the interests of the country.

Hamdullah Suphi Bey told G. Howland Shaw in 1925 that foreign

schools could not be treated differently from the Turkish schools. To

do so, especially with respect to religiously oriented schools, would

be politically unwise, considering the treatment which Turkish religious

schools had received. The minister led Mr. Shaw to understand that

politics in the new Turkey dictated hostility and inflexibility

towards the foreign schools.1'1'

Admiral Bristol concluded that no foreign schools might long

continue unaffected by the program of centralization of key areas of

Turkish life. He said that the Ministry of Public Instruction could

not accept the existence of educational institutions in the country

which remained independent of state control. The government was

insisting on the standardization of education. In etatism, private

schools and other institutions seemed to have no logical place. Their

curriculum would have to be strictly regulated, and through it the

tone of the insitution as well.12

10Admiral Mark Bristol, Memorandum of conversation with Ismet (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/8°, Constantinople, August l6, 192k.

"^G. Howland Shaw, Notes on conversation with Hamdullah Suphi Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367«ll6U/88, Constantinople, June h, 1925. 12 Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/87, Constantinople, June 18, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 212

Wot only would curriculum fall under strict Turkish control,

but the personnel of the American schools as well, to a certain degree.

When Mr. Paul Nilson was preparing the necessary papers for approval of

the school at Tarsus, he was required to submit the pertinent data

concerning his teaching staff as well as the proposed curriculum of

the school. The government was requiring total compliance with its

regulations, without which the school would not be recognized, and with­

out official recognition, the school could not function.^

By 192k, no teacher could teach, even in a foreign school,

without having been approved by the government. Teachers of certain

subjects had to be of Turkish nationality. Those teachers were assigned

to the school by the Ministry of Public Instruction, and the school had

to accept them.1**

In 1926, the state began to give serious study also to the

qualifications of foreigners to teach in the American schools in Turkey.

For a short time that year, Miss Towner, principal of the school for

girls at Adana, was not allowed to function in that capacity after her

qualifications had been reviewed. There was a misunderstanding over the

level of her diplomas, which was satisfactorily resolved in due time.'*''’

Miss Towner, herself, characterized the year as a "trying time," and

•^Ernest W. Riggs, Letter to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59)> .llSk/22f Boston, February 23, 1923.

^ABCFM, Annual Report 192k (Boston: ABCFM, 192*0, p. 6 8.

■^ABCFM, Annual Report 1926 (Boston: ABCFM, 1926), p. 7 9.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 213

pointed out the difficulties of obtaining and maintaining adequate

staffing for the school.1^

In 1932, Dr. Cass Arthur Reed vas disturbed because of a new

requirement that the second administrative officer of the American

college be of Turkish nationality. He felt that compliance with the

regulation would irreparably damage the nature and atmosphere of the

institution. The college decided not to comply with the requirement,

and intended to inform the authorities in Ankara of the decision.

When Dr. Reed asked Ambassador Sherrill's opinion on the course of

action, the ambassador pointed out that it was no doubt precisely the

atmosphere of the institution which the government had intended to 17 change by the application of the regulation concerning personnel.

In both Fisher cases, in 192k and 1933, criticism was directed

more towards the man than towards the institution. At both times, the

leadership of Robert College felt that its position was seriously

undermined by the action of the Turkish authorities, which it saw as

reaching into the internal administration of the college. A part of

the objection was that the credentials of the faculty would be under

continual review, and tenure would be constantly jeopardized by that

fact. 18

Not only did the American schools in Turkey learn that their

l6Ibid., p. 82.

"^Charles H. Sherrill, Letter to Secretary of State Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 387.1l6k/l82, Istanbul, August 26, 1932.

^Philip M. Brown,, Memorandum prepared for Wallace Murray (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6k/l98, Princeton, December 15, 1933*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21k

curriculum and personnel would fall under the control of the state, but

also the places in which schools would be allowed to function. At the

request of the American Board, Ambassador Grew discussed the reopening

of several schools with the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs. The

ambassador had supported the Board's application to reopen the schools

at Gaziantep, Kayseri and Sivas, all in Anatolia. All these schools

had been recognized by the government of Turkey prior to the outbreak

of World War I. They were thus in essential compliance with the terms

of Ismet Papa's identic letter to the allied delegates in 1923*^ The

same was true of the schools at Maraff and Talas, for which both adminis­

tration and teaching staff were ready and waiting. Tevfik Ru^tft Bey

promised to discuss the matter with the Minister of Public Instruction,

but warned Mr. Grew that satisfaction was by no means sure. He felt

that permission might be granted for some places, but certainly not

all, because it was "contrary to the policy of the Government of

Turkey to permit foreign schools in certain...places."2® Ambassador

Grew felt that it would be useless to try to press for the reopening

of all the schools in question on the basis of Ismet's letter of

August U, 1923, because even if satisfaction were obtained on that

basis, such a victory might be proved to have a very short useful life.

Turkish agreement to allow the reopening of any American schools would

^ S e e appendixes D and E.

20Joseph C. Grew, Telegram to Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59)t 367*116^/101, Constantinople, November 5, 1927*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 215

have to be based more upon the good will and welcome of the Turks than

upon rights conferred. He warned that even if such rights were con­

ceded, "unwillingly and with bad grace," the schools thus reopened

would in all likelihood be immediately so encumbered with bureaucratic

restrictions as to make their lot impossible.^

RED TAPE

As things were, the American schools and colleges in Turkey

encountered a certain amount of difficulty even in the institutions that

were not closed. One person had told the World Missionary Conference in

1910 that in Turkey the policy of the Board was "absolute obedience to

the laws of the land." The same person lamented on the other hand that

such a policy was not without its frustrating effects, because "procras­

tination, corruption and ill-will delay(ed) for many years the most op trifling advances.

Constantinople Woman's College wished to construct a medical

building as an addition to the college facilities. The college adminis­

tration endeavored for some time, without notable success, to obtain all

the necessary permits from the offices of the provincial government.

Frederic R. Dolbeare reported that their efforts had been "met by

systematic procrastination." The college then decided to begin building

21 Ibid.

22World Missionary Conference, Report of Commission VII: Missions and Governments (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1910), P. U7.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 216

without the permit. The college had apparently followed that procedure

when the main buildings were erected on the European side of the

Bosporus before the World War. The irregularity was set aright later.23

On several occasions during the Summer and Fall, the Turkish

authorities made attempts to inspect the construction work at the

college, but without success. The college supposed that the authorities

intended to hinder progress on the construction. There had been some

difficulty encountered with regard to freely importing material for oh the construction.

Adnan Bey was Informed of the matter by the authorities of

the city of Constantinople. He in turn protested to Mr. Dolbeare that

the American "religious and scholastic institutions" had for some time

chosen to ignore the laws and regulations in force concerning building

construction, repairs and improvements. He pointed out that anyone

wishing to erect, repair or enlarge any sort of building was required

by law to obtain all necessary permits before beginning the project.

He requested the acting high commissioner to see to it that Americans

residing in Turkey observe scrupulously all laws governing building

25 permits. '

The incident was settled satisfactorily, and the building was

completed. The approach of the college authorities to the matter did

2^Frederic R. Dolbeare, Letter to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7*ll6L/23, Constantinople, January 30, 1923.

~^Ibid.

25Adnan Bey, Letter to Frederic R. Dolbeare (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6L/23 , Constantinople, January 29, 1923*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 217

not appear to have been designed to inspire the greatest confidence of

the Turkish authorities. It certainly was not proof of the validity of

the claim that the policy of the American educational institutions in

Turkey was absolute adherence to the law.

In 1929, Dr. Luther R. Fowle sought permits to replace two

buildings of the American Collegiate Institute in Izmir, which had been

destroyed by fire. The Board wished to build two or three smaller

buildings in place of the two large ones that were lost in the Smyrna

fire. In the hope that the matter might be expedited, Dr. Fowle,

Jeannie Jillson and Hamid Bey called upon the chairman of the Educational

Council of the Ministry of Public Instruction in Ankara. Dr. Fowle

explained in some detail why the replacement envisaged was necessary.

When he finished, Emin Bey, the chairman, told him that the dossier had

indeed come up to the Ministry, but that some administrative documents

were not in proper form, so the entire dossier was returned to Izmir to

be completed in the correct form. Fowle noted simply that he hoped

the visit would have some effect in expediting the approval of the

application for building permits when the dossier came back to

Ankara.

Also in 1929> Robert College was trying to obtain a. permit

to build a new library. As in the case of the replacement buildings

for the American Collegiate Institute at Izmir, funds were already in

hand. Hussein Bey, the representative of the college, was sent to

2^Luther R. Fowle, Notes on interview with Emin Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367»ll61|-/l23, Ankara, June 30 > 1929*

2 TIbid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 218

confer with the prime minister about obtaining the permit, because the

project seemed to be moving too slowly. Not only was the college in

need of the library, but it was also preparing for the construction of

an engineering building, and the materials encumbered the site. Ismet

said that the timing of the project of building a new library was

especially poor.2®

During the World War, the Turks had seized the Russian Embassy

library. The Turks kept the books until shortly before Robert College's

request for a building permit, and returned them only on the condition

that they be removed from Turkish territory. The Russians, however,

wished to establish a free library in Constantinople. The Turks feared

that such a Russian library would not only become a repository for the

books that should be leaving the country, but also a base of spreading

"Bolshevik propaganda." For that reason, Turkey did not grant a building

29 permit to the Russians for the library. ^

The French and Italian communities, too, contemplated new

building programs for their schools. The Turks were not inclined to

give them permission to do so. The government could see no way to grant

a building permit to Robert College for the new library while refusing

permits to the Russians, the French and the Italians. If permission

were granted to one sector of the foreign community, it would have to

be accorded to all. Robert College was quite willing, in order to

obtain a building permit, to call the building anything other than a

library, if that should help.30 In fact, the library would occupy only

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/123 , Constantinople, June 30, 1929.

29Ibid. 3°Ibid.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 219

about one-fourth of the space in the proposed nev building- The rest

would be for administrative offices, faculty rooms, classrooms, and

music study facilities. 31

Paul Monroe wrote to friends in 1932 that the issue of permits

was a bothersome one. He pointed out that Robert College and Woman's

College were required to obtain permits for everything imaginable, from

painting a wall to having an outside speaker address the colleges. His

particular complain was that the restrictions applied only to foreign

institutions, and that the permits could not be obtained locally. They

32 had to be granted in Ankara.

Some eighteen months after the school in Bursa had been

closed because of allegations of proselytism, the American Board hoped

to be able to reopen the school, under whatever formula might prove

acceptable to the Ministry of Public Instruction. Emin Bey told a

committee of the Board in his offices that the the whole question of

reopening the Bursa school would have to be answered at the highest

echelons of the Turkish Government. He let them understand that such

an approval was entirely within the realm of possibility. He pointed

out, however, that the Bursa school buildings were totally inadequate

for the school to function again as a lyceum. He told them that there

were no laboratories, and that other equipment was lacking as well. Miss

Jillson, who was present with Dr. Fowle, reminded Emin Bey that the

31 Ibid.

32Paul Monroe, Circular letter to friends in the United States (National Archives Record Group 59), 367-1164R5V86, Istanbul, November 23, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 220

Bursa school had funds available for the erection of whatever kind of

building was necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of

Public Instruction, and that the funds had been available for more than

fifteen years, and were adequate not only for the building, but for

all equipment that might be needed. All that was lacking, apart from

permission to reopen the school, was a permit to build.33

In the Spring of 1925, when the American Academy for Girls

in (Jskildar was closed temporarily, the issue of official permits was

cited as part of the reason for closing the school. The school was

accused of having transferred its activities from Adapazari^ to ffskttdar

without first having obtained a permit to do so. The Minister of Public

Instruction also said that the school could not be allowed to function,

because the formalities of granting the official permit to operate as a

school had not yet been completed.35 Dr. Fowle went to Ankara

on May 8, 1925 to deal personally with the problem at the Ministry. He

pointed out to officials there that, regarding the permits in question,

Vassif Bey, the former Minister of Public Instruction, had authorized

the continuation of the activities of the school, pending formalization

of the process of transfer. He also reminded the Ministry that the

complete dossier needed for the issuance of the permit to operate was in

the hands of the Ministry, and had been there for some time, but had not

^Luther R. Fowle, Notes on interview with Emin Bey (National Archives Record Group 59)> 36T.H 6U/123 , Constantinople, June 30> 1929*

Formerly Adabazaar.

^Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*ll64K62/l, Constantinople, May 7, 1925.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 221

yet been acted u p o n . 36 These explanations were apparently acceptable

to the Ministry, because when the reopening of Miss Kinney's school

was authorized a month later, the question of permits did not figure ■37 among the list of conditions to be met by the school.

Buck-passing in Turkish bureaucracy was a sometime source

of annoyance to American schools and colleges. In 1923> when the

school at Mara^ was closed, local officials said that it had been

closed by the government at Ankara. Adnan Bey, contacted in Ankara

by Admiral Bristol, expressed surprise at the news of the school

closing, and said that some local officials around the country had

not yet been fully informed "concerning the latest regulations and

treaty stipulations."3^ Local officials later pointed out that the

laws had come from Ankara, and that they were merely being applied

locally. As the case developed, the school was being closed in

1923 in part because primary classes had been taught there the pre­

vious year, whereas the school charter specified secondary education.

Another factor in the school closing was local interpretation of

foreign school statutes. A foreign school could only be opened in

a locality if it were justified by a sufficient number of children

in the community of the same nationality as the school itself.

The local authorities chose to ignore the fact that the school was

Mark L. Bristol, Letter to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6hK62/3, Constantinople, June k, 1925.

^Mark L. Bristol, Telegram to Charles E. Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/^8, Constantinople, October 11, 1923*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. not opening, but functioning, as it had been for years. They n e­

glected to apply the provisions of Ismet's letters at L a u s a n n e ^ which

guaranteed recognition to schools which had been recognized before the

beginning of World War I. Such details, however, could be obscured

in the shuffling of responsibility between Ankara and Mara^.

Buck-passing was not always in the vertical sense. In 1928,

when the American Board, with the help of Ambassador Grew, was attempting

to secure the opening of another school in exchange for the one closed

at Bursa, it encountered a bit of cabinet-level buck-passing. On Feb­

ruary 25, the Foreign Minister of Turkey notified Ambassador Grew that

the Ministry of Public Instruction had authorized the American Board to

reopen its school for boys at Sivas, provided it be reopened in the Fall

of the same year.**® The ambassador telephoned Fred Field Goodsell to

give him the news, only to learn that the school buildings at Sivas had

been leased to the Ministry of Hygiene of Turkey for a period of five

years, until 1930•**'*' Goodsell urged the ambassador to pursue the

matter further with the Turkish authorities, but Mr. Grew suspected

duplicity on the part of the Turks, and advised Goodsell to go himself j# p to Ankara to straighten the matter out. He thought that Goodsell

■^See appendixes D and E.

Joseph C. Grew, Memorandum prepared for Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 6 7 .Il6 h/ll6 , Constantinople, August 27, 1928.

^Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), Vol. II, pp. 767, 769; see also Joseph C. Grew, Memorandum pre­ pared for Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6k/ll6 , Constantinople, August 27, 1928.

**2Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), Vol. II, pp. 768-771.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 223

would have to learn for himself how discouraging such efforts were. He

did not think that Goodsell would even get an appointment with the

Minister of Public Instruction. He did not feel justified in depicting

the future of American schools in Turkey in any but the most somber 1+3 tones.

When in April Mr. Grew brought the matter as it stood to the

attention of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Tevfik Ru^tti Bey seemed

astonished, and assured the ambassador that he would take care of the

problem right away. He promised either to have the Ministry of Hygiene

surrender the school to the American Board, or to have the Ministry of

Public Instruction permit the reopening of an American school in another kb locality, such as Talas.

In June, however, Mr. Grew received a note from the Ministry

of Foreign Affairs stating that the Ministry of Public Instruction was

interested in purchasing the property of the American school at Mer-

zifon.^ in the same month, Noureddin Bey, of the Ministry of Public

Instruction, had told Hamid Bey and Paul Nilson, representing the

American Board, that the Ministry of Public Instruction had been k 6 considering the purchase of the Talas school. In the course of the

same visit, others in the Ministry of Public Instruction told the

^3 Ibid., p. 771* ilk Joseph C. Grew, Memorandum prepared for Frank B. Kellogg (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7.Il6k/ll6, Constantinople, August 27, 1928.

Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Note to Ambassador Grew (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*ll6,+/ll3> Ankara, June 7> 1928.

^ Fr e d Field Goodsell, Memorandum for Ambassador Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/113 , Constantinople, June 9, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22k

representatives of the mission that the prospects for reopening the

school at Talas were quite bright. ^

In August, the American Board and the Ministry of Public

Instruction arrived at an agreement on steps necessary for reopening

the school at Talas with a curriculum centered upon technical and

vocational education.^® The school reopened in the Fall of 1928.^9

Dr. Cass Arthur Reed summed up the frustrations of American

educators in Turkey in the face of bureaucratic red tape in his

report to the Trustees of International College in 193^:

The outward attitude of the government is always most friendly and correct. That is, representatives of the school are always most cordially received by local and higher officials of the department, assured of what good fellows we are, and promised that our points of view will be most carefully considered, etc. But if any serious matter comes up locally, it always has to be referred to Ankara. If one goes to Ankara, he is told that a commission or something else has to sit on it. Almost never can one, even from the minister, get a definite, clear cut decision...There is ground for the taunt of one of our frank-spoken graduates who said: 'You go to Ankara. The officials treat you well, but they do NOT do the things you ask. That is their polite way of saying WE DO NOT WANT YOU.' Much as we would like to have a categorical answer to our questions 'Are we wanted?' and 'Are we needed?' we have thus far had to look for that answer other than on the dotted l i n e . 50

Dr. Paul Monroe, joint president of Robert College and

Woman's College in Istanbul, encountered another, perhaps more subtle

form of buck-passing. He complained in late 1932 of the frequent

^Ibid.

^®Fred Field Goodsell, Letter to Joseph C. Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 3 6 7 -ll6 b/ll6 , Talas, August 16, 1928.

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), p. 86.

^Cass Arthur Reed, Report of the President to the trustees of International College of Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/213 , Izmir, January, 193k.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 225

changes of government officials. No sooner had he made the acquaintance

of one, and begun to build up a personal relationship with him than the

official was removed, and he had to start again from the beginning with

a new one. It seemed to him that each new official was less sympathetic

than his predecessor.^1

Despite Dr. Monroe's sense of frustration, personnel changes

in the Turkish hierarchy were not always detrimental to the interests

of the American institutions. St. Paul's College in Tarsus^ offered

an example of how a change of Turkish officials could benefit an

American school. For several months, the Director of Education in Mer-

sin blocked the reopening of the College in Tarsus. The recalcitrant

functionary was removed in the Fall of 1925, and replaced by one much

more friendly to the American schools. Thus, the College was finally

allowed to reopen.^

OBSTRUCTIONISM

As intimated in Dr. Reed's statement to the trustees of

International College, American educators sometimes felt that they were

being confronted not simply with the heavy and slow machinery of a

bureaucratic system, but rather with deliberate and calculating ob-

-^Paul Monroe, Circular letter to friends in the United States (National Archives Record Group 59), 36T.H 6^R5^/86, November 23, 1932. 52 Later renamed "The American College at the request of Turkish officials.

•^Luther R. Fowle, Letter to Ernest W. Riggs (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.116^/95, Constantinople, October 6, 1925; see also Ernest W. Riggs, Letter to Allen W. Dulles (National Archives Record Group 59), 367»H6UT17/3, Boston, November 2, 1925•

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 226

structionism. Admiral Bristol, Ambassador Grew, and Ambassador Sherrill

also perceived how deliberately obstructionist policies hampered the

effectiveness of the American educational institutions. Admiral Bristol

wrote in 1923 that even moderate leaders adopted positions of intransi-

geance towards foreigners as a means of expressing Turkish patriotism,

even when reason told them that their stance was unjust.^ Ambassador

Grew wrote in 1928 that he suspected "Machiavellian tactics" on the

part of the Minister of Public Instruction. When asked for a concilia­

tory sign in favor of the American schools for the benefit of American

public opinion, the Minister gave empty ones, meaningless because they

had previously been decided, or incapable of fulfillment because of

previous binding commitments. He was convinced that Necati Bey had no

intention whatsoever of reopening any American schools.^ Mr. Grew

wrote again in 1930 that the American schools were very precariously

situated, because they were liable at any time to be so encumbered with

unbearable administrative regulations that they could not continue. ^6

Ambassador Sherrill wrote in 1932 that "the handwriting (was) on the

wall,” and that bureaucratic obstructionism could be used as a tool to

force the American schools and colleges to conform to the Turkish

educational program in every detail, or, in the case of resistance, to

^Admiral Mark Bristol, Letter to Secretary of State Hughes (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367.H64R54/34, Constantinople, March 9, 1923 .

■^Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1952), Vol. II,- pp. 770-771.

"^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 367.1164/130, Constan­ tinople, April 17, 1930.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 227

compel them to leave Turkey. ^ G. Howland Shaw wrote in mid-193^ that

he foresaw an acceleration of the isolation of the American schools and

colleges through restrictions on their activities and through adminis­

trative regulations. He expected the schools to be so remote from the

life of the country that they would simply be eliminated in the process

of gradual erosion. For all that, he did not expect the Turkish

officials to close the schools by a direct act, nor even to tell the

Americans directly that they were not wanted in Turkey. ^ Ambassador

Robert P. Skinner expressed himself in very much the same way in 193*+

Dr. Fred Field Goodsell, by then executive vice-president of the

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, disagreed. He

felt that the whole administrative process then in motion was merely

defining the areas of cooperation, and that genuine and fruitful

collaboration would come about.

William Sage Woolworth, Jr. would not have agreed with Good­

sell in 1923 . He saw the actions of the Director of Education in the

school closing at Mara^ as arbitrary and therefore deliberately ob­

structionist. The Director of Education told him that the continuation

of a school already founded was the same as opening a new one as far

as he was concerned, and that under the regulations against the estab-

^^Charles H. Sherrill, Letter to Henry L. Stimson (National Archives Record Group 59)> 3>&1 .il6U/l82, Istanbul, August 26, 1932.

^G. Howland Shaw, Letter to Secretary of State Cordell Hull (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6U/216 Istanbul, August 27, 1931*.

^Wallace Murray, Letter to Fred Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/208 , Washington, D.C., August 18, 193*+.

^°Fred Goodsell, Letter to Wallace Murray (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/219, Boston, October 2, 193*+.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 228

lishment of a foreign school where there were insufficient numbers of

pupils of the same nationality as the school to justify it the school

had no legal right to function. When he protested to the Vali, he

received the same explanation.^1 Woolworth wrote to Ernest W. Riggs

that in the circumstances laws seemed to be a collection of words sub­

ject to the individual interpretation of any Turkish functionary. He

further complained that laws were not applied equally to all, but were

made and applied with special reference to the foreigner, and to his

detriment.^*2

Dr. Luther R. Fowle, during an interview with Emin Bey, of the

Ministry of Public Instruction, in 1929, pointed out that the Merzifon

school was continually running into all sorts of minor difficulties

through the system of school inspection by the educational authorities.

He said that the American school at Merzifon was the only foreign school

of the district, and that the inspectors had no experience with anything

but Turkish village schools, which were operated by the government.

Misunderstandings arose quite naturally, especially when personal sug­

gestions were made by the inspectors with the implication that they

were official orders, or that they were based upon a point of law.^3

Fred Field Goodsell noted the previous year that, as a general

rule, the school inspections were much too severe. He felt that the

^^illiam 3. Woolworth, Jr., Letter to Ernest W. Riggs (Nation­ al Archives Record Group 59), 367.1164/52, Aleppo, Syria, September 28, 1923.

^2 Ibid.; the school was allowed to reopen after representations by Admiral Bristol.

^Luther R. Fowle, Notes on interview with Emin Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*1164/123, Constantinople, June 30, 1929*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 229

inspections were carried out more with an eye to what might he achieved

politically than to the advancement of education. He charged that the

inspectors seized upon the occasion to undermine the discipline of the

schools, to arouse discontent and suspicion among the pupils, and even

to encourage the pupils to make unsubstantiated accusations against the

teachers and the school administrators.^

Mr. Paul E. Nilson told the second secretary of the Embassy

of the United States at Constantinople on March 17, 1928, that an

inspection of the American school in Merzifon the previous month had

been both "rigorous and disagreeable." The inspection, which lasted for

ten days, stirred up some anti-American sentiment in the city. Mr. Nil­

son reported that no irregularities were uncovered by the inspection. ^

The ill-feeling seemed to have been short-lived, and the school reported

for the year that the inspector later admitted that the inspection was

a mistake, although he pointed out that it had been useful, because it

eliminated all his suspicions involving the school and the teachers.^

The matter of keeping the American schools open for classes

on Sunday was an issue also involving the school for girls at Merzifon.

It was the source of some consternation within the mission. On Wednes­

day, February 1, 1928, Nuri Bey, the educational inspector at Merzifon,

^Fr e d Field Goodsell, Memorandum for conference with Ambassa­ dor Grew (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7•ll6hBST/25, Constan­ tinople, February 18, 1928.

^William H. Taylor, Memorandum of conversation with Paul Nilson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.II6UBST/30 , Constan­ tinople, March 17, 1928; see also C.R. Willard, Letter to Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6^BST/l8, Merzifon, February 1928.

^ABCFM, Annual Report 1928 (Boston: ABCFM, 1928), pp. 82-83.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 230

told the school authorities there that the law required half-day

holidays on Monday and Thursday afternoons, and regular classes all day

on Sundays* When they protested that they had received no instructions

to that effect, and did not know if they should do so without them, he

insisted that they comply with his instructions immediately, and then

formulate whatever protest they desired. They obeyed, and wrote to

Fred Field Goodsell on February k, 1928, asking him what should be done

in the meantime. ^

On the next Sunday, classes were held as ordered. Miss

Willard explained to Goodsell that in order to offer the required number

of hours of instruction each week the Sunday classes were imperative,

since the inspector would allow no classes on Monday or Thursday

afternoons. She made it perfectly clear, both to Goodsell and to the

inspector, that they were conforming to the instructions only under

protest. At the same time, they were submitting their request through

the normal channels that Sundays, too, be allowed as days off from

teaching responsibilities. They emphasized the fact that they were

complying only temporarily, pending approval of their request by the 68 educational authorities.

Fred Field Goodsell considered the matter of being compelled

to hold classes all day on Sunday to be one of major importance. He

^Charlotte R. Willard, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll6^BST/l8, Merzifon, February k, 1928.

^Charlotte R. Willard, Letter to Fred Field Goodsell (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll64BST/l8, Merzifon, February 6, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 231

feared that if the situation were permitted to stand in Merzifon, there

would inevitably he repetitions of the regulation with respect to the

other schools. If that should happen, he was convinced that the

American Board would decide to withdraw from Turkey entirely. He told

Ambassador Grew that he did not intend to act right away on the matter,

primarily because of his preoccupation with the Bursa school trial. He

meant to take it up with the competent authorities at the first opportune . 69 moment.

Ambassador Grew thought that Goodsell was quite distressed

over the way things were going for the mission at the moment. Goodsell

said that the schools simply could not continue without the good will

of the Turkish Government. He saw very little tangible evidence of 70 good will in the direction that governmental policies were taking.

Paul E. Nilson said that the inspector justified his instruc­

tions regarding Sunday classes in the Merzifon school by saying that

the school must in no vise be distinguished from the Turkish public

schools except in. the matter of budget support. He stated that the

rule applied also to the choice of days off from classes. Nilson

pointed out that the Merzifon school would be the only foreign school

in the country affected by the order, and that they would appeal the

order. By March 17, 1928, however, the school had not received an

^9Joseph C. Grew, Memorandum of conversation with Mr. Fred Field Goodsell, Field Secretary of the Turkish Mission of the American Board (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 367*H6^BST/l8, Constan­ tinople, February 13, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 232

answer to its request for exception to the order of the school inspec­

tor. Mr. Nilson felt that there may have been some error in the

communication of the orders by the inspector, because the school had

also been informed that only primary school classes might be con­

ducted at the school, and to their protest, they received a reply that

they should continue their classes as in the past until further notice.

The further notice would come from Ankara, but apparently nothing else

was heard about the matter.71

In June, Mr. Nilson and Hamid Bey went to Ankara as represen­

tatives of the American Board to discuss a number of outstanding issues

with officials of the Ministry of Public Instruction. They had hoped

to be able to speak with Necati Bey, but were informed that he was ill

and confined to bed at his home, and he could not receive them at that

time. They did have an opportunity to converse at some length with

Ragib Nurrettin Bey, the supervisor of foreign schools in the Ministry,

with Kadri Bey, in charge of middle school inspection, with one Cevad

Bey, and with Kemal Zaim Bey, the counselor of the Minister of Public 72 Instruction. 1

The primary topic of conversation in their interviews was the

opening of a technical and vocational school in Talas, in exchange for

the school which was to have opened in Sivas if the premises had not

^William H. Taylor, Memorandum of conversation with Paul E. Nilson (National Archives Record Group 59), 367*ll6^BST/30, Constan­ tinople, March 17, 1928.

^2Fred Field Goodsell, Memorandum prepared for Joseph C. Grew concerning conversations of Hamid Bey and Paul Nilson with the Ministry of Public Instruction (National Archives Record Group 59)> 387.116^/113, Constantinople, June 9, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 233

already been occupied. The two representatives of the American Board

also broached the issue of the requirement of Sunday classes at the

American school at Merzifon. They were told that this was the first

news that Ankara had recieved of the matter. Officials of the Ministry

said that the error should be rectified. According to the Ministry, the

official in Sivas, where the order had originated, had acted on his own

authority and had erred on the question. The Ministry advised the

Board to continue the classes until the end of the school year, and then

to return to Friday and Sunday holidays at the beginning of the Fall 73 term.

Dr. Paul Monroe saw the special restrictions placed upon

foreign schools and colleges as a form of obstructionism. He felt that

rules applying only to the foreign institutions were unfair and unneces­

sary. The fact that permits were required for so many little things

did not distress him so much as the fact that foreign institutions could 7k not obtain the permits locally, but had to get them from the capital.

That left the educators vulnerable to obstruction of their program

through dilatoriness, as demonstrated by the difficulty of obtaining

building permits, or permits to open or reopen schools, classes, or

sections of a school. American educators and mission administrators

were no doubt frequently discouraged by the slow-moving nature of the

^Fred Field Goodsell, Memorandum prepared for Joseph C. Grew concerning conversations of Hamid Bey and Paul Nilson with the Ministry of Public Instruction (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367*116^/113* Constantinople, June 9> 1928.

"^Paul Monroe, Circular letter to friends in the United States (National Archives Record Group 59 )> 3^7 •116^54/86, Istanbul, November 23, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23b

Turkish administration. Attempts to cut short systematic delays were

met with systematic insistence upon due form and correct procedure.

Luther Fowle met with Cemal Husntt in June, 1929, still hoping that per­

mission might be obtained to reopen the school at Bursa. The Minister

told Lr. Fowle that he hoped they could talk about it again in three

months, and that then Fowle might have a practical proposition to

offer. Fowle was dissatisfied with the prospect of three months'

additional delay, and asked if a decision could not be reached sooner.

The Minister replied that he would decide "soon," but resisted when

Fowle suggested that he could send the Minister a reminder in a couple 75 of weeks. The Minister said that he would initiate the next contact.

When Necati Bey died in 1929, Ambassador Grew expressed the

opinion that no one likely to replace him as Minister of Public Instruc­

tion would be likely to offer as much obstruction to the foreign schools

as did Necati Bey. The Ambassador was convinced that Necati Bey was

fundamentally opposed to foreign schools in Turkey a.s a matter of prin­

ciple, and that he was inclined also as a matter of principle to cause

them every difficulty possible in the hope that they would withdraw

from Turkey.^

^Luther R. Fowle, Notes on interview with Cemal Hus nil Bey (National Archives Record Group 59), 367.1l6V12 3, Constantinople, June 30, 1929.

^Joseph C. Grew, Letter to Secretary of State Henry L. Stim- son (National Archives Record Group 59), 3^7*ll6^/l23, Constantinople, June 30, 1929.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Chapter 8

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this research has been to study problems

encountered and created by Christian missions in foreign countries.

The study has been of a specific and limited situation. The context

of the study is the presence of a Christian mission in a non-Christian

culture. It is that of Christian mission where the socio-political

environment is in the process of evolution. The study is situated in

a readily identifiable time-frame, and it offers data which can be

generalized for wider application.

The mission in Turkey of the American Board of Commissioners

for Foreign Missions in the period being studied was one situated in

an almost totally Muslim environment. Islam and Christianity have

been in encounter from the earliest days of the existence of Islam.

The encounter has not always been a happy one, and has frequently been

marked by violent hostilities. While the two faiths are not necessarily

in fundamental opposition, historically their relations have not been

characterized by free exchange and welcome. Each has claimed exclusive

possession of divine revelation.

The Turkey mission between 1923 and 1933 was itself deeply

involved in reorientation of program, of personnel, and of outlook. So

was the country. The mission had lost its Christian client community

in events closing the nineteenth century and during the first two

235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 236

decades or so of the twentieth century. The frenetic emphasis upon

mission characteristic of the nineteenth century in American Protestant­

ism was being replaced by a spirit of relative isolationism. Turkey

was moving out of the stagnation of the Ottoman period into the dynamic

activism and progress of the Republican era. The leaders of Turkey

were no longer turned to Muslim Mecca but to the secular West. Religion

of any sort was regarded as inimical to the aspirations of the Turkey

that was coming into being.

The time-frame of the study is conveniently circumscribed by

the founding of the Republic and the sharp reduction of American support

a decade later. On each occasion the number of institutions in Turkey

dependent upon the American Board for their primary means of support

was very noticeably reduced. The decade does nevertheless afford a

look at what should constitute en essentially complete inventory of

the problem-types a mission is likely to confront in similar circum­

stances.

Indeed, the problems appear to be so typical that the

ready transferability of the study and findings to many other countries

at various periods of the twentieth century seems obvious. It is not

necessary that a mission be face to face with Islam for the study to

be applicable. Neither is it necessary for the host country of a

mission to be throwing off the fetters of stagnant feudalism, or of a

colonial yoke, for the findings to be appropriate.

The Mission in Turkey of the American Board during the

third decade of the century provides an example of the new face of

mission being conducted by several churches and mission agencies

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 237

in many countries. Missions today are, as was the Turkey mission,

evolving. Concepts of mission being adopted by others today as bold

and forward-looking are not dissimilar from the mission emphases

being adopted as a reasonable expression of the duty of the American

Board a half-century ago. Kemalist Turkey, leaving behind feudalism

and a clergy-dominated political system in order to leap at a single

bound into the progressive twentieth century, presents many points of

comparison with nations which have gained their independence only since

the second World War. These nations are seeking and finding new

expressions of corporate personality, of national sovereignty unbound,

and of their place in the community of nations. Other missions in these

other lands have encountered difficulties quite similar to those of the

American Board between 1923 and 1933*

The attitude of some persons with respect to these types of

incidents is that they have little significance in the total life of

a mission in the long run, and that they merit little study for that

reason. Any incident, however, which can contribute to distrust or

misunderstanding and especially one which has the potential of leading

to the expulsion or closing down of an entire mission merits considera­

tion. Such incidents are the product of mistakes, and mission agencies

should avail themselves of every opportunity to learn from the past

mistakes in order to avoid repeating them, at the very least. The same

argument would apply to those who feel that, even though significant,

an incident would better be forgotten, primarily because it is over

and done with, the experience was unpleasant, and there is no useful

purpose to be served in opening painful wounds. A study such as this

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 238

should help mission agencies to avoid the inflicting of new wounds by

better understanding why the previous ones occurred. A study such as

this one should encourage other such studies, each one contributing

to a greater understanding of the impact of missions upon international

relations.

This study has as a part of its overall purpose to encourage

mission agencies to look at a number of their policies with greater

objectivity. The question of personnel is the first and most obvious

area in which a serious look is required at agency policies. Missions

have programs in progress, in many cases, and have to depend upon

volunteers for service to supply the personnel needs of those programs.

In many cases, needs are urgent, and often personnel must be engaged

quickly and put into service with the least possible delays. Missions

find themselves making allowances for a person's motivation, or planning

to modify it through orientation. Operating in greater flexibility

with respect to time is a luxury they feel they cannot afford. However,

it is persons in mission who create difficulties overseas, or who find

themselves in difficulties they consider not of their own making. Mis­

sion agencies should be led to understand through this study how a

short-term policy can affect the long-term standing of their organi­

zation in a given place.

Missions will also have to consider their overall program

with more objectivity. This is a difficult thing to accomplish. In

many cases, a mission might not today establish a new program of a sort

it is currently conducting because it was inherited from the past. The

program represents an investment of capital funds, including buildings

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 239

and equipment. It represents an investment of operating funds, in

budget, supplies and gifts. It represents an investment of history and

emotional attachment. People are involved, and their security is at

stake. They tend to see themselves threatened by critical evaluations

of the activity that constitutes their livelihood. These people do not

have to be missionaries, since nationals have these same attachments.

Nationals in particular seem to feel distress when the organization

considers phasing out a program, and especially an institution with

which they have been associated in the past.

Missions should be led to regard their situation as a whole

with greater objectivity. Nearly every place in which churches have

missions today is involved in significant change. Missions must be led

to understand the fact of change rather than to cling to whatever of

the past may happen to endure around them. Some mission organizations

think of their function in history as timeless, and therefore in a

sense floating above the passage of time and events. Missions do in

fact live in specific times and in specific places, in definable cir­

cumstances, and must learn to discern the salient features of the time

and place which constitute their functional parameters.

This study should encourage better communication between

missions and diplomatic services. The activities of either one will

inevitably have some effect upon the other. International politics

make up a significant part of the climate of Christian missions. By

the same token, mission policies and programs will occasionally involve

diplomatic personnel at one level or another. Unfortunately, there has

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2k0

been a tendency among missionaries and among missions to regard the

diplomatic services of their homeland as antipathetic to their cause

and therefore to their interests. There would appear to be some justi­

fication for this point of view, because on numerous occasions missions

have been advised in the face of difficult times and adverse circum­

stances to withdraw from a particular country. Diplomatic personnel,

for their part, have a tendency to regard missionaries as well-meaning

incompetents, unaware of the possible international ramifications of

their activities, insensitive to political pressures, and too willing

to suffer martyrdom, either in the original or in the more modern sense

of the term. This study should encourage a more open communication

between the missions and the diplomatic services which have the

protection of their nationals at heart. There needs to be a greater

understanding between the two of the whole range of interests involved.

A study of this nature should also result in opening lines

of communication between churches, mission agencies and various schools

of international service. Christian mission, either in terms of tradi­

tional evangelism, or in terms of modern service-oriented church com­

mitment, forms a part of the total context of international service,

not currently given a very important place in our schools of inter­

national service. The latter could therefore benefit from some

broadening of outlook in this respect. There would certainly be some

utility to the churches if such an emphasis were added to the program

of schools of international service. A working relationship between

mission agencies and a number of schools of international service

could be mutually beneficial.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2kl

During the decade which encompasses this study, the American

schools and colleges in Turkey found problems in a number of areas. To

the extent that these problems were with the Turks, they could be

broadly categorized as falling into four areas. The first of these is

that of developing Turkish nationalism. Turkish nationalism affected

the American schools and colleges in several ways. Historically, the

schools and colleges had functioned in a sort of extraterritoriality

accorded by the Turks under the capitulations under a treaty between

the Turks and the United States in the nineteenth century. Under the

terms of this treaty, nationals of the United States residing in Turkey

would not be governed by Turkish law, but rather by American law. There

were abuses of the system of capitulations, and eventually pressures

began to mount for the abolition of the whole system. Turks began to

see the issue as one of the recovery of national sovereignty, territory

and dignity. Counterpressures mounted on the part of those who bene­

fited from the system, and thus the two sides found themselves in funda­

mentally opposing positions. Turks wished to get rid of the capitula­

tions, and foreigners wished to preserve them. Personnel associated

with the American schools and colleges could not avoid taking a basic

interest in the question. Even where the Americans themselves did not

take a firm stand opposing that expression of Turkish nationalism, they

discovered that those who were taught in the American schools often

had strong feelings, and expressed them in such a way that the Americans

found themselves caught in a cross-fire. This situation was created by

a basic policy option of the previous century, when the American Board

had elected to concentrate its efforts among the Greek and Armenian

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2b2

populations of Turkey. Some missionaries felt that the only way their

work might be carried on in Turkey was under some sort of protection,

like that provided by the capitulations, and they persisted tenaciously

in claiming rights as foreigners. Some missionaries continued to cling

to the former rights as if they had never disappeared. Some claimed

privileges as if they were rights. These kinds of attitudes on the

part of representatives of the American educational institutions

antagonized many Turks. This attitude was not present in all educators

by any means, nor was it characteristic of all missionaries, but its

incidence among educators and missionaries was sufficient to create

a bad impression upon Turkish authorities.

As Turkey began to recover its dissipated sovereignty, a new

and more confident Turkish personality began to emerge. It was one

marked by a new-found sense of national pride, because the nation was

moving forward in spite of many obstacles, and primarily under its own

steam. No longer fettered in its relations with the West, the nation

could emulate what it considered the best of the Western world. Western

styles of dress replaced the traditional garb of Turkey. Education

was being generalized. Religion was being de-emphasized. Arabic

script gave way to a Latin-letter alphabet. The emphasis on Turkism

was not always a felicitous one as the American educators saw it, be­

cause it had serious implications for the schools and colleges, parti­

cularly in terms of personnel and curriculum. Some educators saw that

Turkism applied to foreign education would dilute the unique qualities

and personality of that education. Thus they resisted change until it

became inevitable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 243

The general area of religious interests constitutes the

second area in which problems occurred for the American schools and

colleges in Turkey. As a means of accomplishing in the shortest time

possible the insertion of Turkey into a significant place in the twen­

tieth century, the Turkish leadership had elected to make of the

country a secular state. Such a program did not command the immediate

and complete support of all Turks. The conservative elements of the

Turkish population, along with the religious leadership,was less than

delighted to see this development. The Sultanate and the Caliphate

were abolished, Western dress styles became mandatory, Muslim law was

abolished and replaced by codes adapted from Western secular codes of

law. The Muslim lunar calendar was replaced by a Western secular

calendar, and Muslim religious schools were abolished. Eventually the

constitutional provision that Islam was the official religion in Turkey

was excised from the Turkish Constitution.

The American schools and colleges in Turkey all owed their

existence to the religious interest of Americans in Turkey. Not all

American educators were happy about the program of secularization in

Turkey. They felt that there had been greater freedom under the re­

ligiously oriented Empire than under the secular Republic. They saw

the Republic as being severely restrictive. The American educators

resisted complete secularization of their educational institutions.

Turkish authorities gave evidence of more patience with the foreigners

than with their own citizens, but they often expressed their disappoint­

ment that the foreign educators were not willing to give their full

cooperation to the program of secularization of education in Turkey.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2kk

Occasionally their displeasure found expression in punitive action, but

more often it was merely verbalized in protests directed either to the

educators or to the diplomatic services of the United States.

Proselytism, or conversion, was a specific manifestation of

the general problem of religious interests that proved to be quite

ticklish for the American schools and colleges. At the beginning of

the American Board's educational involvement in Turkey, the basic aim

of the program was to facilitate the general evangelistic thrust. Of

course the program was not then addressed exclusively to the Muslim

population. After the redirection of the educational institutions in

the twentieth century, the schools and colleges, then addressing them­

selves in the mein to Muslims, still presented a definite religious

character. This was interpreted by the Turks as being a form of

religious proselytism. Indeed, students in some of the schools and

colleges were obliged to attend assemblies which continued to be known

as "chapel" exercises. More frequently, students and educators joined

in philosophical discussion groups in which religious subjects were

treated.

The American Lyceim for Girls at Bursa became an example for

other institutions of what might happen if the American educators did

not conform strictly to Turkish law with respect to the issue of pro­

selytism. The three American women teaching there were accused of

exerting a definite religious influence upon the students of the

school, and even of having converted several of them. The teachers

were arrested, their school was closed, and after two trials were

convicted, and given extremely light sentences. The school was never

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 245

allowed to reopen. Although the incident proved by investigation to

be an isolated one, suspicion of the American schools and colleges

persisted. The event served as a warning to others of what might happen

when American educators proved too willing to take chances on the

fringes of legality.

The third problem area for the American schools and colleges

was that of Turkish culture. Problems here were recurring ones, demon­

strating the difficulty of taking hold of it for the educators, or their

unwillingness to recognize the seriousness of the problem potential.

One might conclude that problems in this area were more peculiar to

those persons who had only recently arrived in Turkey, and that even­

tually the risks diminished as familiarity with Turkey increased. The

incidents selected to illustrate this aspect of the problems of American

education in Turkey do not support that assumption. Two of the three

incidents involve educators who had been in Turkey for upwards of ten

years. Coincidentally, both of them were missionaries and clergymen.

That fact will not allow general conclusions to be drawn, on the other

hand, because the third incident involves a young layman not supported

by the American Board. The two incidents involving the clergymen also

have in common attempts at humor. In each case, the joke was misunder­

stood, and taken to be at the expense of the Turkish people, their

government or their national symbols. The third incident was an attempt

to give greater substance to that sense of pride, but its expression

was maladroit.

Professor Fisher called a picture of three men and a donkey

"three friends" in 1924, and was astounded to find himself the object

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 k6

of an international incident a few months later, accused of having

called the Turkish people themselves donkeys. The furor vas calmed

only by the direct intervention of the American High Commissioner

and the President of Robert College. As if to point out that American

educators are occasionally incapable of profiting from a bad experience,

there was in effect a repetition of the incident less than a year later

in Robert College's sister institution at Constantinople, when a skit

clearly portrayed Turks as donkeys, and that in the presence of Turkish

authorities.

Hunter Mead, upon catching students in the act of cheating,

seized the occasion to try to instill a greater sense of honesty and

integrity among the students. Unfortunately, perhaps through inex­

perience, he let the situation get out of hand, and ended up by ex­

pressing his thoughts in such a poor manner that they were interpreted

as critical of Turkish authorities in violation of precise Turkish

statutes. He had made the double mistake of attempting to superimpose

on Turkish students a system of student behavior which worked in Ameri­

can culture without stopping to see whether Turkish culture would

accept it, and of underestimating the intensity of feeling of Turkish

national pride among his students and what effect his statements might

have upon them. He generalized much too freely.

The third incident, involving Ernest C. Partridge, was no

less innocent that the two involving Fisher and Mead. Again, it was

an innocent attempt at making a joke, and not really at anyone's

expense. Partridge compared festival decorations at the school to

the striped poles before American barber shops. The students took

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21+7

offense at his remarks, reported them to the authorities, perhaps even

misrepresenting them, and an investigation was launched, aiming at the

dismissal of Partridge. He was judged to he innocent of any intention

to offend, but retired from service at the end of the school year.

The fourth source of problems for the American schools and

colleges was that of Turkish bureaucracy. It had always been present

as a stumbling block for the activities of the American Board in Turkey,

but it seemed to be accentuated especially in the early years of the

Republic. The state was taking over the key sectors of Turkish life

and economy. Transportation and commerce fell under state control.

Education, too would increasingly come under the control of the Turkish

government, even foreign educational institutions. Among its earliest

expressions in that dominion was the refusal of the government to allow

certain educational institutions of the American Board to reopen after

World War I. The government advanced several reasons for the refusal,

and occasionally gave no explanation at all. Sometimes, the government

withheld the approval because it felt itself capable of taking care of

the educational needs of the population in a given place. At other

times, the government did not wish education to be in the hands of

foreigners, even if that meant no educational opportunities at all for

the children of that place at that time. At still other times, the

state expressed its growing control of foreign institutions by closing

them rather arbitrarily because of minor infractions of minor rules.

It became increasingly clear that all education in Turkey would be

standardized, and that foreign schools, including the American schools

and colleges, would have to conform or vanish.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21*8

Anerican educational authorities in Turkey occasionally lost

patience completely in the face of seemingly interminable delays of

red tape. They felt that even very minor things were subjected to

the whims of bureaucrats who applied every rule imaginable for as long

as possible before eventually granting permission to move ahead. The

Woman's College at Constantinople decided twice— once before World War

I, and once after the founding of the Republic— to take matters into

its own hands and ignore the requirement of a building permit. The

college set the building program in motion without awaiting approval,

and found itself in trouble afterwards for that reason. Even though

that particular incident was taken care of without lasting effects, the

American Board continued to be frustrated by the need of building per­

mits when they were in desperate need of additional space in the

schools and colleges. Occasionally, internal or international politics

became factors in the issuance of building permits. This was true in

the case of a permit sought by Robert College for a new library. To

have granted such a permit would have placed the Turks in a delicate

situation before the French, the Italians and the Russians. Not only

building permits, but permits to operate schools or other institutions

were necessary, and were sources of annoyance to the American educators.

Americans found that the problems of red tape were complicated

by the fact that it was extremely difficult to persuade a Turkish

bureaucrat at any level to accept responsibility and make a binding

and final decision. When a decision had been taken, and its effect was

transmitted to the schools or colleges, it was often difficult to learn

the origin of it, because the buck would be passed up or down, depending

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 249

upon whether the Americans were addressing upper or lower level bureau­

crats. This was due in part to the fact that laws passed at the

national level were interpreted and applied locally in the absence

of standardized rules of interpretation and application valid over the

whole country. Buck-passing was in evidence among the various agencies

and departments of government, too. The problem was further complicated

for the Americans by an apparent willingness of Turkish authorities to

make any sort of verbal assurances, even promises, without ever acting

upon them. The Americans learned in the young Republic that their

progress on any issue was occasionally hindered by frequent changes in

personnel. That phenomenon, characteristic of many young Republics,

set American educators right back at the beginning on some projects.

Finally, in the matter of bureaucracy, educators found them­

selves occasionally face to face with what seemed to be nothing more

nor less than deliberate obstructionism. Those responsible for the

American schools and colleges would interpret it as obstructionism, and

Turkish bureaucrats would see it as normal and natural thoroughness in

detail. Diplomatic personnel of the United States saw the danger to

the American schools and colleges of bureaucratic obstructionism as a

tool of Turkish policy and politics. Petty technicalities could become

so encumbering that the schools would be forced either to denature

themselves by conforming, or to eliminate their influence entirely by

closing or withdrawing. Even the normal processes of making a school

function could become occasions for attempting to confuse the American

educators or to break down their morale through undue severity. Many

American educators, for instance, found the periodic school inspections

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 250

to be exceptionally disagreeable experiences. Those responsible for

the American schools and colleges sometimes found that even-handed

application of rules and regulations were deliberately intended to

have a negative effect upon their institutions. This was true in the

requirement temporarily enforced in Merzifon to held a full schedule

of classes on Sundays, as the Turkish public schools were required to

do.

The results of this study would tend to indicate that problems

occur for mission agencies, or for any international service agency

when certain specific conditions exist. The conditions need not

necessarily be compounded. That is, in many cases only one of the

conditions need be present in order to create a serious problem

potential for the entire organization. In some other cases, no one

condition is enough to cause a serious problem, but in combination they

increase the potential for trouble.

In the first place, mission agencies or service agencies must

devise adequate means of personnel evaluation before engaging persons

for service. This means that skills in a particular profession must

be more than marginally adequate. International service requires a

high degree of professional competence, whether the field be religious,

medical, educational or otherwise technical. Not only must professional

skills be adequate, but psychological motivation and stability must be

of acceptable standards. International service is physically and

emotionally exacting. If motivation is inadequate, or if motivation

is based upon the wrong reasons, problems are bound to occur for the

individual. When they occur for the individual, there will inevitably

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 251

be problems for the organization. International service requires a

high degree of emotional stability and physical stamina. Both emotional

health and physical health must be excellent in the candidate for mis­

sion. A person may be physically and emotionally adequate and still

have personality traits which make him inappropriate as a candidate

for mission service, or for other forms of international service.

International service requires openness of mind, a willingness to

listen and to continue to learn, it requires a predisposition to develop

knowledge and skills, especially in the area of communication. Both

overbearing and retiring personalities are inappropriate for inter­

national service. Thoughtfulness and consideration for others are not

merely admirable traits. They are essential qualities to be cultivated

if they have not been fully developed in the candidate for service.

Once the candidate has been accepted by the organization as

apt for service, there must be a period of additional preparation in

most cases. This preparation must be specific, and must be adequate.

It will include a sufficient period of language training to develop an

acceptable proficiency. This means more than an ability to make pur­

chases in the marketplace, to inquire about the weather or to converse

superficially about the state of health or general well-being of

acquaintances. Without an adequate development of skills of communica­

tion, no adequate communication will take place. This is not merely a

matter of grammar and vocabulary, but also of social and cultural idiom,

of thought, instinct and philosophy. It is a matter of the meeting of

the minds beyond the words.

Pre-service training must also be specific in the area of

introduction to the country of service. This introduction must include

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 252

thorough treatments of the history, the culture and the religion of the

people of the country of service. In the case of the candidate for

missionary service, the matter of a profound knowledge of the religion

of the people is of capital importance, and not simply for the purpose

of finding weak points at which the religion may he attacked. The

missionary can make a positive affirmation of his own religious values

or those of his own denomination without denigrating those of another.

The candidate must also he well-acquainted with the history of the

encounter of his faith with the religion of the people of the country

of service.

A historical introduction to the country of service must

include hoth recent history and more distant history. At the same time

a cursory introduction to the political history of the country can he

given, including its governmental structure, its fundamental national

and international options, and its general orientation.

A cultural introduction should acquaint the candidate with

the social structure of the family, the community and the nation,

customs and traditions, and especially with taboos and points of

sensitivity. No society is completely devoid of humor, and humor can

reveal much about the interests and the temperament of a people. When­

ever possible, a cultural orientation could include an introduction to

the humor of a people. Ways of greeting, both at close range and from

a distance, handshakes, waves, embraces and other gestures are important

but often neglected. Origins and interpretations of some types of

greetings should be known, because they are occasionally very important.

A cultural introduction must deal as well with the national symbols.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 253

Missionaries are not merely transmitters or broadcasters of

a point of view, nor even a sincerely held conviction. They serve as

bridges between cultures and between faiths. They must share to

enrich, but they must also share to be enriched. They must serve as

the means whereby the church that has sent them encounters another

faith. They must interpret in both directions. This must involve an

attitude of sincere and profound respect for the interlocutor. When

this respect is lacking, the fact is easily perceived, and communication

breaks down. Ambassador Sherrill was quite correct in his observation

that one who begins to express disrespect for his interlocutors, whether

privately or publicly has by that fact seriously undermined his effec­

tiveness. If the mission agency has understood this, it must see to it

that its candidates, too, undertand it.

Once a person has actually entered international service,

whether with a mission or with some other service agency, both the

agency and the individual should see the necessity of a continuing

process of intraservice evaluation, training and reorientation. If this

does not occur, personal complacency, stagnation and ineffectiveness

are likely to occur. This type of evaluation and training can take

place as a normal part of the job function, as a definite time set

aside for it during the term of service, or as a normal part of home

leave, if the person intends to return to international service. This

type of evaluation and training combined will reduce any tendencies to

be unaware of the implications of political and cultural change in the

field of service. It will aid in adjusting the focus of observations

hastily made. It will provide the means of building a corpus of

material which will assist others in service in the same area.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 254

If this reorientation occurs at a fixed time on the field, it could

beneficially be a group experience involving as much of the personnel

as practical, and could make use of outside resources efficiently.

Missions and international service agencies will reduce the

likelihood of creating unforeseen problems if they have been sufficient­

ly precise in the formulation of their goals. Existential opportunism

and reasonable flexibility are not the same thing. Program is conceived

as a means of achieving goals. It advances towards those goals. It

must be consistent with goals. Goals are future-oriented and are not

merely extensions of the past. The organization engages in a particular

activity, not because "we have always done it," but because it moves

in the direction the organization wants to go. On the other hand,

the process of formulation of goals must include an objective look

at what is possible. To establish goals incapable of fulfillment is

nothing more than an exercise in futility. The formulation of goals

must take cognizance of the salient features of existence. Unbending

inflexibility is just as undesirable in the matter of goals as are

vague imprecision and opportunism. Useful functioning in a changing

system demands a certain degree of adaptability within the above-

mentioned parameters. Goals can evolve, and program must evolve with

them. The program in a given place of any international service agency

must constantly be remeasured against the yardstick of goals and of the

local needs and possibilities. International service agencies and

mission agencies diminish the risk of trouble if there is a reasonable

degree of harmony between goals, program and locally recognized needs.

Mission agencies in particular must cultivate a certain ob­

jectivity in evaluating their program. There is a tendency among church

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 255

people to be at one and the same time too pessimistic and too optimis­

tic. That is, they exaggerate difficulties, and overstate successes,

or opportunities for success. There is a very real danger for mission

agencies in self-deception. It lies primarily in binding the organiza­

tion into an option or program into which it might not have entered

more advisedly. Self-deception comes about upon seizing too readily

upon only slight signs of encouragement, or even upon mistaking polite­

ness for encouragement. Self-deception also occurs, equally uninten­

tionally, when an expected disaster does not materialize, and mission

authorities congratulate themselves that the worst did not come to pass.

Euphoric in the realization, they persist in flirting with danger. Per­

haps there is a bit of the martyr still present in missionaries. As

Ambassador Grew pointed out, the missionary nature is such that if it

is not expedient to take big risks, they will take small ones.

One of the difficulties encountered by the American schools

and colleges was the result of regarding many regulations and laws as

hindrances to be circumvented, or, in the final analysis, to be obeyed

only under duress. Although laws regulating the conduct of foreigners

and their organizations in a given country seem unfairly discriminatory,

and although their purpose is not readily apparent, winking at them

or ignoring them serves no long-lasting purpose, either. If an inter­

national service agency wishes to have a long service life in any

given country, it must not seek to set itself above the law. Scrupulous

obedience of the law leads to longer service than avoiding compliance.

Even so, missions must understand that suspicions will persist about

them, even if they do remain scrupulously "clean." Its personnel as

well as the entire organization are always on display, always under

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 256

surveillance. Every deed of the individual and of the organization is

scrutinized. Every word is weighed and interpreted. Occasionally the

result is unfortunately erroneous, as was seen in several instances

involving personnel of the American schools and colleges in Turkey. It

is unfortunate, but that, too, is a fact of existence in a foreign

culture, and missionaries must be on their guard in that respect. They

must be aware that neither they nor their organization will always be

seen as intended. Their actions are always liable to misinterpretation.

Their words can always be taken in the wrong way. Insofar as possible,

the continuing process of open bi-directional communication with

the officials of the host country will go a long way towards clearing

up misapprehensions. A certain amount of candor is absolutely essential

in this regard, because the missionary cannot be justified in trying to

play both sides of the fence. National authorities are aware of what

missionaries have to say to the churches at home. Church publications,

newsletters, news sheets and denominational journals are seen and read

by nationals of the host country. Declarations and statements found

there are compared with those made face-to-face. If there are discrep­

ancies, they are noted.

Missionaries and mission agencies will find that diplomatic

services of their own country in the country of service can be of help.

A facile hostility of one for the other does not have to be the rule.

A certain amount of contact is natural. The missionary should not set

himself up as an information-gathering informant by any means. On the

other hand, it is just as bad to turn to the representatives of one’s

homeland only after trouble has become acute as it is to be so frequent

a visitor that suspicions are aroused. Ambassadors and consuls are not

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 257

a priori anti-ecclesiastic or anti-missionary. Although the advice

diplomats tender may not often he what missionaries want to hear, they

should not too quickly discount its value. The diplomats often have

insights entirely unavailable to the mission otherwise. These contacts

may help mission personnel to develop skills in recognizing problems or

problem areas as such before the situation becomes critical. Certainly

missionaries can be helped through these relationships to perceive that

their mission does not exist in a political void. Like it or not,

Christian mission can, and often does, have political implications.

This was clearly demonstrated at several points in the study of the

American schools and colleges in Turkey between 1923 and 1933•

There was a tendency in that period for the missionaries and

other educators to think of mission as universal. The Turks did not

see things in the same way, and resented such an emphasis upon univer-

salism or internationalism at the time when they were laying the

greatest emphasis upon a particular nationalism. Although the function

of a missionary is not to promote one or another nationalism, neither

is it to play down the nationalism of the host country, either directly

or by implication. He is a guest in another country. He is the

national of the country where he holds his citizenship. As a guest,

he must understand that he does not live in a transplanted American

context, but he is transplanted into another context. His rights are

those granted him by the host country.

Finally, it has been seen in the study above that, despite what

logic would have us believe, people do not always profit from their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 258

mistakes. Schools were closed, criticized, warned, and others were

closed in second warnings over the question of proselytism. The

American schools and colleges continued to place themselves in a

position of vulnerability to criticism on that score. Schools and

colleges were closed in Turkey over minor infractions of regulations,

and yet continued to take chances and to lament that the national

authorities were unduly interfering in the internal.’affairs of the

school. When religious instruction became illegal,‘religious subjects

were broached in informal discussion groups, and essentially religious

principles were termed character development. Accused of anti-Turkish

sentiments, the personnel of the schools repeatedly found itself

defending remarks which lent themselves to misinterpretation. Accused

of insulting the Turkish people by comparing them with a beast of

burden, personnel of American colleges did in fact make the comparison

only a few months later. It matters little that the offenders were

individuals. They were always in a very real sense representatives

of an institution, whether it be the mission or educational institution.

If there is any one lesson to be learned from this decade, it is that

people and organizations must profit from their experiences, both

positive and negative, and they must see to it that others, too, may

learn from the experiences of the past.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 260

A. PRIMARY SOURCES

1. Letters, Notes, Telegrams, Memoranda, Reports and Despatches

Adnan Bey. Letter to Frederic R. Dolbeare. Constantinople: January 29, 1923. National Archives Record Group (hereafter abbreviated NARG) 59: 367.1164/23.

Allen, Charles. Letter to Rear Admiral Mark Lambert Bristol. Con­ stantinople: January 12, 1927* NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1926.

______. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: January 31 , 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164 Bursa School Trial (hereafter abbreviated BST)/2.

Despatch to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: January 25, 1933* NARG 59: 367.1164/186.

Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: February 21, 1933. NARG 59: 367.1164/190.

Barton, James L. Letter to Allen W. Dulles. Boston: February 17, 1933. NARG 59: 367.H 64/95 1/2.

Belcher, Harold B. Letter to Wallace S. Murray. Boston: August 19, 1931. NARG 59: 367.H 63 /12 .

Belin, F. Lammot. Report on visit to American Board mission stations in Turkey. Constantinople: November 7t 1927* NARG 59: 367.1164/103.

Birge, John Kingsley. Report of the third session of the Bursa School Trial. Bursa, Turkey: April 2, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/33.

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: April 10, 1928. NARG 59: 367.U64BST/33.

. Telegram to Associated Press in Constantinople. Bursa: April, 1928. NARG 59: 3 6 7.II6 4 BST/3 3.

Bliss, Robert Woods. Letter to the Board of Missions of the Presby­ terian Church in the U.S.A. Washington, D.C.: May 11, 1923- NARG 59: 367.1164/29.

Bristol, Rear Admiral Mark Lambert. Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: March 9, 1923* NARG 59: 367.1164R54/34.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 261

. Telegram to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: October 11, 1923. NARG 59: 367*1164/48.

Telegram to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: December 26, 1923 . NARG 59: 367-1164/57.

Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: February 18, 1924. NARG 59: 367.1164/70.

Memorandum of conversation with Ismet Pa|a. Constantinople: August 16, 1924. NARG 59: 367.1164/80.

. Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: September 12, 1924. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/50.

. Telegram to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: October 9, 1924. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/51.

Telegram to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: October 9, 1924. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/52.

. Letter to Charles Evans Hughes Constantinople: January 2, 1925. NARG 59: 367.II64/8I.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 23, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/90.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: May 1, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164K62/1.

Letter to Frank ] Kellogg. Constantinople: May 9, 1925* NARG 59: 867.9111/95.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: June 3, 1925* NARG 59: 367.1164/85.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: June 4, 1925* NARG 59: 367.1164/86.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: June 4, 1925* NARG 59: 367.1164K62/3.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: June 16, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/88.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: June 18, 1925* NARG 59: 367.1164/87.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: July 11, 1925* NARG 59: 367.H 64/89.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: July 23 , 1925• NARG 59: 367.1164/90.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 262

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: December 7, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/96.

Brown, Philip Marshall. Letter to Wallace C. Murray. Princeton, N.J.: December 15, 1933- NARG 59: 367.II64/198.

Burns, Eleanor Irene. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: March 22, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/110.

Bursley, Herbert S. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: January 29, 1931. NARG 59: 367-1164/144.

______. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: February 24, 1931. NARG 59: 367.1164/147.

. letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: March 10, 1931. NARG 59: 367.H 63 /9.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: March 12, 1931. NARG 59: 367.1164/153.

Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: March 12, 1931. NARG 5 9: 367.1163/10.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: March 24, 1931- NARG 59: 367.II63/H.

Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: March 16, 1932. NARG 5 9: 367.II64/17I.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir, Turkey: April 15, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/174.

Calder, Helen B. Letter to Mabel E. Emerson. On train from Bursa to Constantinople: January 12, 1928. NARG 59: 367«H64BST/6.

Compton, Carl C. Letter to the Near East Relief in Constantinople. Constantinople: January 11, 1923* NARG 59: 367.1164/22.

Corrigan, John. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Smyrna, Turkey: December 26, 1929. NARG 59: 367.1164/125 .

Cramp, William M. Letter to Luther R. Fowle. Istanbul: March 17, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

Letter to Luther R. Fowle. Istanbul: March 21, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

Letter to Bernetta A. Miller. Istanbul: March 28, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 263

______. Letter to George H. Huntington. Istanbul: March 28, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

______. Letter to Bernetta A. Miller. Istanbul: April 1, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

______. Letter to George H. Huntington. Istanbul: Aptil 9> 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

Day, Lucille Elizabeth. Statement prepared to be used in her defense at the Bursa School Trial. Bursa: February 16, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/30.

. Letter to Mr. Hutchison in Aleppo. Bursa, Turkey: February 22, 1928. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/3 8 .

______. Statement given to the court in Bursa in her defense in the Bursa School Trial. Bursa, Turkey: April 25, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/41.

Dolbeare, Frederic R. Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: January 30, 1923. NARG 59: 367.1164/23.

Duggan, Stephen P. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. New York: February 6, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/167.

. Statement on cooperation between the Near East Colleges. New”York: February 6, 1932. NARG 59: NARG 59: 367.1164/167.

. Letter to Wallace S. Murray. New York: May 14, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/173.

. Report to the Near East Colleges Association. New York: May 14, 1932 . NARG 59: 367.1164/173*

Dulles, Allen W. Letter to James L. Barton. Washington, D.C.: October 13, 1923* NARG 59: 367.1164/48.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1923. NARG 59: 367.1164/52.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: November 24, 1923. NARG 59: 367.1164/54.

Fisher, Edgar Jacob. Letter to Caleb F. Gates. Vienna, Austria: August 23 , 1924. NARG 59: 367.H64R54/50.

Foreman, Lucille. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Aleppo, Syria: October 11, 1923 . NARG 59: 367.1164/54.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 64

Fowle, Luther R. Notes on address delivered by Bamdullah Suphi Bey before American educators assembled in Constantinople. Constan­ tinople: June 26 , 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/89.

. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Constantinople: October 6, I925. NARG 59: 367.1164/95.

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: October 20, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/56.

. Notes on interview with Cemal Husnti Bey. Ankara: June 30, 1929. NARG 59: 367*1164/123.

. Notes on conversation with Emin Bey. Ankara: June30, 1929* NARG 59: 367.1164/123.

. Paraphrase of remarks of Kemal Zaim Bey. Ankara: June 30, 1929. NARG 59: 367.1164/123.

Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: December 9, 1929. NARG 59: 367.1164/126.

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: December 16, NARG 59: 367.1164/126.

______. Letter to William M. Cramp. Istanbul: March 19, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

______. Letter to William M. Cramp. Istanbul: March 22, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

Gates, Caleb Frank. Memorandum of conversation with Resid Bey. Constantinople: August 23 , 1924. NARG 59: 367.H64R54/50.

. Letter to Admiral Mark Bristol. Constantinople: August 28, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/50.

______. Memorandum on Fisher case, prepared for Albert W. Staub. Constantinople: September, 1924. NARG 59: 367.h 64R54/54.

. Letter to Albert W. Staub. Constantinople: December 20, I92S. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/59.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Constantinople: September 26, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/95.

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: December 17, 1929. NARG 59: 367.1164/126.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 265

George, W. Perry. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir: January 18, 1933. NARG 59: 367.116U/187.

______. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Izmir: January 28, 1933* NARG 59: 367.1l6i+/l88.

. Letter to G. Howland Shaw. Izmir: June 5, 1933* NARG 59: 3S7TH6V19L.

. Letter to Robert P. Skinner. Izmir: July 31, 1931. NARG 59: 367.H 6I/213 .

Goodsell, Fred Field. Report to Field Committee ad interim. Constantinople: November, 1921. NARG 59: 367.H 6I/8I.

. Letter to Ernest V. Riggs. Constantinople: August 11, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1161/95.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs.Constantinople: October 7, 1925. NARG 59: 367.II6I/95.

. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Constantinople: November 10, 1925. NARG 59: 367.II6I/9 5.

. Memorandum of conversation with Behcet Bey. Constantinople: February 5, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6IBST/1 8.

. Report on the Bursa school. Constantinople: February 6, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1l6lBST/l8.

. First letter of the day to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: February 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6IBST/I8 .

Second letter of the day to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: February 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.II6IBST/18.

. Notes for Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: February 13, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6IBST/I8 .

. Memorandum prepared for Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: February 15, 1928. NARG 59: 367 . H6lBST/l8.

. Memorandum prepared for Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: February 17, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6IBST/25 .

. Memorandum for conference with Joseph C. Grew. Constan­ tinople: February 1 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6IBST/25 .

Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: February 29, 1928. NARG 5 9: 367.II6IBST/29 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 66

______. Statement of Field Committee. Constantinople: February 29, 1928. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/29.

______. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: March 15,1928. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/30 .

______. Memorandum of conversation of Hamid Bey and Paul E. Nilson with Ministry of Public of Instruction inAnkara. Constantinople: June 9, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/113.

______. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Talas: August 16, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/116.

. Memorandum of conversation with Ali Haidar Bey. Constan­ tinople: September 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 64BST/52 .

. Memorandum concerning retrial of Bursa school teachers. Bursa: September 17, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 64 BST/54.

Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Boston: July 1, 1930. NARG 59: 3^Tll64/l35.

Letter to Wallace S. Murray. Boston: October 2, 1934. NARG 59: 367.1164/219.

Grew, Joseph Clark. Aide-memoire for Tevfik Ru^ttt Bey. Constantinople: November 3, 1927* NARG 59: 367.1l64/l04.

______. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: November 5, 1927. NARG 59: 367.II64/IOI.

______. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg reporting visit of F. Lammot Belin to mission stations in Turkey of American Board. Constan­ tinople: November 7, 1927- NARG 59: 367.1164/103 .

. Memorandum for Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: November 23 , 1927. NARG 59: 367.1164/104.

. Letter to Tevfik Ru§tli Bey. Constantinople: December 2, 1927. NARG 59: 367.1164/107.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: December 7, 1927. NARG 59: 367.II64/IO7.

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: January 22, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/1.

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: January 31, 1925. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26?

. Notes on conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Constan­ tinople: February 2, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6UBST/18.

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 3, T 92B. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/7.

. Notes on conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Constan­ tinople: February b, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6I+BST/18.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 1, "192B. NARG 59: 367.ll6kBST/5.

. Notes on conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Constan­ tinople: February 6,1928 . NARG 59: 3^7•ll6kBST/l8 .

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 8, 1925. NARG 59: 367.II6I4.BST/9.

. Notes on conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Constan­ tinople: February 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.U 6UBST/I8 .

. Notes on conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Constan­ tinople: February 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.II6UBST/18.

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 12, T923. NARG 59: 367.1l6fcBST/lU.

. Notes on conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Constan­ tinople: February 13, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1l61*BST/l8.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 15, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/l8.

. Memorandum of conversation with Fred Field Goodsell. Con­ stantinople: February 18, 1928. NARG 59-’ 3^7 - H^bBST/l8 .

. Memorandum of conversation with Tevfik Ru§tti Bey. Constan­ tinople: February 20, 1928. NARG 59: 367.116UBST/25.

. Memorandum of conversation with Ismet Pa§a. Constantinople: February 21, 1928. NARG 59: 367.II6UBST/2 5 .

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 25, I 928. NARG 59: 367.116UBST/24.

. Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 26, I 928. NARG 59: 367.II6U/IO8 .

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: February 29, T 92B. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/25 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 268

Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Constantinople: March 2, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/29.

. Memorandum of conversation with Edward T. Perry. Constan­ tinople: March 6, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/29.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: March 14, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 64BST/29 .

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: March 23 , 1928. NARG 59: 367-1164/110.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: March 28, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/30.

Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: April 3 , 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/31.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: April 10, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/33.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: April 25, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 64BST/41.

Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: April 30> "1928. NARG 59: 367.ll64.EST/42 .

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: May 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/43.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: May 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/44.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: June 20, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/113.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: August 20, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/47.

Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: August 21, £928. NARG 59: 367-H64BST/48.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Constantinople: August 21, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/116.

. Memorandum of conversations with Tevfik Ru^tU Bey Between November 3, 1927 and August 16, 1928. Constantinople: August 27, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/116.

Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: August 30, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/50.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 269

. Telegram to Frank E. Kellogg. Constantinople: September 6, 1926. NARG 59: 367.116UBST/51.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: September 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/52.

Telegram to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: Septem­ ber 27, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/53.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: September 24, 1928. NARG 59: 367.116UBSTM.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: October 2, 1928. NARG 59: 367.ll6i4.BST/55.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Constantinople: June 30, 1929. NARG 59: 367.1164/123.

Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Constantinople: January 8, 1930. NARG 59: 367.1164/126.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: April 12, 1930. NARG 59: 367.1164/129.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: April 17, 1930. NARG 59: 367.1164/130.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: July 28, 1930. NARG 59: 367.1164/134.

Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Istanbul: July 29, 1930. NARG 59* 367.1164/135.

Letter to Wallace S. Murray. Istanbul: July 30, 1930. NARG 59: 367.1164/135.

. Telegram to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: January 23, 1931. NARG 59: 367.1164/138.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: February 5> 1931* NARG 59: 367.1164/143.

Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: June 29. 1931. NARG 59: 367.1164/155.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: July 30, 1931- NARG 59: 367.1164/158.

. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: July 30, 1931* NARG 59: 367.H 63 /13 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 270

All Haidar Bey. Summary of arguments in appealing Bursa School Trial verdict. Bursa: May 7, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/43.

Holmes, Julius C. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Smyrna: February 4, 1928. NARG 59: 367.116UBST/18.

______. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Smyrna: February 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.ll64BST/l8.

Hughes, Charles Evans. Telegram to the Special Mission at Lausanne. Washington, B.C.: June 11, 1923- NARG 59: 767.68229P/55a.

______. Letter to James L. Barton. Washington, D.C.: December 27, 1923. NARG 59: 367.H 6V 57.

______. Letter to Henry Cabot Lodge, U.S. Senator. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 1924. NARG 59: 711.672/287b.

Huntington, George H. Letter to Ernest L. Ives. Constantinople: October 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/121 .

______. Letter to William M. Cramp. Istanbul: April 6, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records, Istanbul, 1932.

Ihsan Bey. Letter to Alexander MacLachlan. Smyrna: January 28, 1926. NARG 59: 367.1164/95 1/2.

Ismet Pa§a. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Lausanne, Switzerland: August 6, 1923 . NARG 59: 711.672/170.

______. Identic letter to French, Italian and British chiefs of delegations at Lausanne. Iausanne, Switzerland: July 24, 1923* NARG 59: 711.672/170.

Ives, Ernest L. Telegram to Joseph C. Grew. Ankara: February 9, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

. Memorandum prepared for Joseph C. Grew. Ankara: February 9, I92B. NARG 59: 367.1164 BST/18.

______. Memorandum of conversation with Enisse Bey. Ankara: Feb­ ruary 25, 1928 (actual letter erroneously dated 1927). NARG 59: 367.1164BST/25.

. Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: October 13, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/121.

Letter to Frank B. Kellogg. Constantinople: October 22, I92S. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/56.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 271

Jackson, J.E. Telegram to Charles Evans Hughes. Aleppo, Syria: December 29, 1922. NARG 59: 367.1164/10.

______. Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Aleppo, Syria: December 30, 1922. NARG 59: 367.1164/15.

. Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Aleppo, Syria: April 5, 1923. NARG 59: 367.1164/29*

Jillson, Jeannie Louise. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Bursa: February 9, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1l64BST/l8.

Letter to JosephC. Grew. Bursa: August 15, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/47.

. Petition submitted for permission to reopen Bursa school. Bursa: September 18, 1928. NARG 59: 367.U64BST/55.

Kellogg, Frank Billings. Telegram to Joseph C. Grew. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/4.

Telegram to Joseph C. Grew. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 192E. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/15.

Kreider, Herman H. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Constantinople: February 8, 1928. NARG 59: 367.I164BST/I8 .

______. Report on the retrial of the Bursa school teachers. Bursa: September 26 , 1928. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/55.

MacLachlan, Alexander. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Smyrna: October 7, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/95.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Smyrna: October 26 , 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164/95.

Mead, Hunter. Apologia on schoolboy morality. Cairo, Egypt: Febru­ ary 2, 1931. NARG 367.1164/147.

Miller, Bemetta A. Letter to William M. Cramp. Istanbul: March 31, 1932. NARG 84: Consular Post Records,Istanbul, 1932.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Turkish Republic. Note to Joseph C. Grew. Ankara: June 7, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164/113-

Monroe, Paul. Circular letter to friends in the United States. Istan­ bul: November 23 , 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/86.

Letter to Wallace S. Murray. Istanbul: January 19, 1933. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/86.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 272

Talat Muhir. Letter to Jeannie L. JiUson. Bursa: October 14, 1928. NARG 59: 3 6 7.ll6lj.BST/5 6 .

Murray, Wallace S. Memorandum of conversation with Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: July 2 9, 1931. NARG 59: 367.1164/157.

. Letter to G. Howland Shaw. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/182 1/2.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Washington, D.C.: August 18, 1934. NARG 59: 367-1164/208.

Nilson, Paul E. Letter to William H. Taylor. Talas: March 19, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/30.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell and Edward T. Perry. Aboard a train: March 20, 1928. NARG 59: 367-H64BST/30.

Ahmet Nizameddin. Verdict in Bursa School Trial. Bursa: April 30, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/43.

Patterson, Jefferson. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: June 13, 1930. NARG 59: 367.1164/131.

Perry, Edward I^yler. Informal Report concerning the closing o f :the Bursa school. Bursa: February 3, 1928. NARG 59: 367*H64BST/i 8.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Bursa: February 11, 1928. NARG 367.1164BST/18.

. First telegram to Joseph C. Grew. Bursa: February 11, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1l64BST/l8.

. Second telegram to Joseph C. Grew. Bursa: February 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Bursa: February 13, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Bursa: February 14, 1928. NARG 59: 3 6 7.H 6 4 /2 5.

. Notes on conference with Necati Bey. Ankara: March 19, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/30.

. Notes on conference with Ruftti Bey. Ankara: March 19, I9 2 8 . NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164BST/3 0.

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: March 21, 1 9 2 8. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/30.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 273

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: March 24, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1l6^BST/30.

. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Constantinople: April 4, 1928. NARG 59: 3 6 7.ll6 l1.BST/3 3.

. Notes on the fourth session of the Bursa School Trial. Bursa: April 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/41.

. Notes on the fifth session of the Bursa School Trial. Bursa: April 25, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/43.

Phillips, William. Letter to the Board of Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 1923* NARG 59: 3 6 7.II6 U/2 9.

. Telegram to Admiral Mark L. Bristol* Washington, D.C.: January 23, 192k. NARG 59: 7H.67/46a.

Reed, Cass Arthur. Report of the President to the trustees of Inter­ national College of Izmir. Izmir: January, 1931*-• NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164/2 1 3.

Nail Resid. Circular to American schools in and around Constantinople. Constantinople: June 4, 1925* NARG 59: 367.1164/86.

Riggs, Charles Trowbridge. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Constantinople: November 14, 1925. NARG 59: 367*1164/95.

Riggs, Ernest Wilson. Letter to Charles E. Hughes. Boston: January 15, 1923. NARG 59: 367.116^/12.

______. Memorandum for Charles E. Hughes. Boston: January 15, 1923* NARG 59: 3 6 7.II6 U/1 2.

______. Letter to Charles E. Hughes. Boston: February 23, 1923* NARG 59: 367.116U/22.

Letter to Allen W. Dulles. Boston: October 22, 1923* NARG 59: 367.U6V52.

. Letter to Charles E. Hughes. Boston: October 22, 1923* NARG 59: 367.1164/52.

Letter to Allen W. Dulles. Boston: November 14, 1923* NARG 59: 367.1164/54.

. Letter to Allen W. Dulles. Boston: May 8 , 1925. NARG 59: 357Tll64T17/l.

. Letter to Allen W. Dulles. Boston: November 2, 1925* NARG 59: 367.1164T17/3.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 274

. Letter to Allen W. Dulles. Boston: December 14, 1925. NARG 59: 367.H6V95.

Letter to G. Howland Shaw. Boston: February 2, 1 9 2 8. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/6.

______. Letter to G. Howland Shaw. Boston: February 14, 1928. NARG 5 9 : 3 6 7.II64 BST/1 7.

Tevfik Rustti Bey. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Ankara: November 13, 1927. NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164/104.

______. Letter to Joseph C. Grew. Ankara: February 9, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

Sanderson, Edith. Statement prepared for use in her defense at the Bursa School Trial. Bursa: March, 1 9 2 8. NARG 59: 3 6 7.II64BST/3O.

Scotten, Robert M. Note to Nusret Bey. Constantinople: September 2, 1924. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/50.

Letter to Charles Evans Hughes. Constantinople: Septem­ ber 12, 1924. NARG 59: 367-1164R54/50.

Shaw, G. Howland. Notes on conversation with Hamdullah Suphi Bey. Constantinople: June 4, 1 9 2 5. NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164/88.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: February 4, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/8.

. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 1925. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/13.

Letter to Albert W. Staub. Washington, D.C.: February 10, 1 9 2 8. NARG 5 9 : 367.1164BST/12.

. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: February 17, 1928. NARG 59: 367.h 64BST/22.

Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/49.

. Letter to Cordell Hull. Ankara: April 17, 1933* NARG 59: 367.1163/22.

Letter to Cordell Hull. Istanbul: August 11, 1933* NARG 59: 367.1163/25.

. Letter to Cordell Hull. Istanbul: August 2 7, 1934. NARG 59: 367.1164/216.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 275

Shepard, Lorrin A. Letter to Ernest W. Riggs. Boston: November, 1925. NARG 59: 367.H6V95.

Sherrill, Charles Hitchcock. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: August 9, 1 9 3 2. NARG 59: 367-1164/179.

______. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: August 1 6, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/181.

______. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: August 24, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/180.

______. Letterto Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: August 26, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164/182.

. Letterto Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: December 19, 1932. NARG 59: 367.H64R54/85.

______. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: February 20, 1933* NARG 59: 367.1164/189.

Skinner, Robert P. Letter to Henry L. Stimson. Istanbul: December 12, 1930. NARG 59: 367.H64R54/69.

. Letter to Cordell Hull. Istanbul: June 14, 1934. NARG 59: 3^771164/205.

Letter to Cordell Hull. Istanbul: June 2 3, 1934. NARG 59: 3^771163/26.

Smith, H. Alexander. Report to the trustees of Robert College. Prince­ ton, N.J.: February 15, 1932. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/72.

United States Solicitor. Opinion prepared for Allen W. Dulles. Wash­ ington, D.C.: January 5 / 1923. NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164/20.

Southgate, R. Memorandum of conversation with Albert W. Staub. Wash­ ington, D.C.: August 26, 1924. NARG 59: 3 6 7.ll64R54/58.

Staub, Albert W. Letter to G. Howland Shaw. New York: February 11, 1928. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/11.

Taylor, William H. Memorandum of conversation with Paul E. Nilson. Constantinople: March 17, 1928. NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164BST/30.

Treat, R.A. Wallace. Entry in diary concerning interview with Hamdullah Suphi Bey. Ankara: May 21, 1 9 2 5. NARG 59: 3 6 7.1164/85.

Notes on conversation with Hamdullah Suphi Bey. Ankara: June 3, 1925. NARG 59: 3 6 7.II6 4 /8 5 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 276

Vrooman, Lee. Letter to Herbert S. Bursley. Izmir: February 19, 1931* NARG 59: 367.1l6k/lk7.

Willard, Charlotte R. First letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Merzifon: February k, 1928. NARG 59: 3 6 7.II6 4 BST/1 8 .

Second letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Merzifon: February k, 1925. NARG 59: 367.1l6^BST/l8.

. Letter to Fred Field Goodsell. Marzifon: February 6 , 1 9 2 8. NARG 59: 3 6 7.ll6 i4.BST/l8 .

Woolworth, William S., Jr. Letter to Ernest V/. Riggs. Aleppo, Syria: September 28, 1923. NARG 59: 367.1164/52.

2. Periodicals

"After the Closing of the American College," Akcham (Constantinople), April 17, 1928.

"Agree on Turkish Schools," New York Times, October 12, 192k.

Ak Baba (Istanbul), January 26, 1 9 2 8.

Akhtamar, Christopher. "Our Missionaries in Turkey," New York Times, December 2, 1922.

Allen, H.E. "The Outlook for Islam in Turkey," Moslem World, April, 193k, pp. 115-125.

"Allies Protest to Turkey on Closing of Foreign Schools," New York Times, April 13, 192k.

"America and the Turks," Missionary Review of the World, November, 1 9 2 2, pp. 853-855.

"American Educator is Barred by Turkey," New York Times, September lk, 1933.

"American Girl Defies Turks," New York Herald Tribune, February 9, 1928.

"The American School at Gedik Pa^a," Akcham (Constantinople), February 13, 1928.

"American Schools to Reopen in Turkey," New York Times, February 27, 1928.

"American Teachers Retried in Turkey," New York Times, September 17, 1928.

(Note: All non-English titles of articles translated into English.)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 277

"American Teachers on Trial in Turkey," New York Times, March 7, 1928.

Anderson, Samuel. "The Future of Missions in Turkey," Moslem World, October, 1 9 2 3, pp. 367-378.

"Angora Moves to Drive Caliph into Exile," Nev York Times, March 3, 1924.

"The Apostle of the Reformed Gospel," Akcham (Constantinople), January 29, 1928.

"The Association of Public Instruction," Miliett (Constantinople), March 9, 1928.

"Ban on Foreign Schools Lifted," New York Times, October 8, 1924.

Barton, James Levi. "American Interests and Rights in the Near East," Homiletic Review, January, 1923, pp. 2-10.

. "The Gospel for All Turkey," Missionary Herald, June, 1923, pp. 235-236.

. "Have We a Mandate for Turkey?" Missionary Herald, July, 1923, PP. 282-283.

. "How Others Feel About Work in Turkey," Missionary Herald, August, 1923, PP. 332-333.

______. "Missionary Problems in Turkey," International Review of Missions, October, 1927, pp. 481-494.

. "The Near East Relief," International Review of Missions, October, 1929, PP. 495-502.

. "The Present Status of Missionary and Educational Work in Turkey," Homiletic Review, January, 1924, pp. 17-20.

. "The Problem of Turkey," Missionary Herald, FSy7 1923, P- 191.

. "Religious Revolution in Turkey," Missionary Herald, April, 1924, p. 151.

______. "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," Missionary Herald, January, 1927, PP. 15-17*

. "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," Missionary Herald, February, 1927, PP. 5 6 -5 8 .

. "Reminiscences of James L. Barton," Missionary Herald, March, 1 9 2 7, pp. 95-97-

______. "What of the Future in Turkey?" Missionary Herald, September, 1923, PP* 390-392.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 278

Blanchard, Ferdinand Q. "Their Chance and Ours," Missionary Herald, December, 19 2 5, pp. 554-555.

Browne, L.E. "Religion in Turkey, Today and Tomorrow," Moslem World, January, 1929, pp. 14-24.

Brunton, C.D. "The Passing of Islam in Turkey," English Review, May, 1930, pp. 595-599-

Burroughs, Franklin. "Robert College and Turkish Advancement," Moslem World, October, 1964, pp. 288-291.

"The Bursa Trial," Miliett (Constantinople), April 26, 1 9 2 8.

Carleton, Alford. "Church and State in the Near East," Moslem World, July, 1938, pp. 279-284.

Chandler, Douglas. "The Transformation of Turkey," National Geographic, January, 1939, PP. 1-50.

"Chaplain Praises Near East Schools," New York Times, July 14, 1929*

"Hie Closing of the American School at Bursa," Republique (Constan­ tinople), February 1, 1928.

"A Communique from the Ministry of Public Instruction," Republique (Constantinople), January 31, 1928.

"The Conversion Incident at Bursa," Akcham (Constantinople), March 27, 1 9 2 8.

"Conversion of Turkish Students in the American School at Bursa," Akcham (Constantinople), January 2 6, 1 9 2 8.

Cook, E.F. "What New Emphasis or Increased Emphasis Should Be Given in the Training of Missionary Candidates to Meet the New World Situa­ tion?" Religious Education, December, 1919, PP« 373-378.

Crabiter, P. "Is Turkey a Mohammedan Country?" Moslem World, April, 1930, pp. 125-137.

Cushing, Dorothy P. "It ’Hikes’ in Turkey," Missionary Herald, May, 1933, PP. 142-145.

"The Danger of Joking in Turkey," Orient News (Constantinople), Septem­ ber 6 , 1924.

Daniel, Robert L. "The United States and the Turkish Republic Before World War II," Middle East Journal, October, 1 9 6 7, PP. 52-63.

Davis, William Stearns. "American Rights in Turkey," New York Times, September 2, 1924.

"Denies Crucifix Report," New York Times, September 5, 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 279

Dickinson, Lena M. "Letter," Missionary Herald, February, 1923, P» 75*

"A Distasteful Incident at Robert College," Miliett (Constantinople), March 23, 1928.

"Dr. J.L. Barton Urges Ratification of Treaty," Mew York Times, November 26, 1923.

"Dr. MacLachlan on the Treaty," Missionary Herald, July, 1924, p. 2 9 7.

Eddy, W.A. "Can Mission Colleges Be Christian?" Christian Century, September 27, 19 2 8, 1158-1160.

Edwards, J.F. "Holy Spirit and Islam," Moslem World, July, 1923, pp. 221-23C.

Ekrem, Hadije Selma. "Expulsion of Dr. Fisher," New York Times, September 11, 1924.

Ellis, W.T. "Breakdown of Missions in Turkey and a New Call to the Church," Christian Century, August l6 , 1923, pp. 1042-1046.

"The Emancipation of the Turkish Woman," Illustration (Paris), April 26, 1930, p. 548.

"The Fisher Case," Akcham (Constantinople), September 5, 1924.

Fisher, G.M. "Missionaries and International Political Questions," International Review of Missions, October, 1920, pp. 517-530.

"Foreign Schools," Miliett (Constantinople), March 23, 1 9 2 8.

"Foreign Schools," Republique (Istanbul), July 20, 1932.

"14,000 Out of Schools by Turkish Order," New York Times, April 15, 1924.

Fowle, Luther R. "Religion Only Minor Factor Under Turkish Rule Today," New York Times, February 19, 1928.

Gates, Caleb F. "The Turkish Transformation," Moslem World, April, 1936, pp. 1 86 -1 9 2.

. "Our Navy in the Near East," New York Times, February 11, 1923.

"Gerard Denounces Lausanne Treaty," New York Times, November 2 9, 1923*

"To Go To 'Jail’ in Turkey," New York Times, October 8 , 1 9 2 8.

Goodsell, Fred Field. "A Letter from Dr. Goodsell," Missionary Herald, December, 1928, p. 490.

"Greater Tension Felt at Lausanne," New York Times, January 21, 1923*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 280

"Grew Causes a Stir in Lausanne Parley," Nev York Times, May k, 1923*

Harper, William Allen. "Character Building in the Nev Republic," Missionary Herald, May, 1933# PP« 139-1^1.

Herrick, G.F. "Look Backvard and Forvard," Moslem World, April, 1923, PP. 123-126.

"How Terrible Is the 'Terrible Turk'?" Missionary Herald, January, 19 2 8, pp. 18-19.

Hyde, Walter Woodburn. "Ancient History and Turkish Schools," School and Society, November 25, 1933, P* 709*

______. "Hov Ancient History Is Taught in Turkish Schools," School and Society, July 15, 1933, pp. 89-92.

II Ikbal Ali Shah. "Church Disestablishment in Turkey," Outlook, June 2, 1928, pp. 6 7 6 -6 7 7 .

"Ismet Promises Safety to Missions," Nev York Times, May 20, 1923*

"Ismet Quits Lausanne," Nev York Times, February 8 , 1923•

James, Edvin L. "Finds Turks Eager for Our Schools," Nev York Times, March 19, 192h.

______. "No Forts in Straits, Allies Are Agreed," Nev York Times, December 6 , 1922.

. "Turks Welcome American Stand," Nev York Times, November 27, 1922.

Jessup, Henry W. "Making Peace With Turkey," Nev York Times, December 9, 1923*

"Miss Jillson's Deposition," Miliett (Constantinople), February 28, 1928.

"Keen-Eyed Turk Points Christian Menace," Christian Century, November 12, 1925, P« 1^21.

"Kemal Schooling On Today," Nev York Times, January 2, 1929*

"Latin, Greek, English Replace Arabic, Persian in Turkish Schools," Nev York Times, October 6 , 1929.

Linton, J.H. "Evangelism Through Schools in the Near East," Moslem World, January, 1932, pp. 5-15.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 281

"Looks Into Conversion of Moslem Students," Nev York Times, January 23, 1928.

MacKenzie, F. "Problems in Missionary Preparation," International Review of Missions, July, 1920, pp. 439-443.

Mahdesian, Arshag. "Our Schools in Turkey," Nev York Times, February 26, 1928.

Merrill, John E. "Spirit in the Near East," Missionary Herald, March, 1 9 2 3.

"Mission School in Turkey to Reopen," New York Times, October 28, 1928.

"Missionaries and Politics," Trans-Pacific, May 15, 1928, p. 6 .

"Missionary Personalia," Missionary Herald, monthly feature.

"Missions Reopened in Turkey," New York Times, January 11, 1924.

Morrison, Charles C. "Should Missionaries Remain in Turkey?" Christian Century, July 17, 1935, pp. 935-937-

Morrison, Samuel A. "Religious Liberty in Turkey," International Review of Missions, October, 1935, PP- 441-459.

Myers, A.J.W. "Speaking of Investments," Homiletic Review, May, 1931, PP- 353-356.

Newsletter of Constantinople Woman's College (New York), October, 1922.

Nilson, Paul E. "Turkey Seen From Tarsus," Moslem World, April, 1924, pp. 156-158.

"No American Army for the Near East," New York Times, November 18, 1922.

"Ourselves, As a Turks Sees Us," Missionary Herald, December, 1925, P- 552.

Papadopoulos, N. "No Converts in Turkey?" New York Times, December l6 , 1923-

Paton, W. and M.M. Underhill. "Survey of the Years 1932-1933," Inter­ national Review of Missions, January, 1934, pp. 49-51-

______, and M.M. Underhill. "Ten Years in Turkey," International Review of Missions, April, 1932, pp. 169-177-

Patrick, Mary Mills. "Asia Minor in the Time of the Seven Wise Men," National Geographic, January, 1920, pp. 47-67.

. "The Emancipation of Mohammedan Women," National Geographic, January, 1909, PP- 42-46.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 282

Peet, William W. "In and For Turkey," Missionary Herald, December, 1925, p. 551.

Perry, Edward lyier. "Thoughts from the East," Missionary Herald, April, 1927, PP. 124-125.

Photograph with caption. Missionary Herald, April, 1925, p. 214.

Photographs of the Bursa School Trial. Vakit (Constantinople), February 18, 1928.

Porter, Russell B. "Pleads Reich Cause at Williamstown," New York Times, August 26, 1928.

Price, Claire. "Mustafa Kemal and the Americans," Current History, October, 1922, pp. 116-125.

______. "Mustafa Kemal and the Christians," Current History, September, 1922, pp. 985-993.

"The Proceedings Instituted Against the Directrice (sic) and the Teachers of the American College at Bursa Who Are Charged With Proselytism," Akcham (Constantinople), February 14, 1928.

"Proselytism Again," Akcham (Constantinople), March 1, 1928.

"Protestant Missions as Seen by a Turk," Missionary Review of the World, March, 1 9 2 6, pp. 207-208.

"Pursuing Its Policy of Nationalism," New York Times, March 27, 1923*

"Tie Question of the Foreign Schools in Turkey, Akcham (Constantinople), March 21, 1 9 2 8.

Reed, Cass Arthur. "Has the Near East Christian College New Oppor­ tunities?" Moslem World, October, 1931* PP* 387-395.

"Religion in Turkey," New York Times, May 6 , 1 9 2 8.

"Religious Freedom in Turkey,” Missionary Herald, March, 1928, p. 91*

Falih Rifki Bey. "The Bursa Trial," Miliett (Constantinople), May 4, 1928.

. "Pera Correspondents," Miliett (Constantinople), April 4, 1925.

Riggs, Charles T. "Turkey Fifty Years Ago and Now," Missionary Review of the World, January, 1928, pp. 13-20.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 283

"Turkey Today," World Dominion, December, 1925# PP* 48-56.

______. "Turkey, the Treaties and the Missionaries," Missionary Re­ view of the World, May, 1927# PP* 343-3^8.

Riggs, Ernest Wilson. "The American Board and the Turks," Moslem World, January, 1924, pp. 1-4.

______. "In Turkey," International Review of Missions, January, 1923# pp. 10-15*

______. "The Missionary Outlook in Turkey," Moslem World, April, 1923, PP* 127-132.

. "The New Era in Turkey," World Dominion, December, 1923# pp. 19-24.

Riggs, H.H. "The Missionary Situation in Turkey," International Review of Missions, April, 1938, pp. 195-200.

Kiamouran Riza. "Letter," Miliett (Constantinople, February 20, 1 9 2 8.

Sanders, F.K. "Training Missionaries," Religious Education, December, 1919# PP. 369-373*

Necmettin Satik. "Conversions to Christianity," Akcham (Constan­ tinople), January 26, 1 9 2 8.

Saunders, Lucille. "Turks to Check up on Foreign Schools," New York Times, January 12, 1930.

"Schools in Turkey Close," New York Times, April 10, 1924.

"Score Turk Treaty as Disgrace to U.S." New York Times, November 25, 1923.

"Senate Again Confirms Grew," New York Times, April 14, 1928.

Sheldon, C.M. "Untheological Christianity," Christian Century, July 1, 1 92 6, pp. 8 36 -8 3 8 .

Smith, Fred B. "A Sadder Tragedy Than Smyrna," Missionary Herald, June, 1923# PP. 236-2 3 7.

"So Our Missionaries Write," Missionary Herald, September, 1926, p. 3 5 3.

"Speakers Denounce Treaty," New York Times, November 25, 1923.

"Stops Anti-Mission Move," New York Times, July 21, 1929*

"Tangle in the Senate on Grew Nomination," Nev York Times, April 8, 1 9 2 8.

"A Time to Hold On," Missionary Herald, January, 1923# P« 4.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2Qk

Tinckom-Fernandez, W.G. "American Schools Lead Turkish Youth," Nev York Times, November b, 1928,

. "Angora's Attitude Calmly Paternal," Nev York Times, May 20, 1928.

Trask, Roger R. "Unnamed Christianity During the Atatiirk Era," Moslem World, January, 1955> PP. 6 6 -7 6 .

"The Trial of the American Teachers of the Bursa School," Republique (Constantinople), February 14,1928.

Trowbridge, Stephen Van Rensselaer. "Impressions of Asiatic Turkey," National Geographic, December, 1914, pp. 598-609.

"Turk Reveals 'Rites' at American School," Nev York Times, April 4, 1928.

"Turk School Founder Dies as Classes Start," Nev York Times, January 3> 1929*

"Turkey," Missionary Herald, December, 1928, p. 4-76.

"Turkey Convicts Three American Women," Nev York Times, May 1, 1928.

"Turkey Expels American Professor," Nev York Times, August 7, 1924-.

"Turkey and Foreign Missions," Near East, April 12, 1928, pp. 4-57-4-58.

"Turkey Relaxes Curb on Mission Schools," Nev York Times, July 7> 1929*

"Turkey Restricts Schools," Nev York Times, December 31> 1929*

"Turkey Shuts Doors of American School," Nev York Times, February 1, 1928.

"Turkey to Try Americans," Nev York Times, February 12, 1 9 2 8.

"Turkey's New University," School and Society, November 18, 3.933> P* 681.

"Turkish Assembly Deposed Caliph," Nev York Times, March 4, 192b.

"Turkish Prayer for the American Women of Bursa," Missionary Herald, August, 1928, p. 317.

"Turkish Proposals Rejected in Part," Nev York Times, March 2 7, 1923.

"Turkish Women as Pioneers," International Review of Missions, October, 1927> PP* 6 4 5 -65^ ~

"Turks Close Foreign Schools," Nev York Times, April 8 , 1924.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 285

"Turks Close a Mission," Nev York Times, March 19, 192k.

"Turks End Trial of American Women," Nev York Times, April 26, 1928.

"Turks Let School Reopen," Nev York Times, August 23, 1928.

"Turks Lift Ban on Foreign Schools," Nev York Times, October 8, 192k.

"Turks May Close Mission Colleges," Nev York Times, June 7, 1925*

"Turks Reassure Dr. Barton," Nev York Times, January 21, 1923*

"Turks Reject All Allied Proposals," Nev York Times, May 2, 1923*

"Turks to Retry Americans," Nev York Times, August 26, 1928.

"Turks Want Our Schools," Nev York Times, December 8, 1922.

"Urges Ratification of Lausanne Treaty," Nev York Times, November 26 , 1923.

"Veteran Missionaries Go," Nev York Times, August 6, 1930.

Vrooman, Helen. "Turkish Adult Education," School and Society, January 23, 1932, pp. 12k-125.

Vrooman, Lee. "Issues in Missionary Education in the Near East," International Revlev of Missions, January, 1933> PP* 50-62.

______. "The Place of Missions in the Nev Turkey," International Reviev of Missions, July, 1929* PP* k01-k09*

______. "Schools in Smyrna After Ten Years of the Turkish Republic," School and Society, April, 1933» PP* Ik3-lk7.

Walker, E.M. and B.R. Beddy. "Do Missionaries Create Unrest?" Saturday Reviev, February 27, 1932, pp. 215-216.

Warburton, M.C. "Christian Education in the Near East," International Reviev of Missions, July, 1938, pp. k53-^62.

Wheeler, E.P. "Missions in Turkey," Nev York Tines, January 6, 192k.

"Where Nationalism is Strong," Missionary Herald, January, 1932, p. 19*

Williams, Maynard Oven. "American Alma Maters in the Near East," National Geographic, August, 19k5, PP* 237-256.

______. "Betveen Massacres in Van," National Geographic, August, 1919, PP* 181-18k.

______. "Seeing Three Thousand Years of History in Four Hours," National Geographic, December, 1928, pp. 719-739*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 286

______. "The Turkish Republic Comes of Age," National Geographic, May, 19^5, PP. 581-616.

"The Wise Turk," Missionary Herald. Tune, 1923, P* 2^k.

Woolvorth, William S., Jr. "The Moslem Mind in Turkey Today," Moslem World, April, 1927, pp. 139-1^6.

"Y.M.C.A." Ak Baba (Constantinople), January 15, 1923 .

Yunus Nadi Bey. "The Crisis," Republique (Constantinople), February 15, 1928.

. "Foreign Schools in Turkey," Republique (Constantinople), February 7, 1933-

______. "Regarding the Closing of the Smyrna American College," Republique (Constantinople), August 10, 193^-

Zumoto, M. "Missionaries and Politics," Trans-Pacific, May 8, 1928, p. 8.

3. Pamphlets, Brochures and Sermons

ABCFM. If Your Project Is in the Near East. Boston: ABCFM, 1937-

______. Oi^ht I To Become A Missionary To The Heathen? Boston: ABCFM, IBfTi

Adams, George Crawford. Opportunity of the Holy Spirit. Boston: ABCFM, 1899.

Anderson, Rufus. An Address Delivered in South Hadley, Massachusetts on July 2k, 1839 at the Second Anniversary of the Mount Holyoke Female Seminary^ Boston: Perkins and Marvin, 1839*

______. The Theory of Missions to the Heathen. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, lSh5*

______. The Work of Missions to be Progressive. Boston: Crocker end Brewster, 18k0. '

Behrends, Adolphus. Counting the Cost. Boston: Beacon Press, l88l.

Codman, John. The Duty of American Christians to Send the Gospel to the Heathen. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, I836.

Dewitt, William Radcliffe. The Love of Christ the Motive to Missionary Effort. Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin, ioU2.

Dwight, Timothy. A Sermon Delivered in Boston on September l6, 1813 Be­ fore the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Bos­ ton! S.T. Armstrong, Printer, I813 .

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 287

Fairchild, James H. Present Demand of the Missionary Work. Boston: Beacon Press, 1877.

Ferris, Isaac. Thy Kingdom Come. Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin, 1848.

Fisher, Samuel W. God's Purpose in Planting the American Church. Bos­ ton: T.R. Marvin and Son, i860.

Hopkins, Mark. Burdens to he Cast upon the Lord. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, l84Ji

Kirk, Edward N. Christian Missions--A Work of Faith. Boston: T.R. Marvin and Son, 1865.

Lyman, Albert J. The Gaining of Men. Boston: ABCFM, 1893.

Magie, David. Our True Encouragement. Boston: T.R. Marvin, 1847.

Riddle, DBvid Hunter. Ground of Confidence in Foreign Missions. Bos­ ton: T.R. Marvin, TB f T

Skinner, Thomas Harvey. Progress, the Law of the Missionary Work. Bos­ ton: Crocker and Brewster, 1843.

Smith, Henry. The True Missionary Spirit in the Church the Measure of Her Christian Principled Boston: T.R. Marvin and Son, 1862. ~

Sperry, William G. The Vision of the Kingdom. Boston: ABCFM, 1903*

Storrs, Richard S. Always Abounding in the Work of the Lord. Boston: T.R. Marvin, lBSO.

Thompson, Augustus C. Future Probation and Foreign Missions. Boston: Beacon Press, 1886.

Treadwell, John. Tie Inaugural Address, Elizabethtown, N.J.: ABCFM, 1819.

United Church Board for World Ministries. Builders Need Bridges. Bos­ ton: UCEWM, 1973.

Walker, George L. The Witness to the Founder's Faith. Boston: Stanley and Usher, I885.

Worcester, Samuel M. Discourses at the Semi-Centennial of the Institu­ tion of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: T.R. Marvin and Son, i860.

4. Books, Bound Volumes, Bound Collections, Bound Reports

Addison, James Thayer. The Christian Approach to the Moslem. New York: Columbia University Press, 1942.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 288

Ahmad, Feroz. The Young Turks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Allen, Henry h'lisha. The Turkish Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935*

ABCFM, Almanac of Missions. Boston: ABCFM, annually, 1886-1916.

______. Annual Report. Boston: ABCFM, annually.

______. Centennial of Constantinople Station, 1831-1931. Boston: Harvey C. Meeken, 1931*

______. Constitution, Lavs and Regulations. Boston: ABCFM, 1833 .

______. Directory and Calendar of Prayer. Boston: ABCFM, annually.

______. The Higher Educational Institutions of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: ABCFM, 1904.

______. Historical Sketch of the Missions of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: T.R. Marvin & Son, 1859.

. Historical Sketch of the Missions in European Turkey, Asia Minor and ArmeniaT Mew York: J.A. Gray and Green, 1866.

______. Manual for Missionary Candidates. Boston: ABCFM, 1866.

______. Maps and Illustrations. Boston: ABCFM, 1846.

______. Maps of Missions. Boston: ABCFM, 1840 and 1898.

______. Hie Moral Condition and Prospects of the Heathen. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1633.

. Has One Hundredth Anniversary of the Haystack Prayer Meeting. Boston: a b CFM, 190'/.

______. Organization of the Board. Boston: ABCFM, 1834

______. Outline of the Plan on Which the Missions of the Board Are To Be Prosecuted. Boston: Crocker and Brewster, I837 .

. Turkey Stations of American Missions and Schools. Boston: K bSPm , I 5 H T ------

______. Year Book. Boston: ABCFM and WEM, annually.

Anderson, Rufus. To Advance the Gospel, ed. Robert Pierce. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1967.

______. Foreign Missions: Their Relations and Claims. New York: C. Scribner and Co., I869.

______. History of the Missions of the American Board of Commission­ ers for Foreign Missions to the Oriental Churches. 2 vols. Boston: Congregational Publishing Society, 1873*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 289

. Memorial Volume of the First Fifty Years of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: ABCFM, 1B63 .

Arpee, Leon. A History of Armenian Christianity from the Beginning to Our Own Time! New York: Armenian Missionary Association7 19^67

Badeau, John S. The American Approach to the Arab World. New York: Harper and Row, 1968.

Bahrampour, Firouz. Turkey: Political and Social Transformation. Brooklyn, N.Y.: Theo Gaus' Sons, 19&7.

Bartlett, Samuel Colcord. Historical Sketches of the Missions of the American Board. New York: Arno Press, 1972.

Barton, James Levi. The Christian Approach to Islam. Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1918.

______. Daybreak in Turkey. Boston: Pilgrim Press, I908.

Bennett, John C. Christianity and Our World. New York: Association Press, 1936.

Berkes, Niyazi. The Development of Secularism in Turkey. Montreal: McGill University Press, 196k.

Birge, John Kingsley. A Guide to Turkish Area Study. Washington, D.C.: American Council of Learned Societies, 19^9-

Bisbee, Eleanor. The New Turks: Pioneers of the Republic, 1920-1950. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951.

Bliss, Daniel. The Reminiscences of Daniel Bliss. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1920.

Capen, Samuel Billings. The Next Ten Years. Boston: ABCFM, 1910.

Clarke, William Newton. A Study of Christian Missions. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1900.

Couzinos, Efthimios N. Twenty-Three Years in Asia Minor (1899-1922). New York: Vantage Press, 19^9.

Daniel, Robert L. American Philanthropy in the Near East. Athens: Ohio University Press, 1970.

Davis, Helen C.M., ed. Some Aspects of Religious Liberty of Nationals In the Near East. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1938*

Davison, Roderic H. Turkey. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1968.

DeNovo, John A. American Interests and Policies in the Middle East. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 19&3*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 290

Dorman, Henry Gaylord, Toward Understanding Islam: Contemporary Apolo­ getic of Islam and Missionary Policy. New York: Columbia Univer­ sity Press, 19^8.

Douglas, Truman B. Preaching and the New Reformation. New York: Harpers, 1956.

Eddy, David Brewer. What Next in Turkey? Boston: ABCFM, 1913.

Ekrem, Selma. Turkey, Old and New. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 19^7-

______. Unveiled: the Autobiography of a Turkish Girl. New York: I. Washburn, 1930.

Fesch, Paul. Constantinople aux Derniers Jours d'Abdul-Hamid. Paris: M. Riviere, 190?.

Field, James A. America and the Mediterranean World, 1776-1882. Prince­ ton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Finnie, David. Pioneers East. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Fisher, Sidney Nettleton. The Middle East: A History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1959.

Forsyth, P.T. Missions in Church and State. New York; Eaton and Mains, n.d.

Garnett, Lucy Mary Jane. Home Life in Turkey. New York: MacMillan Co., 1909.

______. Mysticism and Magic in Turkey. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1912.

Turkey of the Ottomans. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1911.

______. Turkish Life in Town and Country. London: G. Newnes, Ltd., 1905.

______. The Turkish People. London: Methuen and Co., I909.

______. The Women of Turkey and Their Folk-Lore. 2 volumes. London: D. Nutt, I890-1S9I.

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

Gidney, James. A Mandate for Armenia? Kent, Ohio: Kent State Univer­ sity Press, 1967.

Goddard, Burton L., ed. The Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Missions. Camden, N.J.: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1967.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 291

Goode11, William. An Account of Armenians at Constantinople. Boston: ABCFM, £n.d.}

______. "The Old and the New." Unpublished manuscript, Library of Congress Microform, Washington, D.C., 1853.

Goodsell, Fred Field. They Lived Their Faith. Boston: ABCFM, 196l.

______. You Shall Be My Witnesses. Boston: ABCFM, 1959*

Gordon, Leland J. American Relations With Turkey, 1830-1930. Phila­ delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1932.

Grabill, Joseph L. Protestant Diplomacy and the Near East: Missionary Influence on American Policy, 1810-1927. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971.

Greene, Joseph K. Leavening the Levant. New York: Pilgrim Press, 1916.

Halide Adib. Turkey Faces West. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1930.

______. The Turkish Ordeal. New York: Century Co., 1928.

Hamlin, Cyrus. Among the Turks. New York: Carter & Brothers, I878.

______. My Life and Times. Boston: Congregational Sunday School and Publishing Society, I893.

Harrison, Richard. Meet the Turks. London: Jarrolds, 1961.

Hine, Mary Lee. "Turkish-American Relations Since 1923." Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of International Service, American Univer­ sity, Washington, D.C., 1938.

Hocking, William E; The Coming World Civilization. New York: Harpers, 1957.

______. The Spirit of World Politics. New York: MacMillan, 1932.

Hopwood, Derek. The Russian Presence in Syria and Palestine 18^3-1914: Church and Politics in the Near East. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

Housepian, Marjorie. The Smyrna Affair. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1966.

Howard, Harry. The Partition of Turkey. New York: Howard Fertig, 1966.

Israel, Fred L. Major Peace Treaties of Modem History. U volumes. New York: Chelsea House of Publishers, 1967.

Istanbul Woman's College. Calendar of the American College for Girls at Constantinople. Istanbul: IWC, annually.

Jackson, Barbara Ward. Turkey. London: Oxford University Press, 19^2.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 292

Jarrett-Kerr, Martin. Christ and the Nev Rations. New York: Morehouse - Barlow Co., 1966.

______. Patterns of Christian Acceptance. London: Oxford University Press, 1972.

Jenkins, Hester Donaldson. An Educational Ambassador to the Near East. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1925.

Kawerau, Peter. Amerika und die orientalischen Kirchen. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1958.

Kazamias, Andreas M. Education and the Quest for Modernity in Turkey. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19&7*

Kinross, John P.D.B., III. Ataturk: A Biography of Mustafa Kemal, Father of Modern Turkey. New York: William Morrow and Co., 19 6 k.

Kohn, Hans. Nationalism and Imperialism in the Hither East. London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1932.

Kraemer, Hendrik, die chrlstliche Botschaft in einer nlchtchristlichen Welt. Zollikon-Ztfrich: evangelischer Verlag, 19^0.

______. The Communication of the Christian Faith. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1956'.

______. Waroom Zending. 's-Gravenhage: Boekcentrum, 1938.

______. Religion and the Christian Faith. London: Lutterworth, 1956.

______. World Cultures and World Religions. Philadelphia: West­ minster Press, I7V.0 .

Lenczowski, George. United States Interests in the Middle East. Wash­ ington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute, I960.

Lewis, Bernard. The Emergence of Modern Turkey. New York: Oxford Uni­ versity Press," 1966.

Lindsay, Rao Humpherys. Nineteenth Century American Schools in the Le­ vant. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, 1965.

Mango, Andrew. Discovering Turkey. New York: Hastings House, 1971.

Mathews, Basil Joseph, ed. East and West: Conflict or Cooperation? London: Student Christian Movement Press, 1936.

Morrison, Stanley Andrew. Near East. London: Highway Press, 1955*

Near East Colleges Association. Annual Report. New York: NECA, annually.

Neill, Stephen. Call to Mission. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 293

Neill, Stephen, Gerald H. Anderson and John Godwin, eds. Concise Dic­ tionary of the Christian World Mission* Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1971.

New York Tribune. The American Board. New York: Tribune Association, 1889.

Nyrop, Richard F. and others. Area Handbook for the Republic of Turkey. Washington, D.C.: American University Foreign Studies Division, 1973*

Orga, Irfan. Portrait of a Turkish Family. New York: Macmillan, 1950.

Padwick, Constance E. Call to Istanbul. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958.

Patrick, Mary Mills. A Bosporus Adventure. Stanford: Stanford Univer- Press, 193^*

______. Under Five Sultans. New York: Century Co., 1929*

Peabody, Andrew Preston. The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: Crosby and Nichols, 1&62 .

Peet, William Wheelock. No Less Honor, ed. Louise Jennison Peet. Chattanooga: Private Printing, 1939*

Perkins, Justin. Historical Sketch of the Mission to the Nestorians. Bo ston: ABCFM, 1866.

Phillips, Clifton Jackson. Protestant America and the Pagan World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 19^9*

Pierce, Joe E. Understanding the Middle East. Rutland, Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Co., 1971.

Prime, E.D.G. Memoirs, or Forty Years in the Turkish Empire. New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1876.

Psomiades, Harry J. The Ecumenical Patriarchate Under the Turkish Re- public. New York: Greek Archdiocese of North and South America, 1W r

Ramsaur, Ernest E. The Young Turks: Prelude to the Revolution of 1908. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957*

Rice, W.A. Crusaders of the Twentieth Century. London: published by the author, 1910.

Richter, Julius. History of Protestant Missions in the Near East. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910.

Robert College. Report of the President and Faculty at Constantinople. New York: Office of the Trustees, published occasionally.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29h

______. Statements in Regard to Robert College. Constantinople: RC, 1871.

Ross, Frank Alexander, C.L. Fry and E. Sibley. The Wear East and Ameri­ can Philanthropy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1929.

Scherer, George Henry. Mediterranean Missions, 1808-1870. Beirut: Bible Lands Union for Christian Education, n.d.

Scherer, James A. Missionary, Go Home! Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, I96U.

Scipio, Lynn A. My Thirty Years in Turkey. Rindge, N.H.: R.R. Smith, 1955.

Seelye, Julius H. Christian Missions. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co., 1876.

Sharp, Roland Hall. On Wings of the Word. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pierce, 1955*

Shaw, Plato Ernest. American Contacts with the Eastern Churches 1820- 1870. Chicago: American Society of Church History, 1937*

Shotwell, James Thomson. Turkey at the Straits: A Short History. New York: MacMillan, 19^0.

Smith, Roy L. Hie Revolution in Christian Missions. New York: Abing- don-Cokesbury, 19kl.

Smith, Wilfred Cantwell. Islam in Modern History. Princeton: Prince­ ton University Press, 1957.

Southgate, Horatio. Vindication of the Rev. H. Southgate. New York: Stanford and Swords, 184k.

Spencer, William. Political Evolution in the Middle East. Phila­ delphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 196 2 .

Storrs, Richard S. Addresses on Foreign Missions Delevered Before the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: ABCFM, 1900.

Straus, Oscar. Under Four Administrations. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1922 .

Strong, Elnathan Ellsworth. Mission Stories of Many Lands. Boston: ABCFM, 1885.

Strong, William Ellsworth. The Story of the American Board. Boston: Pilgrim Press, 1910.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 295

Susa, Nasim. The Capitulatory Regime of Turkey, Its History, Origin, and Mature. Baltimore: Johns-Hopkins Press, 1933.

Thomas, Lewis V. and Richard N. Frye. The United States and Turkey and Iran. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1951*

Tibawi, Abdul Latif. American Interests in Syria, 1800-1901: A Study of Educational, Literary and Religious Work. London: Oxford University Press, 1966.

______. British Interests in Palestine, 1800-1901: A Study of Reli­ gious and Educational Enterprise. London: Oxford University Press, 19olT

Toynbee, Arnold J. and Kenneth P. Kirkwood. Turkey. New York: C. Scribner's SonB, I927.

Toynbee, Arnold J. The Western Question in Greece and Turkey. London: Constable, 1923 .

Tracy, Joseph. The History of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions^ New York: M.W. Dodd, 1&2.

Trask, Roger R. The United States Response to Turkish Nationalism and Reform, 1914-1939. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1971.

U.S. Congressional Record. Vol. LXV.

United States Department of State. Foreign Relations of the United States. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, annually.

Vali, Ferenc Albert. Bridge Across the Bosporus: the Foreign Policy of Turkey. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1971.

Washburn, George. Fifty Years in Constantinople. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1909.

Webster, Donald Everett. The Turkey of Atatttrk. Philadelphia: Ameri­ can Academy of Political Science, 1939*

White, George Edward. Adventuring With Anatolia College. Grinnell, Iowa: Herald-Register Publishing Co., 19^0.

World Missionary Conference, 1910. Report of Commission VII: Missions and Governments. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1910.

Yalman, Ahmet Emin. Turkey in My Time. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1956.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 296

B. SECONDARY SOURCES

1. Letters and Statements

Ismet Pa^a. Identic letter to British, French and Italian Chiefs of Delegations at Lausanne, trans. United States Department of State. Lausanne, Switzerland: July 2b, 1923. NARG 59: 711.672/170.

_ . Letter to Joseph C. Grew, trans. United States Department of State. Lausanne, Switzerland: August 6, 1923 . NARG 59: 711.672/170.

_ . Statement to the Americans at Lausanne, trans. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: July, 1923.

2. Articles of Turkish Law and Regulations

Article 157 of the Turkish Criminal Code, trans. American Consulate at Izmir. Izmir: January 29, 1931* NARG 59: .YlSb/lbb.

Article 158 of the Turkish Criminal Code, trans. American Consulate at Izmir. Izmir: January 29, 1931* NARG 59: 'iS'J."LlSb/lhb.

Article 159 of the Turkish Criminal Code, trans. American Consulate at Izmir. Izmir: January 29, 1931. NARG 59: 367.1l6Vl^.

Article 160 of the Turkich Criminal Code, trans. American Consulate at Izmir. Izmir: January 29, 1931* NARG 59: 367*1164/1U4.

Article 526 of the Turkish Criminal Code, trans. American Embassy at Constantinople. Constantinople: March 28, I928. NARG 59: 367.1l6^BST/30.

Article 37 of Regulations for Private Schools, Ministry of Public Instruction of the Republic of Turkey, trans. American Embassy at Constantinople. Constantinople: March 28, 1928. NARG 59: 367.H 6UBST/3 O.

3. Periodicals

A. Adnan. "The College Incident," Ticaret (Izmir), May 29, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.II6U/19I+.

"Again the Old Case," Tevhid I Efkiar (Constantinople), September 9, 1924. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.II6UR54/5O.

Agao^lu Ahmet Bey. "Is the Word 'Ass' an Insult or Not?" Hakimiett-I- Milliye (Ankara), August 28, I92U. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.H6UR5V50.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 297

_ . "The Bursa School Trial," Hakimiett-I-Milliye (Ankara), February 5* 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.ll6l4.BST/3 O.

_ . "Turkish Public Instruction Society," Milllyet (Constan­ tinople), February 11, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/25.

"American Colleges," Yeni Asir (Izmir), May 22, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 3 6 7.II6 I+/19I4.

"American Colleges and May 19/' Anadolu (Izmir), May 22, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.116^/19^.

"American Colleges for Boys and Girls," Yeni Asir (Izmir), May 21, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.1l6l4-/l9^.

"The American School at Bursa, Part 1," Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), January 25, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II6UBST/5.

"The American School at Bursa, Part 2," Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), January 28, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II6I+BST/5.

"The American School at Bursa," Ikdam (Constantinople), February 10, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6i4BST/l8.

"The American School at Koum Kapou," Stamboul (Constantinople), February lk, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.H 6I+BST/25 .

"The American School at Merzifon," Vakit (Constantinople), February 15, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II624BST/I8.

"The 'Americans' United," Son Telegraf (Constantinople), September k, 192k. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.II6UR5V 50.

"Are Our Girls Being Converted to Christianity at the American School in Bursa?" Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), January 22, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367*H6^BST/5.

Mehmet Asim Bey, "The American School at Bursa," Vakit (Constan­ tinople), January 31, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6^BST/5.

______. "Robert College,” Vakit (Istanbul), April 12, 1930. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.116^/129.

"At the College," Yeni Asir (Izmir), May 28, 1933. trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.1164/19^-•

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 298

"Autopsy," Haraket (Constantinople), May 18, 1929* trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.H 63/6.

"The Black Danger That Is Haunting Youthful Consciences," Httrriyet (Izmir), March 9, 1931* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.1163/9.

"Building for the Turkish College Tanyeri," Anadolu (Izmir), May 25, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.1l6k/l9k.

"The Bursa School," Ikdam (Constantinople), February 20, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/2 5 .

"The Bursa School Trial," Hakimiett-I-Milliye (Ankara), February 5, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/3 O.

"The Bursa School Trial," Ikdam (Constantinople), February 22, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367»ll6kBST/25•

"The Bursa School Trial,” Stamboul (Constantinople), February 2k, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II6UBST/25 .

"The Bursa Trial," Milliyet (Constantinople), March 6, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/27.

"Children Converted to Christianity at Gedik Pa§a School," Son Saat (Constantinople, February 13, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.H 6UBST/25 .

"Christian Propaganda at the American School of Bursa," Cumhuriyet (Con­ stantinople), January 2k, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/5.

"The Christianizing Incident,” Hayat (Constantinople), February 2, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/l8.

"The Closing of the Bursa School," Vakit (Constantinople), February 6, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II6IBST/18.

"Deposition Made by Behice Hanim During the Trial of the Teachers of the Closed Bursa School," Milliyet (Constantinople), February 20, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/25.

"Detailed Report of the Bursa School Trial," Milliyet (Constantinople), February 18, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l6kBST/25.

"The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), September k, 192k. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.1l6kR5k/50.

"The ’Donkey’ Case," Vatan (Constantinople), September 10, 192k. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.1l6kR5k/50.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 299

"Educational Questions," Stamboul (Constantinople), February 2, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/18.

Mehmet Emin Bey. "Is the Conversion to Christianity Incident a Result of a Culture Crisis?" Hayat (Constantinople), February l6, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59’ 367»ll64BST/25.

"Enthusiastic Youth," Yeni Asir (Izmir), May 21, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367*1164/194.

"An Example of American Extreme Fanaticism," Tevhid I Efkiar (Constan­ tinople), March 22, I923 . trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.1l61tR5l+/35.

"The Expressions of an American at Robert College," Vakit (Constan­ tinople), September 8, 1924. trans. High Commission; NARG 59: 367.H64R5V5O.

"Face to Face With a Pitch Black Danger," Httrriyet (Izmir), March 12, 1931. trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367-H63/9*

"The Finance Campaign of Philanthropic Organizations," Yoghovourti Tsain (Constantinople), February 8, 1923* trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367-U 64R54/34 .

"The Fisher Case," Tevhid I Efkiar (Constantinople), September 11, 1924. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/50.

"Foreign Schools and Turkish Culture," Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), February 15* 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/I8 .

Kttprttltt Zade Fuad Bey. "The Conversions to Christianity and the Culture Crisis," Hayat (Constantinople), February 9, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367*ll64BST/25.

Halil Halid Bey. "The Importance of Religion,” Vakit (Constantinople), February 11, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/25 .

"The Httrriyet,” Halkin Sesi (Izmir), March 8, 1931- trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.II63 /9.

"An Incident at the American College at Gttztepe," Anadolu (Izmir), December 29, 1932. trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.1164/187.

"Insult to Turks," Httrriyet (Izmir), January 17, 1931* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367*ll64/l43.

"Investigation of Conditions at the American School at Bursa," Milliyet (Constantinople), January 25, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/5.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 300

"Investigations Regarding the American College at Gtiztepe Have Been Completed," Anadolu (Izmir), January 26, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.1164/187.

"Is the American School at Koum Kapou Also Engaged in Religious Propa­ ganda?" Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), February 13, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/18.

A.L. "The Foreign Schools in Our Country," Vakit (Constantinople), February 7, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l64BST/l8.

"Missionary Propaganda in Turkey," Son Saat (Constantinople), March 9, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367* H64BST/27.

"Moslem Children in Christian Church," Shark (Smyrna), October l6, 1923. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367*1164/58.

"The Moslem Students at Robert College Are Obliged to Go to Chapel," Tevhid I Efkiar (Constantinople), February 21, 1923. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367»ll64R54/34.

Abdurrahman Muhittin. "How Missionaries Are Converting Moslems to Christianity," Vakit (Istanbul), article appearing in sixteen daily installments, beginning March 18, I933 and continuing through and including April 2, 1933* trans. American Embassy at Ankara.. NARG 5 9: 367.1163/22 .

Yunus Nadi Bey. "Foreign Schools in Turkey," Cumhuriyet (Istanbul), February 21, 1933. trans. American Embassy at Istanbul. NARG 59: 367•1164/190.

"Particulars of the Closing of the Bursa School," Milliyet (Constan­ tinople), February 5, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

"Miss (sic: read 'Mr.') and Mrs. Perry Are Students in Our University," Son Saat (Constantinople), March 21(22), 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.H64BST/30.

"Poker at International College," Halkin Sesi (Izmir), March 13, 1932. trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367«ll64/l71.

"Poor Ismet Siri Hanimll" Hvirriyet (Izmir), March 9, 1931. trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 3 6 7 .1163/9 .

"Religious Propaganda at the American School of Bursa," Vakit (Constan­ tinople), January 23, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/5.

"Religious Propaganda in Foreign Schools, Part 1," Son Saat (Constan­ tinople), February 2, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 301

"Religious Propaganda in Foreign Schools, Part 2," Son Saat (Constan­ tinople), February 6, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1164BST/18.

"Religious Propaganda in Foreign Schools," Vakit (Constantinople), Feb­ ruary 10, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1l64BST/l8.

"Society for the Protection of Turkish Culture," Hizmet (Izmir), June 29, 1931. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64/I55.

"Still the •Donkey' Case," Vatan (Constantinople), September 10, 192k. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 3 ^ 7 . 1 1 ^ 5 V50.

"They Convert Our Children," Ileri (Constantinople), March 23 , 1923 . trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367*h64R54/35.

"The Trial of the American Teachers," Milliyet (Constantinople), Febru­ ary 8, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367*H64BST/i8.

"The Trial of the American Teachers at Bursa," Cumhuriyet (Constan­ tinople), March 6, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II6J+BST/2 8 .

"The Trial of the Teachers of the Bursa School," Vakit (Constan­ tinople), March 6, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II6UBST/2 7 .

Mustafa Uzdemir. Letter to the Editor. Ticaret (Izmir), May 26, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: J>6'J.ll6kfl9k.

"Vassif Bey's Explanation," Ikdam (Constantinople), September 10, 1924. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.II64R54/50.

"We Respect All Religions, But..." Httrriyet (Izmir), March 10, 1931* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367»ll63/lO*

"What Does This Mean?" Hizmet (Izmir), January 17, 1933* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367»ll64/l87.

"While Vomiting Spite He Is Hiding His Cross on His Chest With His Hand," Httrriyet (Izmir), March 7, 1931* trans. American Consulate at Izmir. NARG 59: 367.H 63/IO.

"Will They Thrust Propaganda Into the University Also?" Son Saat (Con­ stantinople), March 18, 1928. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.II64BST/3 O.

"To the Young Men's Christian Association," Yoghovourti Tsain (Constan­ tinople), February 9, 1923* trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.1164R54/34.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 302

Zekeria Bey. "The Donkey Case," Cumhuriyet (Constantinople), Septem­ ber 4, 192k. trans. High Commission. NARG 59: 367.II64R54/50.

______. Editorial, Resimli Ay (Constantinople), May, 1929. trans. American Embassy. NARG 59: 367.1163/6.

4. Books, Bound Volumes, Bound Collections

Adler, Cyrus and Allan Ramsay. Told in the Coffee House. New York: MacMillan, 1898.

Bain, R. Nisbet, tr. Turkish Fairy Tales and Folk Tales, by Ignacz Kunos. New York: Dover Publications, 19&9.

Bamham, Henry D. Tales of Nasr-Ed-Din Khodja. London: Nisbet and Co., 1923.

______. The Khodja. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1924.

Borrow, George. The Turkish Jester: or the Pleasantries of Cogia Nasr Eddin Effendi" Ipswich: W. Webber, l8Ur.

Ziya GiJkalp. The Principles of Turkism. tr. Robert Devereux. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1968.

______. Turkish Nationalism and Western Civilization, tr. Niyazi Berkes. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959*

Kelsey, Alice Geer. Once the Hodja. New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1914.

Kunos, Ignacz. Forty-Four Turkish Fairy Tales. New York: T.Y. Crowell Co., 1914.

______. Turkish Fairy Tales and Folk Tales. London: Lawrence and Bullen, 1696.

______. Thrkisehe Volkm&rchen aus Stambul. Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill, 1905.

MacCallum, Frank Lyman, tr. The Mevlidi Sherif. by Stileyman £elebi. London: John Murray, 1943*

Shah, Idries, compiler. The Exploits of the Incomparable Mulla Nasrudin. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1966.

Walker, Warren S. and Ahmet E. Uysal. Tales Alive in Turkey. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. FIGURES

303

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ~ 30w k t.f~ •••• •;;'., •'' cf'-u:t~ " .,. 'tl["""ll""" •••• ····' • 1911 t ·····" ' ·.-···::~·· •' in l'"' t)..,l •.... p < : """ ''"""" •' "'" ••::" .:. Turkey • ,..... j''' • ,;,. ,.-;"' ,,..... ,:... in .. ,,,,...:~ "'-:,.~..... , ·:.;, ,to' ,, d'~ :. t. • ::.~::.. ,.,.··' v•' • ";"e~~~.L'" :::::···' Board ~1'-'~ ,.. • .. ~··'' , '••''" •"'" ' ...... , •. ;:.. .: •' ,. .~ v' 1 :· ./ " ' . o~~"~~J,. ., ,..~ '"~...... vr ··:: /1.-:t:«l I/"'" :~ <:·;.: American ~.:/ •• ~·;; e , .;:.,0~~ ··:.;;::.:.. / '!. :.~~: .. ~·< . ····' .. ~·:··. ' • ea.; ,;~;;~~~- the Figure .. J' "• >':'"'"' '• of .:.. "''' I#..-.. ,,,.. ,Jt•'": ;<'jJ tR~a"'~;""~'~ liS'" f . ·:· •""""'" ~d"' .... ••••• ,...,.,.~ •.. - ::Jj/luk ,

·l C:l \~ l f il.o"lt.a"' \ ~._ / t2a 1'<) ~ ~~~ leu ""'" M!iJ-"·~ "''" ~MJ .B 't.,.._ ~" <;)l ~ "·iiiG <'<",., \ . jo ~ r.1 ~ \ ~~ut i: e ~A..Q~ '>, ~ ~ ~YtJt . ~ ~\ " 1;, ¥ -~" ~ "0 .. '"8 ~ "'•c ."l !R 0 .c0 &l •c -~ "~ ...; ~ American and Turkey Prior Schools in Colleges to 191^ j ~ ~

ReproducedReproduced with with permission permission of the of copyrightthe copyright owner. owner. Further Furtherreproduction reproduction prohibited withoutprohibited permission. without permission. 3o6306 J r

l";)

"'N ~ .;; 1)t » ~ .;; m ~

4 ..... ~ :::1"' ~~;d. A-a 0 ~ a u "A.o ..: ~ "'iii ....m j 0 Jl ~ " "'d ..:~

~ American and Schools Turkey Colleges in 1923 in ~ J ~

ReproducedReproduced with with permission permission of the of copyrightthe copyright owner. owner. Further Furtherreproduction reproduction prohibited withoutprohibited permission. without permission. 307307

J ~ j ';)

OJ"' "'rl .::1,., «)l t:. 8" .s ~ ~ . ~ t.v ~ rl la~ /..o~ ~~\ rl .. " 0 \ "-o .:'\' " ~ "' c "'~ rl. 0 ~ 0 lA ~ c -~ "~ ~ "" American and Schools Turkey Colleges 1929 in J ~

ReproducedReproduced with with permission permission of the of copyrightthe copyright owner. owner. Further Furtherreproduction reproduction prohibited withoutprohibited permission. without permission. 308308 1 ~

"<)l

::l

~ 1933 t .~., ""0 0<" .::i ~ .0 ~ ~ rl."" ~ < 0 rl 0 ~ ILo' ...!'1' " "'~" 0 rl ~ 0 m ~ ~" "

~ American and Turkey Schools Colleges in in ~ J c1

ReproducedReproduced with with permission permission of the of copyrightthe copyright owner. owner. Further Furtherreproduction reproduction prohibited withoutprohibited permission. without permission. 309

~ "''",., B p0 ~ _m "" " .-: ~ "' " .~ '"0 '" " Fisher's Professor Slide" "Donkey

Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproduction Further reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. APPENDIXES

310

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 311

APPENDIX A

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

Adams, Kathryn Newell - President of Constantinople Woman's College.

Adil Bey - lawyer for American Colleges in Constantinople.

Mustafa Adnan Bey - Delegate in Constantinople of the Foreign Department of the Grand National Assembly, Minister of Public Works.

Agao&lu Ahmet Bey - Deputy of Kars, newspaper editorialist.

Allen, Charles - American Consul at Constantinople.

Asim Bey - Chief Public Prosecutor at Izmir.

Avni Bey - Member of the Council of Education of the Ministry of Public Instruction.

Barton, James L., D.D. - Secretary of the Foreign Department of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

Behcet Bey - Chief Director of Public Instruction of the Constantinople Zone.

Mustafa Behic - Public Prosecutor in the Bursa School Trial.

Behice ffandm - One of the accusers in the Bursa School Trial, a former teacher and employee of the school.

Belcher, Harold B. - Assistant Treasurer of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

Belin, F. Lammot - First Secretary of the Embassy of the United States at Constantinople.

Besim Bey - Inspector of the Ministry of Public Instruction in Ankara.

Note: The current system of family names in Turkey had not been adopted in the period covered by the major part of this study. The names commonly used are listed alphabetically according to the second component, as if that were a family name, but the usual order is conserved. Honorific titles are not counted in alphabeticization. Where known, family names will be given in the identification.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 312

Birge, John Kingsley - Head of the Publication Department of the Bible House in Constantinople.

Blanchard, Ferdinand Q. - Resident of Cleveland, Ohio, visited Constan­ tinople in 1925, wrote am article appraising future of missions in Turkey for The Missionary Herald.

Bristol, Rear Admiral Mark Lambert - United States High Commissioner to Turkey, 1919 to 1927*

Brown, Professor Philip Marshall - Member of the Board of Trustees of Robert College.

Buisson, Ferdinand - French educator, successively inspector, inspector general, and director of elementary teaching.

Burns, Eleanor Irene - Dean of Constantinople Woman’s College.

Bursley, Herbert S. - American Consul in Izmir.

Calder, Helen B. - Friend of the missionaries in Bursa, visited the Bursa station in December, 1927# and January, 1928.

Cavid Bey - An official of the Ministry of Public Instruction in Ankara.

Coffin, Henry Sloane - President of Union Theological Seminary, New York, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Robert College.

Colmyer, Miss Bertha D. - Missionary, teacher of Domestic Science and Industrial Arts at Merzifon.

Compton, Carl C. - Missionary, Representative of Near East Relief.

Cramp, William M. - American Vice-consul at Istanbul.

Day, Lucille Elizabeth - Teacher at the Girls' Lyceum at Bursa, defen­ dant in Bursa School Trial, returned to United States to work with Student Volunteer Movement.

Dolbeare, Frederic R. - United States High Commission staff, acting High Commissioner in mid-December, 1922.

Duggan, Stephen P. - Director of Institute of International Education, New York.

Dulles, Allen W. - Chief of Near East Division of the United States Department of State.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 313

Dwight, Adelaide S. - Missionary, evangelistic worker in Talas.

Eddy, Sylvia T. - Missionary in Talas.

Emerson, Mabel - Associate Secretary of Foreign Department of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

Ahmet Emin Bey - Vali of Constantinople in 1924, newspaper editorialist.

Mehmet Emin Bey - Chairman of the Committee of Education and Training of the Ministry of Public Instruction in 1928, editorialist for newspapers in 1928, Chairman of the Education Council of the Ministry of Public Instruction in 1929*

Enisse Bey - Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Turkey in 1928.

Fatin Bey - Vali of Vilayet of Bursa.

Fenenga, Agnes - Missionary in Mardin, later in Istanbul.

Hiassan Ferid Bey - Deputy of Kayseri in 1928,

Fisher, Professor Edgar Jacob - Professor of History and Sociology at Robert College, later Dean, author of two incidents,first in lecturing aboard Reliance in 1924, second in furnishing data on Turkey to writer of uncomplimentary article on Turkish history text in 1933*

Fowle, Luther R. - Treasurer of Turkey Mission after resignation of William W. Peet.

K&prultt Zade Fuad Bey - Under Secretary of State for the Ministry of Public Instruction in Turkey in 1924, editorialist for newspapers.

Gates, Caleb Frank - President of Robert College.

George, W. Perry - American Consul in Izmir.

Goodsell, Fred Field - Field Secretary of the Turkey Mission, Near East Mission of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, director of Bible House in Constantinople, Director of Language School in Constantinople, elected Executive Vice-president of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in 1930*

Green, Olive - Principal of American Collegiate Institute in Izmir in 1933.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 314

Grew, Joseph Clark - Chief of United States Delegation to Lausanne Peace Conference, negotiated treaty with Turkey, Under Secretary of State of United States Department of State 1924- 1927, Ambassador to Turkey 1927-1932, Ambassador to Japan 1932-1941, Under Secretary of State 1944-1945.

Ali Haidar Bey - Attorney for the missionary teachers in the Bursa School Trial.

Mustafa Hamid Bey - Regular lawyer for the interests of the American Board in Turkey, advisor to Goodsell on matters regarding American schools.

§ahide Hamide ffanim - Pupil at the Girls' Lyceum in Bursa, aged 19, witness for the prosecution.

Hamlin, Cyrus - Missionary to Turkey, educator, founder of Bebek Seminary, founder and first president of Robert College.

Hare, Raymond A. - American Vice-Consul at Constantinople in 1928.

Hinman, Margaret - Teacher at American Collegiate Institute in Izmir in 1933.

Holmes, Julius C. - American Vice-Consul in Charge at Izmir in 1928.

Hughes, Charles Evans - United States Secretary of State, 1921-1925.

Hull, Cordell - United States Secretary of State 1933-1944.

Huntington, George H. - Vice-president of Robert College.

Cemal Husnti Bey - Turkish Minister of Public Instruction, succeeding Vassif Bey in 1929, formerly member of Turco-Greek mixed commission for the exchange of populations.

Hussein Bey - Head of the Turkish Department of Robert College in 1932.

Ihsan Bey - Civil Governor of Smyrna in 1925, Member of Educational Commission of the Ministry of Public Instruction in 1928, President of the Council of Public Instruction in 1932.

T1 hftnil Bey - Judge of the Penal Court of Sultan Ahmed in Stamboul.

Ismet Paja - Given family name of Inttntl, Prime Minister of Turkey 1923- 1937, President of Turkey 1938-1950.

Ives, Ernest L. - First Secretary of the Embassy of the United States in Turkey in 1928, Chargl d'Affaires ad interim in October, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 315

Jackson, J.B. - American Consul at Aleppo, Syria, in 1932.

Ahmet Jevdet Bey - Editor-in-chief of Ikdam.

Jillson, Jeannie Louise, Principal of Girls' Lyceum in Bursa, defendant in Bursa School Trial, later appointed by American Board to School for Armenian Girls in Beirut.

Kellogg, Frank Billings - United States Secretary of State, 1925-1929.

Mustafa Kemal - Given family name of Atatttrk ("chief Turk"), after deposition of sultan in 1922 was unanimously elected first president of Turkish Republic in 1923, re-elected in 1927, 1931 and 1935, authored many Turkish reforms.

Namik Kemal - Nineteenth Century Turkish Poet-Patriot, great Turkish literary figure.

Kiazim Paja - Vali of Izmir in 1931, 1933*

Kinney, Mary Ella - Principal of American Academy for Girls in Uskiidar.

Kreider, Herman H. - Missionary, assigned to Bible House in Istanbul.

Lange, Erwin F. - Consular agent of the United States who entrusted consular coat of arms to Miss Jillson in 1917 when diplomatic relations were broken between Turkey and the United States.

MacLachlan, Alexander, D.D. - President of International College in Smyrna, retired in 1925, succeeded by Cass Arthur Reed.

Mead, Hunter - A young American teacher at International College.in Izmir, author of "Mead Case" in 1931, expelled, transferred to teach in an American Board institution In Saloniki, Greece.

Mehmed V - Sultan and Caliph in Turkey, 1909-1918.

Mehmed VI - last Sultan of Turkey, fled country after abolition of Sultanate in November, 1922.

Miller, Bemetta A. - Bursar of Constantinople Woman's College.

Monroe, Paul - President jointly of Robert College, succeeding Caleb F. Gates, and of Woman's College in Istanbul, succeeding Kathryn Newell Adams, from 1932 to 1935*

Muhamer Bey - Mutasarrif of Kayseri in 1923 .

Talat Muhir - Director of Education for the Vilayet of Bursa.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 316

Abderrahman Muhittin Bey - Graduate of International College in Izmir, organizer in 1931 while a student there of the Society for the Protection of Turkish Culture, author in 1933 of a series of newspaper articles attacking missionaries.

Muhtar Bey - Turkish Ambassador to the United States, received by President Coolidge on December 5, 1927.

Murray, Dr. - Director of Preparatory Department of Robert College.

Murray, Wallace S. - Chief of Division of Near Eastern Affairs, United States Department of State.

Yunus Nadi Bey, Deputy to Grand National Assembly of Turkey, owner and editor of Cumhuriyet and La Republique.

Necati Bey - Minister of Public Instruction between 1926 and his death in 1929, had reputation of most xenophobic of all cabinet ministers of Turkey.

Neceb Bey - Investigator in the Bursa School incident of 1927-1928.

Madelet Vasif Necet Hanim - One of the girls alleged to have been led astray by Miss Sanderson, author of two "incriminating" notebooks which served as diaries kept in English, possessor of several religious books.

Necmettin Bey - Turkish member of faculty of International College in Izmir, unsympathetic to college, aided Muhittin Bey in founding the Society for the Protection of Turkish Culture.

Nilson, Paul E. - Missionary in Kayseri and Talas, Principal of Talas technical school which reopened in 1928.

Ahmet Nizameddin - Judge presiding in the Bursa School Trial.

Noyes, Fannie G. - Missionary at Talas.

Ragib Nurettin Bey - In charge of supervision of foreign schools in Turkey, for the Ministry of Public Instruction.

Nuri Bey - Educational Inspector at Merzifon.

Musret Bey - Delegate at Constantinople of the Foreign Minister of Turkey in 1927.

Nute, William L., M.D. - Missionary of the American Board in Tarsus.

Odell, Miss Elsie Jeanette - Principal-designate of the American school at Merzifon in 192$.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 317

Parsons, Edith F. - Principal of American Collegiate Institute in Izmir in 1928, formerly assiciated with Bursa school, at first suspected of complicity with Misses Day, Jillson and Sanderson in proselytism in 1927-1928.

Partridge, Ernest C. - Missionary of American Board in Sivas, then Izmir, uhere he taught in the American Collegiate Institute, author of "Barber Pole Incident" there in 1932-1933•

Patrick, Mary Mills - President of Constantinople Woman's College I89O- 1924, succeeded by Kathryn Newell Adams.

Patterson, Jefferson - Second Secretary of Embassy of the United States in Constantinople in 1930.

Peet, William Wheelock - Treasurer of Turkey Mission of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions in Constantinople for forty-four years until retirement in 1925*

Perry, Edward Tyler - Missionary of American Board, stationed in Con­ stantinople, acted as director of Language School in absence of Goodsell, observer at Bursa School Trial.

Phillips, William - Under Secretary of State of the United States in 1923.

Pohl, U s e C. - Teacher at Merzifon, accused of responsibility in 1928 for attempted suicide of a pupil who ingested iodine.

Putney, Ethel W. - Principal of Gedik Pasa school: in Constantinople in 1928, investigated in wake of &ursa incident, cleared, con­ gratulated on way she ran school.

Ramiz Bey - Director of Police at Bursa in 1928.

Receb Bey - Minister of the Interior of Turkey in 1924.

Reed, Cass Arthur - President of Izmir International College in Izmir, responsible chiefly for closing the school in 1934.

Re§id Bey - Vali of Constantinople in 1924, at time of "Donkey Inci­ dent" debates.

Nail R e 5id - A local agent in Constantinople of Hamdullah Suphi Bey in 1925.

Richmond, Clara C. - Missionary in Talas.

Falih Rifki Bey - Deputy from Bolu to the Turkish Grand National Assembly, journalist, greatly influenced by what he saw of Western business and commercial interests in South America.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 318

Higgs, Charles Trowbridge - Missionary of American Board, assigned to Constantinople.

Higgs, Ernest Wilson - Associate Secretary of Foreign Department of American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions.

Ring, Miss Priscilla Allison - Associated Press correspondent in Constantinople in 1928.

Ali Riza Bey - First assistant to the Public Prosecutor in Bursa.

Kiamouran Riza Hanim - One of the girls alleged to have been led astray by Miss Sanderson, had been given a New Testament by Lucille Day.

Nemika Riza Hanim - One of the girls alleged to have become Protestant during the Bursa School Trial.

Robert, Christopher R. - New York banker and merchant, provided most of funds for establishing American college in Constantinople in 1863, college was named for him.

Ru§tii Bey - Head of newly created Department of Technical Education in Ministry of Public Instruction in Ankara in 1928.

Tevfik Ru^tlx Bey - Given family name of Aras, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Turkey, 1925-1938.

Saafet Bey - Representative of the Ministry of Public Instruction in 192L, had children at Robert College.

Sanderson, Edith - Teacher at Bursa, defendant in Bursa School Trial, later married widower Leslie John Adkins, both assigned to Beirut with American Board.

Scipio, Lynn A, - Dean of Engineering School of Robert College in 1932 *

Scotten, Robert M. - Assistant to Admiral Bristol in 1923, member of United States High Commission staff, First Secretary of the United States Embassy.

£>ehab Bey - Inspector at Bursa.

Shaw, G. Howland - Member of United States High Commission staff in Turkey in 1925, Chief of Division of Near Eastern Affairs of United States Department of State in 1928, Charge d'Affaires ad interim of United States interests in Turkey in 1933.

Shepard, Lorrin A., M.D. - Missionary of American Board at Gaziantep.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 319

Sherrill, Charles Hitchcock - Ambassador to Turkey, 1932-1933, suc­ ceeding Joseph C. Grew.

Sidki Bey - Director of Public Instruction of the Vilayet of Bursa.

Skinner, Robert P. - United States Ambassador to Turkey, 1933-1936, succeeding Charles H. Sherrill.

Smith, Miss - Teacher of Physical Education at Constantinople Woman's College, creator and producer of "donkey" skit at the college in 1925, dismissed and withdrawn from service in Turkey upon demand by Ministry of Public Instruction as result of "donkey" skit.

Smith, H. Alexander - Considered by trustees of Robert College as possible successor to Caleb F. Gates as college president, visited Robert College and Turkish officials in 1931* reported to trustees, declined to accept presidency.

Southgate, R. - In Near East Division of United States Department of State in 192k.

Staub, Albert W. - Director of Near East Colleges Association in New York, also considered as successor to Caleb F. Gates,

Stimson, Henry Lewis - United States Secretary of State, 1929-1933•

£ukri Bey - Representative of the Bible House in Constantinople, a former Hoca, converted to Christianity at Izmir and alleded- ly conducted anti-Muslim and anti-Turkish propaganda in the United States.

Hamdullah Suphi Bey - Minister of Public Instruction of Turkey, pre­ decessor of Necati Bey.

Seniha Talaat Hanim - One of the girls alleged to have been led astray by Miss Sanderson in the Bursa School incident of 1927-1928.

Taylor, William K, - Second Secretary of the Embassy of the United States at Constantinople in 1928.

Towner, Grace C. - 'Principal of the Girls' Boarding School at Adana.

Treat, R.A. Wallace - American Consul in Ankara.

Vassif Bey - Turkish Minister of Public Instruction briefly in 1929, succeeding Necati Bey upon his death, former Turkish Am­ bassador to Moscow, resigned within a few weeks, had been Minister of Public Instruction previously.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 320

Vrooman, Lee - Professor, Dean of International College in Izmir, acting head of college at time of "Mead Incident" in 1931.

Washburn, Dr. George - Second President of Robert College, successor of Hamlin, predecessor of Gates.

Willard, Charlotte R. - Teacher at the American School for Girls at Merzifon.

Woodsmall, Ruth Frances - Worker with Young Women's Christian Associa­ tion in TYirkey, returned to United States for graduate study, considered as possible successor to Kathryn Newell Adams as President of Constantinople Woman's College, was not selected.

Woolworth, William Sage, Jr. - Missionary of American Board in Kayseri, then Principal of the American College in Tarsus.

Yarrow, Harriet -Teacher in Gedik Pa^a School in Constantinople.

Kemal Zaim Bey - Muste^ar, assistant minister, of the Ministry of rubiic Ins Lruu iim~crf- ■-Turkey in 1929*

Zekeria Bey - Newspaper editorialist, with Cumhuriyet.

Suphi Zin Bey - Political Advisor in the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 321

APPENDIX B

SOME IMPORTANT DATES

I806 - Haystack Prayer Meeting.

I808 - Mahmud II succeeded brother Mustafa IV to Ottoman throne.

1819 - November, American Board sent Fisk and Parsons to Palestine.

1820 - Fisk and Parsons arrived in Smyrna.

1821 - Fisk and Parsons established Palestine Mission, later called Mission to Syria.

1823 - Malta became center of Publication work of American Board in Near East.

1826 - June l6, destruction of Janissaries in Constantinople.

1827 - October 20, Battle of Navarino.

1830 - Jonas King established Mission to Greece for American Board.

I83 O - Treaty between United States and Turkey established capitulatory rights for American nationals in Turkey.

183 0 - Eli Smith and H.G.O. Dwight explored interior of Turkey for purpose of establishing additional mission stations.

1831 - June 9, William Goodell opened American Board mission station in Constantinople.

1832 - Mission bo Jews established in Constantinople.

1832 - May, Goodell and wife opened a day school for Greek girls in their own home, with 25 pupils in attendance. The school closed within four months, under the opposition of the Greek Synod.

1833 - Publications activities of American Board transferred to Smyrna,

I83 U - Justin Perkins opened Nestorian Mission in Persia.

I83 L - Cyprus Mission founded by Lorenzo Pease and James Thompson.

I83 U - Missionaries in Constantinople opened grammar school which became "Bebek Seminary" in 18U8.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 322

1834 Benjamin Schneider opened mission station at Bursa.

1836 Mission opened school for girls at Smyrna, not long under missionary control.

1839 July 11, Abdul Medjid succeeded his father to the Ottoman throne.

1839 Ancient patriarchal church instituted persecution of evangeli­ cals .

1839 November 3, Tanzimat period of reform began, Hatt I ^erif of Gul Hane proclaimed.

1840 Cyrus Hamlin opened Bebek Seminary at Constantinople.

1841 The Straits Convention.

1842 Cyprus Mission closed.

1843 August, execution of Ovagim, the Muslim renegade, followed by the extortion of a pledge from the Sultan that the death penalty would not apply to Muslims who had been Christians should they return to Christianity.

1845 October, Mr. and Mrs. Goodell opened a boarding school for girls in their home in Constantinople.

1845 Female Seminary opened at Pera in Constantinople.

1845 Harriett Lovell, later to become Mrs. Cyrus Hamlin, opened a school for girls in Constantinople. The school was later moved to Merzifon.

1846 January, Patriarch Matteos, of Patriarchal Armenian Church, excommunicated evangelicals, labeling the Protestants.

1846 July 1, First Protestant church organized, named First Evangelical Armenian Church.

1847 Work began in Aintab.

1847 Protestant community acknowledged by the Government of Turkey.

1850 November, Sultan granted charter to Protestants, placing them under Imperial protection.

1850 Assyrian Mission opened in Mesopotamia.

1851 Work began in Sivas.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 323

I852 - Work began in Merzifon.

1852 - Mission station opened at Adana.

1853 - May, June, Outbreak of Crimean War.

I85I+ - Work began in Talas, Kayseri, Mara^,

185k - March, England and France, as allies of Porte, declared war against Russia.

1856 - Mission to Jews in Constantinople discontinued.

1856 - February, Hatt I Ilumaiyun issued by Sultan.

1856 - March 30, Treaty of Paris signed.

1856 - New Charter of Reforms.

1856 - Visit of Christopher R. Robert to Constantinople.

1858 - Work began in Balkan Peninsula.

1859 - Work began in Tarsus.

1860 - Field divided into Western Turkey, Central Turkey and Eastern Turkey Missions, Assyrian Mission merged with Eastern Turkey Mission.

1860 - Girls1 Seminary opened at Aintab.

1861 - June 25, Death of Abdul Medjid.

l86l - July h, Inauguration of Abdul Aziz.

1861 - Work began in Mardin.

1862 - Bebek Seminary moved to Merzifon, boarding school for girls in Constantinople closed.

1863 - Robert College opened in rented building.

1865 - Constantinople Girls' School moved to Merzifon.

1868 - Admiral Farragut visited Constantinople, Robert College granted building permit.

1869 - Death of Jonas King, Mission to Greece closed.

1869 - Ursula C. Clark founded Bursa Girls' School.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32h

1870 - Syrian and Nestorian Missions allocated to nevly founded Presbyterian Mission Board.

1871 - Robert College received first students in new building.

1871 - Home School for Girls opened at Scutari.

187^ - Central Turkey College in Aintab chartered by Massachusetts, recognized by Porte in I87S.

I876 - Abdul Aziz deposed on demand of foreign powers, briefly suc­ ceeded by Murad V, succeeded in turn by Abdul Hamid II.

1876 - December 22, First Ottoman parliamentary constitution enacted.

1877 - Miss Maria West founded American Collegiate Institute in Smyrna.

1877 - April 2k, Russia invaded Turkey.

1877 - May, Abdul Hamid suspended Constitution of 1876, dissolved parliament.

1878 - Euphrates College at Harput incorporated with board of trustees in Massachusetts.

I878 - March 3, Treaty of San Stefano.

I878 - June, July, Congress and Treaty of Berlin.

l379 - Boys' school opened in Izmir, reorganized in 1891, became International College in 1903.

1880 - Armenian interest in American schools awakened.

1881 - American school opened at Gedik Pa^a in Constantinople.

1882 - High school for boys established in Kayseri, later moved to Talas, John Pierce established Bithynia High School in Bardezag.

1884 - Adana Girls' Seminary founded, later called American School for Girls.

1885 - Armenian Girls' High School founded in Adapazari, later moved to Scutari.

1886 - American schools officially recognized by Porte.

1888 - St. Paul's College for young men founded in Tarsus by Col. W. Shepard, of New York.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 325

1890 - American College for Girls founded at Scutari.

1891 - Boys' school in Smyrna reorganized.

1895 - Irade of Sultan publicly recognized American College for Girls at Scutari, exempted it from taxation.

I895 - Massacres of Armenians by Turks, missions opened orphanages and established relief work.

1901 - International College at Smyrna formally organized.

1903 - American Legation at Constantinople registered American educa­ tional and philanthropic institutions with the Sublime Porte for the purpose of exempting them from taxation.

190U - St. Paul's Institute at Tarsus transferred to American Board.

1908 - July 2b, Young Turk revolution in Salonaika, restoration of Constitution of 1876.

1909 - April 13, Counter-revolution in which many Christians were killed, including Miner Rogers, an American missionary.

1909 - April 27 , Unanimous vote of Parliament removed Abdul Hamid II, who was succeeded as Sultan by Mehmed V.

1912 - October 8 to December 3, First Balkan War.

1913 - March k, Woodrow Wilson inaugurated President of United States, William Jennings Bryan became Secretary of State.

1913 - May 30, Treaty of London.

1913 - June 30 to July 20, Second Balkan War.

1913 - September 17, Treaty of Bucharest restored lost territory to Turkey.

I91I4. - August 2, Secret Alliance between Germany and Turkey.

1911+ - October 28, skirmishes began between Russia and Turkey.

191L - November 3, Russia declared war on Turkey.

191U - November 5, Britain and France declared war on Turkey.

1914 - Turks unilaterally abrogated capitulations.

19lU - American Board missionaries in Turkey attain peak number of 17^-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 326

1915 - Robert Lansing succeeded Bryan as Secretary of State.

1915 - Massacres and deportations of Armenians began, many American Board missionaries engaged in relief work under Near East Relief.

1916 - American school at Talas closed.

1917 - Turkey severed diplomatic relations with the United States.

1918 - July 3, Death of Mehmed V, succeeded by Vahid-ed-Din as Sultan Mehmed VI.

1918 - October 30 > Armistice of Mudros, Turkey recognized defeat, withdrew from war.

1919 - Peace Conference opened at Versailles.

1919 - Turkish Government moved to Ankara.

1919 - Admiral Bristol appointed United States High Commissioner to Turkey.

1920 - Bainbridge Colby became Wilson’s third Secretary of State.

1920 - American Board established Language School at Constantinople, transferred Mardin ihission station to Presbyterian Board.

1920 - January 10, First meeting of League of Nations.

1920 - April 23, Grand National Assembly of Turkey established itself as Government of Turkey.

1920 - June 22, Beginning of Greco-Turkish war.

1920 - August 10, Treaty of Sevres.

1920 - December 3, Treaty of Gtirarti established Turco-Armenian borders.

1921 - January 20, New Turkish Constitution adopted.

1921 - March k, Warren G. Harding inaugurated President of United States, Charles Evans Hughes became Secretary of State.

1921 - March l6, Treaty of Moscow, between Nationalists and Soviets.

1921 - March, American college in Merzifon closed by authorities.

1921 - September, Bithynia High School moved to Gttz Tepe in Constan­ tinople, renamed American Collegiate Institute, Armenian Girls' High School moved from Adapazari to Scutari, renamed American Academy for Girls.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1921 October 13, Treaty of Kars betveen Nationalists and Trans­ caucasian Soviet Republic.

1921 October 20, Treaty of Angora between Nationalists and France.

1922 Schools at Mardin closed by Vali, American Collegiate Institute at Smyrna destroyed by Smyrna fire.

1922 October 11, Armistice of Mudanya ended Greco-Turkish fighting.

1922 Sultanate abolished, Mehmed VI deposed, fled Constantinople on November 17.

1922 November 20, to February 1, 1923 > First session of Lausanne Peace Conference.

1923 April 23 to July 2l, Second session of Lausanne Peace Conference.

1923 August 2, Death of President Harding, succeeded by Calvin Coolidge.

1923 Ismet offered special letter concerning foreign schools in Turkey.

1923 August 6, Treaty of Amity and Commerce negotiated by United States and Turkey, not ratified by United States Senate.

1923 October 9, Ankara became capital of Turkey.

1923 October 29, Republic of Turkey proclaimed, Mustafa Kemal elected first president.

1923 Newspaper articles attacked Robert College and Y.M.C.A.

1923 Exchanges of populations between Greece and Turkey began.

1921 March 3, Caliphate, religious schools, Ministry of Religious Affairs abolished.

1921 March 7, Professor Edgar J. Fisher of Robert College gave lecture aboard Reliance about Monuments of Byzantium.

1921 April 8, ^eriat abolished.

1921 All foreign schools required to remove all religious symbols and pictures from places frequented by students, American Board work entered new phase, schools turned to Turkish youth, Mission renamed the Turkey Mission.

1921 August, Robert College received ultimatum demanding dismissal of Professor Fisher for insulting the Turkish people during Reliance lecture on March 7*

with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 328

1921* September, Fisher allowed to rejoin his post at Robert College.

1925 February l6, Kellogg became Secretary of State of United States.

1925 Easter processional at Robert College offended Turks.

1925 May 3, American Academy for Girls at Scutari, Miss Kinney, Prin­ cipal, closed by Government for technical violations of regu­ lations, allowed to reopen under specified conditions on June 4.

1925 June, Miss Smith, Physical Education teacher at Constantinople Woman’s College, organized skit displeasing to Turks, ordered dismissed after second "donkey incident."

1925 August 30, Fez outlawed, replaced by hat, monastic orders abo­ lished, monasteries closed, Muslim clerical garb restricted, surnames decreed.

1925 Tarsus College reopened despite objections of local director of education.

1926 Mardin station returned to American Board by Presbyterians.

1926 February 17, New civil code adopted, based on Swiss code, laws on marriage, divorce, inheritance modified.

1927 Diplomatic relations between United States and Turkey resumed.

1927 Bursa Girls’ School accorded rank of lyceum.

1927 February 17, United States and Turkey exchanged notes concerning American schools in Turkey.

1927 May 19, Joseph Clark Grew appointed Ambassador to Turkey.

1928 American Board ended financial support for International College at Izmir.

1928 January 31> Government order closed American Girls' Lyceum in Bursa, investigations of other American schools begun im­ mediately, including those of Gedik Pa^a (Miss Putney, Principal), American Collegiate Institute in Izmir (Miss Parsons, Principal), and Merzifon.

1928 February 13, First session of Eursa School Trial.

1928 February 26, Authorization given to reopen school at Sivas in Fall semester.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 329

1928 - March 5, Second session of Bursa School Trial.

1928 - April 2, Third Session of Bursa School Trial.

1928 - April 8, C-rev confirmed by United States Senate as Ambassador to Turkey after eleven months of delay.

1928 - April 10. Islam removed as official religion of state by emenda­ tion of Article 2 of Turkish Constitution.

1928 - April 11, Fourth session of Bursa School Trial.

1928 - April 25, Fifth session of Bursa School Trial.

1928 - April 30, Misses Day, Jillson, Sanderson fined three liras each, sentenced to three days’ confinement, to be served in their home, case immediately appealed.

1928 - July 30, Talas school given permission to reopen.

1928 - August 27 , Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact signed by 62 nations.

1928 - August 30, Conviction of Bursa teachers vacated, new trial ordered, set for September 17.

1928 - September 17, Retrial of Bursa teachers.

1928 - September 26, Original conviction of teachers reaffirmed, same light sentence imposed, case again appealed.

1928 - Talas school reopened.

1929 - Mission renamed Wear East Mission.

1929 - January 5, Death of Necati Bey, succeeded briefly by Vassif Bey and then Cemal Husntt Bey.

1929 - March t)-, Herbert Hoover inaugurated President of the United States, Henry L. Stimson became Secretary of State.

1929 - October 29, American stock market crash, beginning of depression.

1931 - Hunter Mead, teacher at International College in Izmir, caught students cheating on test, lectured class on honesty, pro­ voked scandal, allowed to leave country on January 26 , before being tried for insulting Turks.

1931 - March 18 to April 2, Turkish press attacked missionaries.

1931 - August, Expiration of Lausanne Establishment Convention between Turkey and Western nations.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 330

1932 American school, hospital at Adana closed due to lack of funds, school reopened by townspeople as a cooperative lyceum.

1932 August 12, Turkey became member of League of Nations.

1932 September, Dr. Paul Monroe became joint President of Robert College and Istanbul Woman's College, succeeding Caleb F. Gates and Kathryn Newell Adams.

1932 December 20, Mr. Partridge, a teacher at American Collegiate Institute at Izmir jests about decorations for festival at school, offending Turks in Barber Pole Incident.

1932 Ambassador Grew appointed to Japan.

1933 March k, Franklin Delano Roosevelt inaugurated President of United States, Cordell Hull became Secretary of State.

1933 March 6, Banks closed by Roosevelt, United States left gold standard, United States Dollar devalued.

1933 March, April, Concerted Press attack in Turkey against American schools.

1933 Gedik Pa^ta school closed due to lack of funds, Bulgarian Mission closed.

1933 Autumn, Dean Edgar Fisher denied permission to re-enter Turkey because of having furnished material on Turkey to the writer of an uncomplimentary article on the new Turkish history text.

193^ International College at Izmir closed at end cf scholastic year 1933-1933.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 331

APPENDIX C

ISMET PASHA'S STATEMENT TO THE AMERICANS AT LAUSANNE

O o ^ o c

oUi^; 6 <3-xl3I • ^Uiui j*

c X aAC* £ ^ i c

, j^f \ CX,

? d4® V t jj\

#yfcj 0 cJrl?^ j J L <«-•»*• 1)1 d^uA>, j**U JlsLh*

ISMET PASHA'S STATEMENT TO THE AMERICANS AT IAUSANNE (translation)

I hope above all things that Americans will not worry about

the future of their educational and philanthropic institutions in

Turkey.

We want these institutions to stay, and have no intention of

adopting laws that will embarrass the continuation of the admirable

American altruistic work among our people.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 332

APPENDIX I)

ISMET PASHA’S LETTER TO JOSEPH C. GREW1

LAUSANNE, August 4, 1923

MR. MINISTER: I have the honor to inform Your Excellency

that as a result of the discussions of the Convention of "establish­

ment" signed at Lausanne on July 2h, 1923, it had been planned at one

time to annex to the aforesaid Convention, in the form of a declara­

tion, certain provisions concerning the religious and philanthropic

institutions of the nationality of the three inviting Powers.

However, it was finally decided that this declaration

should be replaced by letters from the Turkish Delegation addressed

to the three inviting Powers.

In transmitting to Your Excellency identic copies of these

letters, I have the honor to inform you that during the duration of

the Convention of "establishment" in question, similar institutions of

the nationality of the United States of America shall enjoy in Turkey,

under the same conditions, the same treatment as that applied to the

institutions of the Powers referred to above.

Accept (etc.)

ISMET

^Israet, Letter to Joseph C. Grew, State Department trans­ lation (National Archives Record Group 59), 711.672/170, Lausanne, August 6, 1923.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 333

APPENDIX E

ISMET PASHA'S IDENTIC LETTER TO THE BRITISH,

FRENCH AND ITALIAN DELEGATIONS1

LAUSANNE, July 2k, 1923

EXCELLENCY: With reference to the Convention regarding

the conditions of residence and business signed at Lausanne today,

and following on the decision taken by the First Committee at its

meeting of the 19th May, 1923, regarding the substitution of the

declaration which was to have been annexed to the said Convention,

by an exchange of letters, I have the honour to declare, in the name

of my Government, that the latter will recognize the existence of

(British, French, Italian) religious, scholastic and medical insti­

tutions recognized, as existing in Turkey before the 30th October,

19lL, and that it will favourably examine the case of other similar

(British, French, Italian) institutions actually existing in Turkey

at the date of the Treaty of Peace signed today, with a. view to

regularise their position.

The establishments and institutions mentioned above will

as regards fiscal charges of every kind, be treated on a footing of

equality with similar Turkish establishments and institutions, and

will be subject to the administrative arrangements of a public charac­

ter, as well as to the laws and regulations, governing the latter.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33^

It is, however, understood that the Turkish Government will take

into account the conditions under which these establishments carry

on their work, and, in so far as schools are concerned, the practical

organisation of their teaching arrangements.

I avail (etc.)

M. ISMET

1Ismet, Identic letter to British, French and Italian Chiefs of Delegations at Lausanne, State Department translation (National Archives Record Group 59)> 711*^72/170, Lausanne, July 2k, 1923*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 335

APPENDIX F

REGULATIONS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS1

Article 37:

It is not allowed to encourage or force students to take

part in the instruction or the services of a religion or denomination

other than the religion or denomination to which they belong or to

prevent students from attending the school because of non-participation

or to permit the participation of students who attend by their own

consent.

Regulations for Private Schools, Ministry of Public Instruction of the Republic of Turkey, trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59)> 367-116^ BST/30, Constantinople, March 28, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 336

APPENDIX G

CRIMINAL CODE

DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDERS FROM AUTHORIZED OFFICIALS1

Article 526: (Criminal Court of the First Instance)

Whoever disobeys an order of an authorized official given

according to law and proper method, o~ whoever fails to respect an

arrangement made according to law by an authorized official for the

purpose of maintaining public order justice, is to be punished with

light imprisonment up to one month and a fine up to fifty liras,

■^Criminal Code of the Republic of Turkey, trans. American Embassy (National Archives Record Group 59)> 36?-ll6^ BST/30, Constantinople, March 28, 1928.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 337 APPENDIX H

CRIMINAL CODE

INSULTING THE TUBKISH NATION

OR TURKISH OFFICIALS1

Article 157'

If a person attacks physically the President of the

Republic in a manner other than described in the previous article,

that person is imprisoned at hard labor for a period of not less

than five years, if the law does not provide for a more severe

punishment.

Article 156:

Those who insult the President of the Republic in his

presence or those who publish insulting remarks against the

President of the Republic are imprisoned at hard labor for a period

of not less than three years.

Article 159:

Those who insult and vilify the Grand National Assembly,

the moral entity of the Government, or the Army or the Navy or

the Turkish nation, are punished in accordance with the provisions

of the previous article.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 338

Article l6o :

The prosecution for offenses mentioned in Articles

157 and 158 can only take place on the authority given by the

Ministry of Justice and by the President of the Grand National

Assembly in accordance with the prescriptions of Article 159*

■^Criminal Code of the Republic of Turkey trans. American Consulate at Izmir (National Archives Record Group 59), 307.1l64/l44, Izmir, January 29, 1931*

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.