THE ARMENIAN HERALD

"The Interest of the Weakest is as Sa cred as the Interest of the Strongest." PRESIDENT WILSON. 090« CONTRIBUTORS' COLUMN FOR JANUARY NUMBER

Mb. Moorhield Storey is the doyen of Armenia to the Cilician provinces bor the Massachusetts bar, and his name is dering on Mediterranean. widely known throughout the states as the eloquent spokesman of all just causes. Dr. Pasdermadjian continues in this A friend of the negro, of the Philip number his remarkable story of the in pine, of Cuba, he has always raised his domitable courage, of the martial spirit voice for the weak against imperialism displayed by the Armenians, both i* in whatever nature or form. He is an Turkish and Russian Armenia, against old and tried friend of Armenia. When all possible odds, when a member of the there was a question of excluding the allied nations, Russia of the Czar, was Armenians from the United States by planning to carry out its old-time policy, reason of their being classed as "Asia —to covet Armenia without the Arme tics" he presented a brief to the federal nians. Everything related here are the courts which settled the case in favor of actual facts told in their naked sin- the Armenians Mice for all. He wrote a plicity without any exaggeration. remarkable preface to Lord Bryce's Blue Book wherein he Bifts the overwhelming Mrs. Papazian continues her fine inter evidence compiled against Turkish sav pretation of the real forces, in Arme agery since the outbreak of the world nian history and the Armenian people, war. He is a true American with the largely responsible for the sad events spirit of yore. which crowd the pages of the chronicler. We have tried to review her remarkable book under our review column with the Mr. Vaham Kurkjian was born in intention that it may create interest for Cilicia concerning which he writes. He many in the book itself and in Armenian has always taken an active part in history in general. Armenian educational and public matters. He is a writer of distinction and has Jean Aicard's beautiful poem, called specialized on the medieval history of Armenia, which we published last month, Armenia. Some years ago he wrote a was kindly translated for us from the remarkable treatise on the history of French by Miss Alice Stone Blackwell. Cilicia under the Eupenian Kings. The By a careless oversight we regret not to present article is opportune as it estab have mentioned this fact last time im lishes the unquestionable rights of connection with the poem. THE ARMENIAN HERALD TOLUME 2 JANUARY, 1919 NUMBER 2

ARMENIA'S SELF-GOVERNMENT

BY MOORFIELD STOREY

There is no people in the world entitled to greater sympathy than the Armenians. For a series of years before the war began numbers of them had been massacred at different times with the connivance of the Turkish authorities but after Turkey joined the Germans in 1915, a deliberate attempt to exterminate the Armenian race seems to have been made. In all the bloodstained pages of history there is no more terrible record of unprovoked and fiendish cruelty inflicted on helpless human beings than is contained in Lord Bryce's volume with its statements from eye witnesses and sufferers. The conviction that this brave people which has suffered so long from Turkish misrule is entitled to its independence has been burned into the hearts of civilized peoples, and the Peace Congress should not adjourn without establishing an Armenian nation. There is no other reasonable alternative, and we may well apply in this case the sound rule laid down by an American statesman "No people is fit for any government but self-government." Certainly there is no neighboring power to which the destinies of the Armenian people can be confided safely. There is no hope for them but in themselves. An independent Armenia is only the res toration of an ancient nation, and if it is established, we hope that Arme nians driven from home by Turkish persecution and scattered all over the world will take their health, their wealth, their experience and their wisdom back to their own land, and give their suffering fellow-country men the support which they need so sorely, to the end that the new Armenia may take the station among the nations of the world to which the traditions and character of its people justly entitled it.

Boston, January, 1919. THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA

BY VAHAN M. KURKJIAN

On the 10th day of November, 1918, a French squadron entered and occupied the port of Alexandretta. The event was joyfully hailed by the Armenians throughout the world as the realization of a dream five centuries old. The port of Alexandretta was within the boundaries of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. After having been lost, for a short period, to the Mameluke Sultans of Egypt, it was recovered by King Constantine II in 1347, with the assistance of the Knights Hospitallers. The Egyptian armies reappeared a quarter of a century later, swept the whole coun try, destroyed the last stronghold of Christianity in the East, and car ried away the King, Leon V, to Egypt. Released from his captivity after eight years, the unfortunate prince went to Europe, with the intention of enlisting the sympathies of the Christian world. He was accorded a hearty welcome in the court of Charles VI of France, and a few years afterwards was delegated by Charles to England, as a messenger of peace. The Hundred Years' war was then being waged, and the Arme nian King cherished the hope of bringing about a cessation of hostili ties between these two greatest powers of Europe, and, eventually, of securing their help for the deliverance of his enslaved fellow-country men and the restoration of his throne. In a pathetic address, Leon depicted before Richard II and his Parliament at Westminster the dis tressing picture of the Christians of the East, and concluded as follows : "The hostility between England and France has continued too long. Both should be urged to be contented with their vast dominions and put an end to this struggle, so that they may be able to drive away the en emies of Christ, and to break the yoke of the Christians of the East, who are daily awaiting your assistance, O, illustrious princes !" The address made a profound impression upon the august assembly, and the King consented to the postponement of hostile operations as THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA 61 requested by his "cousin," the King of Armenia—"nostre cousyn le roy d'Armenye." But, unfortunately, the fire of mutual hatred was too in tense to be extinguished so quickly; no agreement on peace prelimin aries could be reached, and Leon, disappointed in his labors and expecta tions, returned to Paris, there to descend into his grave on the 29th of November, 1393. The last Armenian King passed away, but the Armenian nation has ever since clung tenaciously to the hope that the Christian powers of Europe, and especially England and France, would at last come to their rescue. It is only natural, therefore, that the heart of every Armenian should be thrilled by the news of the redemption of the ancient port of Armenia, through the Anglo-French Alliance. The term "Armenia" is generally applied to the region about the Ararat mountains and the upper valleys of the Euphrates and the Tigris, but historically, politically and ethnographically it comprises an area which stretches to the western Taurus chains and to the northeastern shores of the Mediterranean ; and it is a matter of fundamental justice and of a vital importance to the cause of civilization that this part of the Mediterranean coastland should be included and incorporated in the new Armenian State. The two sections of Southeastern Asia Minor, respectively known in the Fourth Century as Cilicia and Euphratensis, and colonized by Arme nians long ago, became, on the decline of Byzantine influence, after the advent of the Saracens, dominant Armenian centers.1 It is interest ing to know in this same connection that the northern slopes of the Taurus range, the territory adjoining Cilicia and designated in the geog raphy of Moses of Khoren as the First Armenia (Arachin Haik) was an original seat from which the Armenians proceeded towards Ararat in their eastward movement from Thrace and Hellespontes about 1000 years before Christ. After the short-lived Empire of Tigranes the Great, who had oc cupied the territory in 69 B. C, Cilician ports became more and more freely accessible to the Armenians. Most significant is the allusion to the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean as the "Armenian Gulf" (Sinus Armenicus) by Ammianus Marcellus, the Latin historian of the Fourth Century. It was in the second half of the same century that St. THE ARMENIAN HERALD

John the Chrysostom, writing from his place of exile at Cocussus, the present village of Goksun between Hajin and Zeitoun, expressed grati tude for the kindness extended to him by the Armenian population of the locality and by the Armenian nobleman, Dioscorus. Bishop Melitus of Antioch, whose pupil Chrysostom had been, was himself an Armenian. According to Theodoret, who lived in the Fifth Century, the city of Cocussus was in Armenia. The Armenians of those parts had grown so numerous in the Sixth Century that Catholicus Christopher took special care to warn them against the teachings of Nestorius. During the Eleventh Century almost the whole province was governed by Armenian functionaries or feudal lords; such as General Hachadour at Issaurian- Antioch, Oshin at Lambron, Ablgarib at Tarsus, Halgam on the western coastlands, Pazouni in the highlands, Tatoul at Marash, etc. More ex tensive and almost independent was the land of Cogh Vassil, the Covasilio of the Western chroniclers, comprising the whole territory be tween the Amanus mountains and the Euphrates, —Kessun, Husniman- sour, Kaban, Telbashar, Aintab, etc. Most of these domains were soon assimilated in the Armenian principality of Cilicia, which was founded by Roupen in 1080, just 35 years after the fall of the Kingdom of Ani, in Armenia Major. Constantine, successor of Roupen, and other Arme nian chiefs extended a hearty welcome to the first Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land in 1098, helped them with supplies and co-operated with them in their fight against the Moslems. This loyalty to the Chris tians of the West, zealously maintained by the succeeding rulers of the Armenian Principality, was finally rewarded by the Emperor Henry IV, with the bestowal of the kingly title and crown upon the Prince Leon II (King Leon I), in 1199. Alexis Angelus, the Byzantine emperor, had anticipated him by conferring kingship upon Leon in 1196. This Leon, the Magnificent, is a great figure in Armenian history. As able soldier and tactful diplomat, he greatly extended the boundaries and the economic and political strength of the Armenian State. His name kept the surrounding Moslem nations at a respectful distance. He defied even the great Saladin. Leon was a personal friend of Richard the Lion-Hearted, and an ally in his campaign against Kyr-Isaac at Cyprus. A few months after he had acted as groomsman at Richard's marriage with the Princess Berengari'a, he took part in the siege of Acre, on the Syrian coast, conducted by the English and French forces THE ARMENIAN HERALD

John the Chrysostom, writing from his place of exile at Cocussus, the present village of Goksun between Hajin and Zeitoun, expressed grati tude for the kindness extended to him by the Armenian population of the locality and by the Armenian nobleman, Dioscorus. Bishop Melitus of Antioch, whose pupil Chrysostom had been, was himself an Armenian. According to Theodoret, who lived in the Fifth Century, the city of Cocussus was in Armenia. The Armenians of those parts had grown so numerous in the Sixth Century that Catholicus Christopher took special care to warn them against the teachings of Nestorius. During the Eleventh Century almost the whole province was governed by Armenian functionaries or feudal lords; such as General Hachadour at Issaurian- Antioch, Oshin at Lambron, Ablgarib at Tarsus, Halgam on the western coastlands, Pazouni in the highlands, Tatoul at Marash, etc. More ex tensive and almost independent was the land of Cogh Vassil, the Covasilio of the Western chroniclers, comprising the whole territory be tween the Amanus mountains and the Euphrates, —Kessun, Husniman- sour, Kaban, Telbashar, Aintab, etc. Most of these domains were soon assimilated in the Armenian principality of Cilicia, which was founded by Roupen in 1080, just 35 years after the fall of the Kingdom of Ani, in Armenia Major. Constantine, successor of Roupen, and other Arme nian chiefs extended a hearty welcome to the first Crusaders on their way to the Holy Land in 1098, helped them with supplies and co-operated with them in their fight against the Moslems. This loyalty to the Chris tians of the West, zealously maintained by the succeeding rulers of the Armenian Principality, was finally rewarded by the Emperor Henry IV, with the bestowal of the kingly title and crown upon the Prince Leon II (King Leon I), in 1199. Alexis Angelus, the Byzantine emperor, had anticipated him by conferring kingship upon Leon in 1196. This Leon, the Magnificent, is a great figure in Armenian history. As able soldier and tactful diplomat, he greatly extended the boundaries and the economic and political strength of the Armenian State. His name kept the surrounding Moslem nations at a respectful distance. He defied even the great Saladin. Leon was a personal friend of Richard the Lion-Hearted, and an ally in his campaign against Kyr-Isaac at Cyprus. A few months after he had acted as groomsman at Richard's marriage with the Princess Berengari'a, he took part in the siege of Acre, on the Syrian coast, conducted by the English and French forces THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA «3 in 1191. In an old German poem, dedicated to the glories of the leaders of this campaign, we read :

Kunic Leon von Ubia (Roubinian?) Ouch der von Armenia.

Cilician Armenia made great strides in the paths of commerce, trade and agriculture under Leon's rule. The population of the eountry, orig inally composed of Armenians, Greeks and Syrians was rapidly increased in numbers not only by Armenians who hailed from the various parts of the Near East, and who came to live under the shelter of their na-1 tional flag, but also by European colonists of Syria and Palestine, whose position had become precarious on account of the fall of the Latin King dom of Jerusalem in 1187. Even Turkish chieftains declared allegiance to the Armenian King in whose justice and generosity they placed perfect confidence.' The progress and prosperity of the country were greatly enhanced by the special privileges granted by Leon to the mercantile na tions of Southern Europe by which they were induced and encouraged to send agents and colonists to the Armenian State for financial, commer cial and industrial enterprises. The political organization, the various departments of administration and the royal court were modeled after those of Europe; intermarriage between Armenian and European princely houses were frequent, and institutions of learning under the native clergy and Latin religious orders, were established in many locali ties." As a consequence of these activities, connections, and reforms, and because of its rich natural resources, the country soon flourished "paradise-like," to use the expression of Vahram, a contemporary poet- historian. Sis, the capital, was embellished with palaces, public and private buildings, hospitals and orchards.' Magnificent churches were erected for the different nationalities and creeds of the city, —for the Armenians, Greeks, Franks, Genoese, Venetians, Georgians and Syrians. Canon Willebrand of Oldenbourg, who visited Sis in 1211, describes it as "the residence of innumerable and wealthy inhabitants." The hym- nology of the Roman Catholic Church refers to this city as "Sis Chris- tianorum." Most wonderful was the part played in the life of the little kingdom, by the port of Ayas. Situated a few miles west of the modern town of Youmurtalik, on the western shores of the Armenian Gulf almost facing 64 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

Alexandretta, Ayas became a thriving emporium, where were ex changed the wares and merchandise of the West and the East. There was a time lasting about a hundred years, when all the Eastern and Southern Mediterranean coast was under Moslem domination, and therefore, dreaded or tabooed by European vessels. Then the overland routes of the Asiatic world could be reached only through the safe haven of Ayas, —the 'Tortus Ayacii, Domini Regis Ermenie." ' Says Marco Polo, the Venetian traveler, who started from Ayas in 1271 for his journey to China: "The Armenians have a city on the sea, which is called Layas, where a great trade is carried on. Because, you must know, all sorts of spices, silken and gold-braided goods and other precious wares are brought from the interior to this city. The merchants of Venice and Genoa and other countries come to this place to sell and to buy goods. And who ever wishes to travel to the East be he merchant or otherwise, sets out from this city of Layas." Previously, in 1269, Marco Polo's uncle had sailed from Ayas to Acre on an Armenian vessel. The immense importance which Ayas attained as a commercial and political base of operation was looked upon as a peril by the Moslem nations of the period, and especially by the Sultans of Egypt; they de termined to capture that city, to destroy the Armenian kingdom, and thereby to wipe out all Christian influence in the East.' It is impossible to read without the deepest emotion, the annals of the bitter struggle waged by the Armenians, from the second half of the Thirteenth Century to the end of the Fourteenth, against the Egyptian armies and the Seljuk and Turkoman hordes. The nations of the West displayed much concern about Armenia; the Roman See was particularly solicitous about her fate; men like Marino Sanuto —the Italian diplomat and traveler —sounded the alarm in her behalf, but no practical step was taken beyond the expressions of sympathy, which, in fact, were productive of more harm than good . The situation may be best realized by the following lines from Rainaldi : "While these peoples (the Europeans) were fighting with the heathen by wishes and writ ings only, they (the Egyptians) were destroying Armenia by sword and fire; while the King of France (Philip of Valois) was thundering his THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA 65 threats in the West, and while preachers proclaimed the rewards of the Crusader, the infidels on the other side, irritated by reports of enormous preparations, were falling upon the Christians with all their might." The Armenians were left to themselves, indeed, but they did not lose heart. Their warriors bravely faced terrible odds and their leaders steered the bark of State with great sagacity. Students of the history of the Crusaders give credit to Armenian diplomacy for secur ing the good-will of the Tartar Emperors of the age. The Tartars emerging from Central Asia and spreading toward the West, bitterly contested with the Sultans of Egypt the supremacy in the Near East, and the custody of Mediterranean ports. The Christian powers heartily welcomed the appearance of the Tartars, as a rival of their own formid able foe, saw in him a prospective ally, and endeavored to cultivate friendly relations with him. This disposition met a ready response from the Tartar Khans, who, though Buddhists by faith, were not really interested in religion, but were shrewd enough to pretend to an in clination toward Christianity. Accordingly their Generals occasionally attended Christian ceremonies, permitted Christian clergy to conduct services for the Christian soldiers of their army, and themselves took Christian women in marriage. The missionaries of Islam were more successful, however, and the Tartars finally adopted the religion of Mohammed to the bitter disappointment of the Europeans and Arme nians. But even then the Khans tried to win the nations of the West to their side. Speaking of Ghazan, who had embraced the Moslem faith, Michaud, the well-known historian says :

"It is surprising indeed to see that a Mongol Emperor should strive to fan the crusading spirit among the princes of the Christian world. It is surprising to see that barbarians from the banks of the Jaxardes and the Oxus rivers, should stand on Golgotha and Zion, awaiting for the troops of France, Germany and Italy to come to fight the enemies of Christianity."

That, Ghazan Khan, though converted to Islam, was really prompted by political motives only, may be proved by the following lines ad dressed to him by Sultan Nassir of Egypt :

"The Apostle of God has said that he is a Moslem whose hands and tongue never harm others. Thou hast harshly treated Moslem prisoners 66 THE ARMENIAN HERALD and delivered them to the Tacavor* and to the Armenians. This is against the spirit of charity, which thou claimest to possess." It is evident that the Armenians were deeply interested in the crea tion of an entente between the Tartars and the European powers, and that they earnestly strove to achieve that end.' Simpad, the Constable or Commander-in-chief of Armenia, and later King Hethoum I himself, personally repaired to the court of Mangou Khan with the object of securing his friendship for the Armenians, and of laying the founda tion of a future alliance between the Tartars and Europeans.' The policy of Hethoum and his successors, though it greatly helped in the protection of the Christians of Asia and the defense of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, was not crowned with an enduring success. After a series of victorious campaigns in Syria and Palestine, in which the Armenian troops under Leon II and Hethoum II took part (1277 and 1300), the Mongol-Tartars gradually declined in power and lost their interest in Armenians. The European nations on the other hand, al ways divided by mutual jealousies and more mindful of their own selfish ends than of their moral obligations, did practically nothing in response to the distressing cries of Armenia. And while the churches and the monastries of this unhappy land were given over to fire and destruction, and while Christian blood was flowing in torrents, Latin missionaries were eagerly trying to purge the Armenian Church of heretical doctrines and teachings. A fund of 30,000 florins ($72,000) sent by Pope John XXII in 1334, for the reconstruction of Ayas, after a destructive attack by the Egyptians, was held back by the Papal Legate, pending the settlement of certain theological controversies. The Armenians might, even at that late hour, have insured the safety of their country had they consented to break with the Western world, and to "cease sending envoys or letters to the Roman Pontif," as was stipulated in a treaty forced upon Leon IV by Sultan Nassir.* But that was an impossibility. Whatever the exigencies of their geo graphical position and their political isolation may have been the Arme nians cherished an indomitable loyalty to Christian ideals and tradi tions; so they kept up the fight until, bled white and utterly exhausted, they fell on the field of honor.

*Tacavor means King in the Armenian language. The reference here is to King Hethoum II, who had entered Damascus and Jerusalem as an ally of Ghazan in 1S00. THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA 67

That this last episode in the story of independent Armenia is full of romance is admitted by those who have studied its history. Its existence, not more than 300 years, although not much longer than that of some of its contemporary neighboring States, was equalled only by the Island Kingdom of Cyprus." But comparatively short though its duration was, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, this Christian islet in a stormy Moslem ocean, was the scene of many an act of valor and chivalry. The crisis was reached during the second half of the Four teenth Century, when all vestiges of European dominion in the Levant had vanished by the fall, one after another, of Acre, Tyre and Tripoli before the mighty power of Sultan Ashraf Kalavoun. The Armenians had, therefore, to face the situation single-handed. And they did full justice to their reputation as good soldiers. They performed in that hour of sacrifice many supremely heroic exploits, thereby prolonging their national independence. The Armenian garrison of Ayas, 600 strong, twice repulsed the army of Sultan Nassir. On another occa sion 200 Armenian warriors, in charge of the defence of a defile in the Amanus, entrapped 18,000 Moslem cavalrymen and put 6,000 of them out of action. Those were the days of Libarid, whose name spread terror among the marauding Turks and Turkomans, and of Zarman- toukht, the heroine, who with her own hands slew two Turkish gen erals: Omar in the plains of Adana and Ali in the plains of Sis. I will not go into further detail concerning the services rendered by the Armenians to the cause of Christian civilization, their unflinching loyalty to the Western Powers, and their inflexible determination to defend, to their last breath, the independence of their country. The conclusion to be derived from the manifold and touching events of that period has been thus summed up by Victor Langlois: "Numerous are those events, those brilliant traditions," he writes, "and however lamely we may follow the course of Armenia's victories and progress ; however hastily we may examine the organization of her aristocracy and clergy; however slightly we may study her relations with the Western Nations, and the wars which she waged against the Moslems, still shall we see that . . . the historical documents of this country contain the memories of a glorious past." Yet it is not "the glorious past" alone which gives the Armenians the strongest proof of their title to this region. The Armenians have 68 THE ARMENIAN HERALD continued to constitute, even since the overthrow of their Kingdom of Sis, the most vital element of their invaded territory. The Egyptian conquest was neither complete nor lasting. The Western coastland was held for almost another century by the Venetians and in the up lands there arose a number of independent communities. The Otto man Turks entered Cilicia in 1487 under Sultan Bayazid, but they could not consolidate their domination; their authority was hotly contested by the Ramazans, the Zulkadrians, the Karamans, and the Egyptians. The Ottoman dominion in this province was still unsettled as late as the middle of the Nineteenth century. One Dada Bey was holding Payas, north of Alexandretta, in 1825; Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt was in possession of Adana in 1840; Sarkhand Oglou ruled between Sis and Marash in 1859, and Kozan Oglou was supreme until 1866. Last but not least of the free centers of Cilicia was that of the Arme nian district of Zeitoun, whose semi-autonomous rights were guaran teed by the Six Powers, after its victory over the Turkish troops in 1895. • A certain degree of freedom was enjoyed also by the Armenians of the Black Mountains, known by the Turks as the Ghiavour Dagh, — the Infidels' Mountains. Notwithstanding the turbulent condition of the country and the periodical outbursts of Moslem fanaticism, the Armenians maintained their predominence in the Eastern part of Cilicia, their number there being not less than 200,000. In Cilicia as a whole the Moslems form a majority of the population, but they represent a variety of races, all alien to one another —Turkoman, Turk, Kurd, Tcherkess, Arab, Persian, etc. The Turkomans, which constitute the largest percentage of the Moslem inhabitants, are mostly nomadic tribes, such as the Varshaks, Yuruks and the Afshars. The tribes of Bozan and Hayoug are of Arme nian ancestry. There are a considerable number of ostensibly Turkish families who bear Armenian names, and who are the result of forcible conversion to Mohammedanism. Many Armenian words used in the do mestic life of the Turks suggest the same situation. It is a frequent practice for Turkish women to bring their sick children to the Armenian church to have the gospel read over them for their recovery; and also to send offerings to the church and to invoke the prayers of the congre gation in hours of distress. THE ARMENIAN KINGDOM OF CILICIA

Not content with deporting and slaughtering the Armenians in these later years, the criminal government of Turkey has attempted also to wipe all evidence of Armenian activities in the past. They have de molished the Patriarchal throne, and have pillaged the treasures of the Monastery of Sis, which stands on the site of the royal palace; they have desecrated the tombs of the Armenian kings and queens; they have pulled down the remains of old princely mansions and stations. But although the Turks were able to obliterate many priceless monu ments of the past ages, the memories of what Gustave Schulumberger calls the "glorious Christian kingdom of Lesser Armenia" are imperish able. There, still towering beyond the reach of the destroying Turk, their battle-scarred flanks marked with Armenian inscriptions, are many castles and fortresses. There, reduced to ruins or converted into Moslem mosques, are picturesque churches, under the vaults of which preachers (like Nerses of Lambron, the saintly Archbishop of Tarsus) held cosmopolitan congregations spell-bound with the power of their oratory. There we have monasteries, perched on the slopes, or hidden in the fastnesses of the Taurus and Amanus ranges, where the Arme nian monk piously prayed for the success of the Christian armies, and assiduously copied the Bible or the works of the Ancient Fathers. And not only these, but included in numismatistic collections, are a variety of coins in silver and in gold, bearing the name of Armenian kings and queens; and preserved in European museums and archives, are the parchments of treaties and decrees emanating from the Court of Sis." We have, finally, the testimony of the chroniclers of the Middle Ages to the effect that this territory, once a center of Armenian life and energy, and always soaked with the blood of Armenian heroes or mar tyrs, was the Armenie of the European, the Armenokilikia of the Greek, the BUad-el-Armen of the Arab, and the Armenistan of the Turk him self. . . May we not hope that, as one of the crowning victories of the cause of justice, and as one of the most glorious results of the coming Peace Congress, the Armenian flag will flutter once more on the topmasts of Armenian vessels which shall sail forth from what was the Mare Armeniae ? 70 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

NOTES

'Arab historians say that the Armenians of the beautiful city of Halal trans ferred their residence to Sis in 809. According to native historians fifty Armenian chiefs immigrated to Cilicia from Sassoun in 900. *We have the testimony of Ibn-el-Bibi, the historian of the Turkish Seljuk dynasty, that Sultan Keykaous of Cesarea, on one occasion promised to Leon by oath and in writing "never again to attack the Armenian forts, and also to send a provision of 12,000 measures (medd) of wheat to Armenistan (Armenia)." 'Almost all the queens of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem were Armenians. Arta, the daughter of Thoros I, married Baudouin I, the first king of Jerusalem. Marcile, the daughter of Prince Gabriel of Malatia, married Baudouin de Bourg. Melissanth, their eldest daughter, became the Queen- Regent of her son Baudouin III. Rita, the daughter of Leon I, married Jean de Brienne, the titular King of Jerusalem. On the other hand, many of the Armenian kings had married European princesses. 'Queen Zabelle used to attend the sick in the hospital founded by herself in 1214. 'Ayas was favored also by its geographical position. The Armenian Gulf, about forty-five miles long and about twenty-five miles wide, is protected against the winds by the encircling mountains. For many years past, this gulf has served as a winter shelter to the British Squadron of the Eastern Mediterranean. Ayas is mentioned as Leyyes in the "Canterbury Tales" of Chaucer. The Treasury of the kingdom received enormous sums of money from duties imposed upon the importations and exportations. Otherwise it would have been impossible to carry on the incessant wars against the enemies, and to reconstruct the country after so many incursions. The Custom House of Ayas was called "Paj- doun" by Armenians or "Pasidonium" by Europeans. 'Merchants came to Ayas from the following cities and countries: Venice, Genoa, Pisa, Pavia, Mantua, Livorno, Florence, Spain, Catalonia, Sicily, Barcelona, Sara- gossa, Marseilles, Provence, Nimes, Narbonne, Montpellier, Constantinople, Tre- bizond, Egypt, Syria. There are documents concerning commercial relations between Flemish countries and Armenia. Armenian merchants were established in Europe, chiefly in Italy and France. Thirty-six Italian cities had Armenian centers or hostelries (Hay-doun). 'Simon, an Assyrian priest, came to Sis in 1243, as an envoy from the Khan of the Tartars. Abagha Khan, writing to European powers in 1269, requested them to concen trate their forces in Sis. "We have a precious document in the letter written by Simpad to his sister, the consort of the King of Cyprus, from Samarcand, dated Feb. 6th, 1248. The letter is addressed as follows: "A tres haut et puissant homme Monseigneur Henry, par la grace de Die roy de Chipre, et a sa chiere suer Emmeline la royne, et a noble homme Jehan de Hibelin son frere, li Connoitables de Ermenie salut et amour." Half a century later, in 1301, Hethoum of Gorigos, the Monk-Prince, personally offered to the Pope, Clement V, a book written by himself about Tartary, under tie following title: ''Le livre de la fleur des histoires de la terre d'Orient. Le quel livre Hayton Seigneur de Core, cousin germain du roy de Armenie compilla." 'Baghdin of Nigher and Abbot Thoros of Trazarg, the special envoys from King Oshin, were received by King Edward I of England in 1317. Bishop Hagop of Gaban and his interpreter Baron Krikor were sent to Europe at a later date to plead the cause of Armenia. The kings of France, Navarre, Aragon and Bohemia had promised in 1333 to join in a expedition to the East to help Armenia against the Moslems. Edward III of England wrote to Leon IV in 1342, expressing his sympathy and promising his aid. NOTES 71

The following is part of the decree of Philip directing his Treasurers to send to Armenia the sum of 10,000 Florins for relief work. This sum was to be sent in three yearly installments. "Philippes par la grace de Dieu, roy de France, a nos ames et feaus les gens de nos Comptes et nos Tresoriers a Paris, salut et dilictiom. Pour ce que nostre très chier cousin le Roy d'Armenie nous a signifie que les Sarasins de par de la le guerroyoient efforciement, nous voulous le faire aide, pour ce qu'il puisse mieux jrarder ses chastioux et son pays, et resister aus dis Sarasins; si que le diet pays d'Armenie, qui est pays convenable, si comme l'on dit, a recevoir nous et nos gens, si nous nous y transporterons pour le Saint Voyage d'Outremer, duquel faire Dieu aydant, nous avons grant devotion et desir, soit retenu et ne puisse estre print ou greve_ par les Saracins mescreants; avons donne au dit Roy et donnons de grace especiale par des Lettres dize mille florins d'or de Florence, pour estre convertis en la garde de diets chastiaux et pays. . ." "The following list shows the duration of the States: The Frankish Principality of Edessa 46 years; The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 88 years ; The Principality of Tripoli of Syria 180 years ; The Principality of Antioch 169 years; The Principality of Accon or Acre 187 years; The Seljuk Sultanate of Roum 213 years; The Latin Empire of Constantinople 57 years; The Greek Empire of Trebizond 258 years ; The Kingdom of Cyprus 295 years. "The figures and inscriptions on these coins vary. Some of them have the pic ture of the King, or a standing lion with a cross in his hand. On the reverse side, after the name of the king, are the words: "By the power of God, King." Or: "Cast in the city of Sis, to the Glory of God." A silver coin bears the picture of King Hethoum I and Queen Zabelle. The most common currency was the Tacavorin which was called Tacorin or Taccolino by Euro peans, and Tacvourieh by the Egyptians. It was a silver piece, equivalent to about twelve cents in American money. ARMENIA AND HER CLAIMS

Memorandum on Armenia and her claims to freedom and national independence presented to the Democratic Mid-Europe Union by Dr. G. Pasdermadjian, special envoy of His Holiness, the Catholicos of all Armenians, and by Mr. Miran Sevably, chairman of the Armenian National Union of America and representative in the United States of the Armenian National Delegation.

PART II

THE SITUATION OF THE ARMENIANS, INCLUDING TRANS- CAUSIA AND TURKEY, PRIOR TO THE PRESENT WORLD WAR

When the present international war commenced, the number of Arme nians living in the three Empires among which the country of Armenia is divided, viz: Russia, Turkey and Persia, amounted to 4,276,000. Out of this number, 3,406,000 inhabited on the soii of the historic land of Armenia, while the remaining 870,000 were scattered in different parts of the three Empires aforementioned^ This circumstance demonstrates per se how the Armenian has tenaciously stuck to the land of his an cestors, notwithstanding the indisputable historic fact that no other nation on earth has undergone such vicissitudes and has shed so much of its precious blood for its national existence, ever since the fourth century A. D. to the present day, during which long period it has become the standard bearer in the Near East,—on the confines of Asia and

Europe, —of the ideas of Civilization, Liberty and Christendom ; whereas other neighbors of the Armenians, who were exposed to the same fate, like the Jews and the Assyrians, do not present today the same condi tions. The number of Israelites at present is more than ten millions throughout the universe, but hardly 100,000 of these are on the soil of their historic fatherland; while the number of Assyrians, who in the distant past was computed by historians at about thirty million souls, is at present reduced to hardly half a million survivors within the limits of the Ottoman Empire. But this number again has abandoned the land of its sires to find refuge in the mountains of Armenia and in the neigh borly friendliness of the Armenians. Let us now briefly set forth in what proportions the Armenians are located in the three Empires above referred to. The statistical informa tion regarding the Armenians in Russian Armenia has been obtained

72 ARMENIA AND HER CLAIMS 73

from the official Russian census returns published in January of 1915, whereas what concerns the number of Armenians in Turkish Armenia are derived from the official achives of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople prepared in 1912. The number of Armenians in Turkey

in the year 1914 may be summed up as follows : A. Within the limits of the country known as Turkish Armenia, the numbers are given against each of the provinces that constitute the Armenian provinces, to wit:

1. Villayet of Erzeroum 215,000 " " 2. Van 185,000 " " 3. Bitlis 180,000 " " 4. Harpoot 168,000 " " 5. Diarbekir 105,000 " " 6. Sivas 165,000 " 7. ". Adana and Marash country, known as Cilicia 407,000

Total ^,425,000 Armenians inhabiting Constantinople, Smyrna, Thrace, and other parts of Turkish Empire 678,000

Grand Total 2,103,000

B. Armenians in Russia in 1914.

1. Within the limits of Transcaucasia, Province of Erivan 750,000 2. Elizavetpol 450,000 3. Tiflis 400,000 4. Kars 130,000 5. Baku 128,000

Total 1,858,000 Northern part of the Caucasus and throughout Russia 150,000

Total 2,008,000 C. Armenians in Persia.

1. In the province of Aderbeijan 120,000 2. In other parts of Persia 45,000

Total 165,000 74 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

From the above statistical returns, it will be seen that no less than 3,403,000 Armenians were living on the soil of their fatherland on both sides of the Turco-Russian frontiers at the time when the present world- war broke out. And by reason of her geographical position, Armenia became again the battlefield of warring nations, and the Armenian people, faithful to their historic traditions and to their progressive past, at the very risk of their national existence, threw their lot on the side of the cause of justice and of civilization. The blood of the sons of Armenia was shed in torrents, in a way not commensurate with their numbers. Doubtless the historian of the future will record the indis putable fact that in this gigantic struggle among the warring nations, the smallest but the oldest of races, the Armenian, has proportionately offered greater sacrifices in blood on the altar of human liberty. Before dilating upon the present claims of the Armenians, for the realization of which they have undergone such heavy sacrifices, may we be permitted to picture the conditions of the Armenian at the out look of this war in the three Empires between which Armenia is par titioned. We will deal with each section separately. Persian Armenia, which forms a part of the Persian Province of Aderbeijan, has been under Persian domination since the fifth century A. D., although at different periods subsequent, it was united with the Armenian Kingdom of Van under the Arzrouni dynasty. The Armenians in Persian Armenia are the survivors of a much larger section of the race whose number has been depleted by reason of the successive con quests and raids of migratory tribes like the Tartars, Mongols and Turks, that overran that part of the country in their successive onward marches towards the heart of Asia Minor. Notwithstanding the small- ness of their number, the Armenians in Persia play a vital part in vari

important ; ous walks of life. \ They have held public offices they have given statesmen, ambassadors and military leaders to Persia; and the mercantile activity of that country with many quarters of the globe is in their hands. We may mention the names of the late Malcolm Khan, Ambassador to the Court of St. James, Nariman Khan, Ambassador to Vienna, Ohannes Khan Masseghian, Ambassador to Berlin, and others, who each and all were Armenians in the service of Persia. We think it is not out of place to recall the part played by Armenians in the reform and constitutional movement, one of whose principal leaders was an ARMENIA AND HER CLAIMS 75

Armenian, Eprem Khan and his associates, who were instrumental in introducing in the Body politic of that Asiatic land the western ideas of progress and democracy and did not disdain to sacrifice their very lives for their realization. In the fifth century when the Persians were at the height of their power, they made attempts to impose on the Armenians by sheer vio lence their religious beliefs and compel them to forsake their national ideals. The struggle lasted about a century, and finding after protracted wars that it is impossible to make Armenians relinquish the tenets of their Christian faith and nationality, they altered their attitude and adopted a more tolerant policy toward them. For centuries ever since, the Persians and Armenians have lived together as peaceful neighbors without the sanguinary conflicts which have characterized the Turco- Armenian relations since the Turkish conquest of part of Armenia. Although the Persians have mostly embraced Mohammedanism, but descending from an Aryan stock, like the Armenians, and being possessed of ancient culture and civilization, they have not displayed towards the Armenians the savagery and brutal conduct with which the Touranian races, to which the Turks belong, have familiarized the civilized world, ever since they supplanted the Cross by the Crescent in the Near East. Notwithstanding these somewhat bearable conditions prevailing in Persian Armenia—so contiguous to the Armenian province of Van—the Armenians of Salmast, Khoi and Makou, — the principal Armenian- Persian centers in Aderbeijan,—all aspire to see that part of their coun try one day united and form an inseparable part of a Magna Armenia. 1 Russian Armenia, the part of historic Armenia which is under Rus sian sway, is included in the Transcaucasian provinces of Russia. It was conquered by Russia in the early part of the nineteenth century and

wrested from Persia. \ Before the Russian conquest, Transcaucasia was divided between a number of Khanates and Melikates (small self-gov erning principalities). The Khans were Tartars by origin and ruled mostly over Tartars, while the Meliks were Armenian feudal lords and their domination extended over the Armenian districts of Carabagh. All these different principalities were tributary to the Persian Govern ment. Neighboring these dependencies to the northwest there existed a Georgian Kingdom, including the present provinces of Tiflis and Kubias. Georgia being squeezed in between two powerful Moslem coun 76 THE ARMENIAN HERALD tries like Persia and Turkey, and subject to permanent attacks from these quarters, appealed towards the end of the eighteenth century to the Empress Catherine for protection and help. At this juncture, in the year 1787, the Armenian Meliks of Carabagh took occasion to send a delegation to the Russian Court, praying for Russian assistance against Tartar neighbors who were in constant conflicts with them. The Rus sian Government promised immediate help to both Armenians and Georgians, and moreover undertook, in so far as the Armenians were concerned, to free them from Persian domination, and to organize a new Armenian state made up of the Armenian provinces, under the suzerainty of Russia. Encouraged by these promises, both Armenians and Georgians placed all their military forces at the disposal of Russia and powerfully con tributed to bring about the conquest of Transcaucasia from Persia. But unfortunately the solemn promises of the Empress Catherine were not fulfilled and the conquered territory was brought under Russian sway. It was through the enforcement of this method that Georgia and part of historic Armenia, including Etchmiadzin, the seat of the Supreme Head of the Armenian church and nation, were annexed by Russia. The policy of Russia ever since these conquests appear to have had a single purpose, viz: to Russianize and assimilate the Armenians and Georgians. The Georgians being members of the Eastern Greek Church, and hence of the same religious denomination as the Russian, were more easily amenable to Russification than were the Armenians, who having a national separate church of their own, were more jealous of their national traditions. This circumstance provoked the enmity of the Russian Government toward them. The policy of Russification was strengthened more and more, and in 1903 the Armenian schools were closed and all national Armenian property confiscated by an Imperial ukase issued by the now deposed Emperor Nicholas II. The Armenians did not, however, willingly submit to these arbitrary acts and opposed violence to violence, and in certain sections of the Transcaucasus several Armenians were killed by Russian soldiers. The illustrous Khrimian, the Catholicos of all Armenians, and the idol of the nation, scorning exile to Siberia at the age of eighty, in an historic document addressed to the Omnipotent Czar of all Russia declared that he, as the custodian of the centuries old heritage of the Armenian nation, refused to abide by such ARMENIA AND HER CLAIMS 77

an unjust decree. As a result, the prisons in the Transcaucasus were filled with hundreds of Armenians, and many others belonging to the intellectual classes were exiled to Siberia. But the Russian administra tion did not rest here. It went further. It incited the Tartars of the Transcaucasus against the Armenians. It distributed fire-arms among the Tartars of Baku, and Elizavetpol, and gave them carte blanche to plunder and kill their Armenian neighbors and organized programs as it did with Russian Jews. In February, 1905, the Tartars of Baku and elsewhere began their unprovoked onslaught on the Armenians under the very eyes of the Russian police, who remained passive observers of these sanguinary scenes. The attacks were extended suddenly to other centers like Elizavetpol, Shoushi, Erivan and Nakhitchevan, and took the Armenians by surprise. The Armenians were aware that the reactionary policy of Russia, which had prevailed since the advent to the throne of Em peror Alexander III, was Anti-Armenian in its essence. They also knew that after the general massacres of the Armenians in Turkey in 1895 and 1896, Count Lebanoff, the Russian Foreign Minister, declared Rus sia was eager to have Turkish Armenia, but without the Armenians, whom he did not care to save. All these circumstances notwithstanding, the Armenians in Russia could never imagine that a Christian Power like Russia would countenance and authorize the Mohammedan element in the Transcaucasus to assume a hostile attitude toward them. But the facts were staring the Armenians in the face. There was no time to lose. They at once organized themselves for self-defence and Trans caucasia became the theatre of a civil war between these two elements which lasted a whole year, under the very eyes of the Russian authorities who only interfered when they realized that the Tartars were being worsted by the Armenians. The Armenians lost 1556, while the loss of the Tartars during these frays amounted to 5635 men, and this dispro portion of the fallen was due to the admirable organization of the Arme nians, who, notwithstanding their being somewhat numerically inferior to their assailants, were able on the spur of the moment to organize their forces for self-defence. But the material injuries inflicted on the Armenians were much greater than those borne by the Tartars. It would, however, be fair to state here that, notwithstanding the 78 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

Russian bureaucratic methods of government, and all its deficiencies and its hostile policy towards the Armenians, the latter nevertheless en forced in the Transcaucasus certain elementary rights of existence of which they have ever been deprived in Turkey—which enabled them to develop their moral and material resources, to increase in numbers, and to become the most forward element of the Transcaucasus in all the branches of human activity. In proof of this, we desire to recall that in 1836, the number of Armenians under Russian domination amounted to about 300,000 as against 500,000 Georgians and 700,000 Tartars. In 1915, according to official statistics, the number of Armenians swelled to 1,858,000, that of the Georgians to 1,450,000 and of the Tartars to 2,040,000. The large increase of Armenians may be also explained by the influx of Armenian refugees from Turkey, but the real cause of this increase is due principally to the fact that the Armenians are a prolific race, with strong family virtues. The official Russian statistics demon strate that the rate of increase per year of these different races is as follows : Armenians 2.5 per cent, Georgians 1.5 per cent, Tartars 0.9 per cent. We cannot close this chapter without alluding to the intellectual and cultural progress of the Armenians under Russia. There in the Trans caucasus throve in a marked degree Armenian literature which produced a galaxy of writers, poets, novelists, historians, whose writings are to some degree permeated with the ideas of the most liberal Russian leaders of thought. These ideas in return brought to bear the weight of their influence on the minds of their Armenian compatriots across the border into Turkish Armenia, towards whose struggles for emancipation from the Turkish yoke the Armenians of Russia greatly contributed. When the present war broke out, the Armenians of Russia forgot for a moment all the just complaints against Russian bureaucracy and with out hesitation or equivocation espoused the cause of the Allies, including Russia, with the firm conviction that the victory of the Allies would end their sufferings and would recognize their inalienable rights to self- government. Besides contributing 160,000 men to the Russian army, they organized several volunteer corps, whose deeds of valor on the bat tlefield were officially recognized by M. Sazanoff, the Foreign Minister, in his address to the Duma. ARMENIA AND HER CLAIMS 79

Without the contribution of the Armenian contingents to the Russian army in the Caucasus, the Turkish offensive against the Transcaucasus in 1914 and 1915 would have been crowned with success, more especially having regard to the fact that the sympathies of the Tartar and Georgian population of the Transcaucasus were manifestly pro-Teutonic and pro- Turks. The success of such an offensive in the years 1914 and 1915 would have enabled the Turkish armies to secure a footing at Baku, and all its oil wells and Persian Afghanistan —the gates to India—would have been placed at the mercy of the Germanic-Turkish forces. This active participation of the Russian Armenians at this crucial phase of the world war was publicly recognized by the Young Turk leaders, who invoked this circumstance to justify the Turkish savageries perpetrated against the Armenians of Turkey. Let it be said, moreover, that after the disruption of Russia, through the triumph of Bolshevism, and the withdrawal of the Russian troops from the Caucasian front in January 1918, it was the Armenian contin gents solely that held the line against the Turkish onslaughts, and there by helped the Mesopotamian wing of the British army by preventing the Turkish troops on the Caucasian front from joining the Turkish armies operating against the British. The Armenians held the line un til September, 1918, and it was after hard fought battles that the Turks ■were able to reach Baku, the British expeditionary force sent to join hands with them not arriving in due time, and those that did arrive ■were insufficient in numbers. These services have been officially acknowledged in official dispatches by the British Government, and we take occasion to reproduce the fol lowing extract from a letter, dated the third of October, 1918, signed by the Under Secretary of State, Robert Cecil, and addressed to Lord James Bryce:

"The Baku Armenians were not only an isolated remnant, but no doubt their task was made impossible from the outset by the disorgani zation which prevailed and had thrown open to the Turks the Trans- Caucasian Railway leading to the gates of the city. Whatever may have happened at Baku, the responsibility cannot be laid at the door of the Armenian people. "The National Delegation, commissioned by his Holiness the Catho 80 THE ARMENIAN HERALD licos in 1903 to obtain from the civilized world that justice to Armenia which has been delayed with such terrible consequences, have given many proofs, under the distinguished presidency of his Excellency Boghos Nubar Pasha, of their devotion to the cause of the Allies, as being the cause of all peoples striving to free the world from oppression. "The Council at Erivan threw itself into the break which the Russian breakdown left open in Asia, and after organizing resistance to the Turks in the Caucasus from February to June this year, was at length compelled by main force to suspend hostilities. Great Britain and her Allies understand the cruel necessity which has forced the Armenians to take this step, and look forward to the time, perhaps not far distant, when allied victories may reverse their undeserved misfortunes. "Meanwhile, the services of the Armenians to the common cause, to which you refer in your letter, have assuredly not been forgotten ; and I venture to mention four points which the Armenians may, I think, re gard as the charter of their right to liberation at the hand of the Allies : "1. In the autumn of 1914 the Turks sent emissaries to the National Congress of the Ottoman Armenians then sitting at Erzeroum and made them offers of autonomy if they would actively assist Turkey in the war. The Armenians replied that they would do their duty individually as Ottoman subjects, but that as a nation they could not work for the cause of Turkey and her Allies. "2. On account, in part, of this courageous refusal, the Ottoman Armenians were systematically murdered by the Turkish Government in 1915. Two-thirds of the population were exterminated by the most cold-blooded and fiendish methods —more than 700,000 people, men, women, and children alike. "3. From the beginning of the war that half of the Armenian nation which was under the sovereignty of Russia organized volunteer forces, and, under their heroic leader Andranik, bore the brunt of some of the heaviest fighting in the Caucasian campaigns. "4. After the breakdown of the Russian Army at the end of last year these Armenian forces took over the Caucasian front, and for five months delayed the advance of the Turks, thus rendering an important service to the British Army in Mesopotamia. These operations, in the ARMENIA AND HER CLAIMS SI

region of Alexandropol and Erivan, were, of course, unconnected with those at Baku. "I may add that Armenian soldiers are still fighting in the ranks of the allied forces in Syria. They are to be found serving alike in the British, and Armenian armies, and they have borne their part in General Allenby's great victory in Palestine."

From the above mentioned uncontrovertible facts it is concluisvely established that the Armenians, from the beginning of the war, and notwithstanding the justifiable mistrust which they have maintained toward the aims of Russian Imperialism, have stood by and been loyal to the allied cause in the Near East, and they rendered not only ap preciable military services, but also jeopardized their very existence in Turkey, where more than a million of Armenians, men, women and children, were ruthlessly massacred and exterminated by reason of their pro-ally attitude.

(Continued from December, 1918, number) WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE armenia's role in the present war

by g. pasdermadjian

Armenian Resistance to the Turkish Massacres

It is true that the battalions of Armenian volunteers took no active part in the battles of July, for they were then in the district of Van and undertaking the heavy duty of rear guard work for the Russian army and the Armenian refugees. But the Turkish Armenians behind the front, who were being deported and massacred as early as the month of July, by their heroic resistance, occupied the attention of four Turk- isn divisions and tens of thousands of Kurds just at the time when the Turks had such great need of those forces to aid them in their July drive. It is worth while, therefore, to point out here that, during the deportations and massacres of 1915, whenever the Armenians had any possible means at all of resisting the criminal plans of the Turkish government, they took up arms and organized resistance in different parts of Armenia. Even before the deportations had begun, toward the latter part of 1914, the Turkish government cunningly attempted to disarm the Zeitunians, the brave Armenian mountaineers of Cilicia, who had takes up arms against the Turkish government at three different times in the nineteenth century, and each time had laid down their arms only on the intervention of the European powers, believing that they would put an end to the Turkish barbarities. This time the government filled the prisons with foe prominent Zeitunians and persuaded the young war riors to surrender, promising to set them free if they did so. After ac complishing its deceitful plan, the government put to death most of the young men, deported the inhabitants, and made the mouhajirs from Balkans inhabit Zeitun, even changing the name of the place to Soulaymania, in order to erase the memory of those brave mountaineers. A group of warriors, however, found means to take up their arms, climb the mountains, and fight the Turkish soldiers. They are still free, and live among the mountains of Giaur Dagh. In the following year the inhabitants of Buediah were the first to defend themselves against the WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE 8.1 rurks. In April, when the Turkish government ordered the Armenian peasants of Suediah to leave their homes and emigrate toward Der-El- Zor, the inhabitants of four or five villages, nearly 5,000 in number, re fused to obey this unlawful order of the Turkish government. With their families they climbed the Amanos mountains and for forty-two days heroically resisted the cannonading of the regular Turkish forces. Their situation was of course critical. The desperate villagers sewed a large red cross on a white sheet to inform the fleet of the Allies in the Mediterranean that they were in danger. The French cruiser, Guechene, got in touch with the Armenian peasants, informed its war department of the situation, and obtained permission to remove them by transports to Port Said (Egypt) . Most of them are still there, cared for by the Brit ish, while the young warriors went to join the French Oriental Legion, and fought on the Palestine front under General Allenby. The resistance at Van has already been spoken of. The next place of importance must be given to the brave mountainous district of Sasoun, that very Sasoun which had retained its semi-independent position in Turkish Armenia up to the beginning of the last century, and had taken up arms at three different times in the present generation to defend its independence against the Ottoman troops —in 1894, in 1904, and again in 1915. This last time, toward the end of June, when the troops of Khalil and Jevded began to lay waste with fire and sword the city of Moush and the unprotected villages of the outlying district, the gallant Sasounians, under the guidance of their two idealistic leaders, came dcwn from their mountains and made several raids on the city to drive away the Turks. One of their leaders was Roupen, a self-sacrificing and highly educated young man who had received his university training in Geneva, Switzerland, and had shouldered his gun in 1904 and had dedicated himself to the task of defending Sasoun. The name of the other was Vahan Papazian (a native of Van, but educated in Rus

sian universities) , who had been elected representative from Van to the Ottoman parliament. This daring step on the part of Sasoun forced the Turkish commanders to march on Sasoun with two divisions of troops and with nearly 30,000 Kurds. From the first days of July to Sept. 8, the Sasounians were able to resist the Turco-Kurdish attacks, always with the hope that the Russian army would come to their assistance. During that interval of time, the Sasounians sent several couriers to the 84 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

Russian army and asked for help, but the Russian commanders re mained indifferent, in spite of the fact that the extreme front line of the Russian army was scarcely 50 kilometers (31 miles) away from Sasoun, and the sound of the Turkish artillery aimed at the Sasounians could be heard very distinctly by the Russian army. One of the commanders of the Armenian volunteers, Dro, appealed to the Russian commander and asked for one battery of cannon and a score or two of machine guns, which would have enabled his men to break the Turkish front and join the Sasounians. That request likewise was refused by the heart less commanders of despotic Russia. These were the conditions under which fell the historic Verdun of Armenia, heroic little Sasoun which, with its 10,000 mountaineers, succeeded in facing 50,000 Turks and Kurds for two months, with antiquated weapons and without ade quate food or ammunition. Making all due allowance for the relative magnitude and impor tance of the Near Eastern and the Western fronts, we may safely say without exaggeration that Van and Sasoun, on the Caucasian front in the year 1915, played exactly the same role which Liege played in 1914 and Verdun in 1916 on the Western front. Had it not been for these two points of stubborn resistance against the Turkish troops in the summer of 1915, the two Turkish offensives, already spoken of, would have had great chances of success. This is an undisputed fact with all the inhabitants of the Near East. And indeed, three months after these events, when the Armenian volunteers together with the Russian troops recommenced their drive and captured the cities of Moush and Bitlis, in the diary of a Turkish officer, who was taken pris oner in Bitlis, was found the following item, which appeared at the time in the Russian press : "We are asked why we massacre the Armenians. The reason is quite plain to me. Had not the Armenians fought against us, we should have reached Tiflis and Baku long ago." In addition to Van and Sasoun, during the same July when deporta tions and organized massacres were going on, three other places might be mentioned where hopeless attempts at resistance were made by the Armenians against the savage Turks and Kurds. These places were Sivas, Urfa, and Shabin-Karahissar. At Sivas the heroic resistance of Mourat and his comrades and their escape were so full of thrilling WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE 85

events that they have been likened to the adventures of Odysseus. ■ Mourat is a brave warrior who, together with his companion, Sepouh, had fought at Sasoun, in 1904, and had taken part in the Armenian and Tartar clashes of 1905 and 1906 in the Caucasus. When deportations and massacres commenced in 1915, Turkish gendarmes were sent to capture Mourat, who was living with his wife and child in a village near Sivas. Realizing the coming danger, Mourat climbed the mountains with his band of warriors and resisted the raids of the enemy. After a year and a half of stubborn resistance, he descended one day to the shore of the Black Sea, captured a Turkish sail-boat near Samsoun, and, putting his comrades into it, ordered the Turkish sailor to steer the boat toward Batoum, a Russian port. According to cable messages, Mourat was chased by a Turkish gun-boat. Several battles took place in which he lost a few of his men, but finally repulsed the Turks and reached Batoum safe and sound. At Urfa the Armenians were able for forty days to repulse the attacks of one Turkish division, but finally fell heroically under the fire of Turkish artillery, commanded by German officers, hav ing previously destroyed all their property so that it would not fall into the hands of their enemies. In the ruined Armenian trenches at Urfa, by the side of Armenian young men there had fallen dead also Armenian young women who, arms in hand, were found all mangled by the Ger man bombs. At Shabin-Karahissar, nearly 5,000 Armenians, for twenty- seven days without interruption, in the same month of July, kept busy another division of Turkish troops with their artillery. There took place one of the most tragic and heroic episodes of the present war. When the ammunition of the Armenians was almost gone, on the last day of the struggle, nearly 3,000 Armenian women and girls drank poison and died in order not to fall alive into the hands of the savage Turks. If the supply of poison had not given out, all the women would have done likewise. An eye-witness, one who had taken part in the struggle and who succeeded in reaching the Caucasus in 1916, after wandering in the mountains and valleys of Armenia for a whole year, related how on that last day Armenian mothers and girls, with tears in their eyes and with hymns on their lips, received poison from the Armenian physicians and apothecaries for themselves and their little ones. When the supply of poison gave out, those who were unable to obtain any uttered terrible wailing, and many of the girls cast themselves 86 THE ARMENIAN HERALD down from the rocks of the Karahissar citadel and committed suicide.

These events reveal the following facts : first, that in spite of all the precautions which the Turkish government employed to disarm the Armenians before carrying out its fiendish design, the Armenians found means to organize in the four corners of Armenia hopeless but serious plans of resistance against the swords of their enemy; second, that in order to eliminate these Armenian points of resistance during the summer of 1915, five Turkish divisions and tens of thousands of Kurds were kept employed, and were unable to add their immediate co operation in those very days to the other Turkish forces engaged in their two offensives on the Caucasian front. These were the positive services which the martyred Armenian people rendered to the allied cause in the Near East. Their active resistance to the Turco-German plans, however, cost the Armenians more than one million men mas sacred under the most savage conditions, and the deprivation of their means of livelihood in Turkish Armenia. But, to complete the descrip tion of the Armenian Calvary, it is necessary to picture also in a few words the attitude assumed by the government of the Russian Czar toward the very Armenian people whose active participation on Russia's side enabled the Caucasian front to repulse the Turkish attacks in 1914 and 1915, and, moreover, to accomplish definite successes during the fol lowing year, 1916.

Attitude op Russian Czarism toward the Armenians

As we have already mentioned, from the beginning of the war the Russian bureaucracy tried on the one hand by various false promisee to win over the sympathy of the Armenians, while on the other it tried by every means to keep the Armenian military forces away from the Caucasian front. Only seven battalions of Armenian volunteers were kept on the Caucasian front. As we have already seen, those few battalions even, in 1914 and 1915, rendered to the Russians invaluable services, twice saving the right and left wings of the Russian army from an unavoidable catastrophe by their heroic resistance; but the Russian official communiques do not contain one line in which the battalions of Armenian volunteers are even mentioned. The same silence was maintained by the Russian communiques concern ing the heroic resistance of the Armenians at Van, and with regard to WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE 87

the assistance which the Armenian volunteers rushed to that city. This was the policy of the government of Russian Czarism from the begin ning of the war to the end of its existence, —to avoid in every way speaking about the Armenians and Armenia. The Russian press was even forbidden to speak about the massacres carried on in Turkish Armenia at the hands of the Turkish government. Therefore, when the capture of Erzeroum in 1916 made the immediate co-operation of the Armenian volunteers unnecessary to the Russians, the commander- in-chief of the Caucasian army at the time, Grand Duke Nicolas Nicolaevitch, ordered the disbanding of all the battalions of the Armenian volunteers. Besides this amazing treatment of the Armenian military forces, the Czar's government removed from the Caucasus be fore the war all the Armenian officers and replaced them by generals (manifestly anti-Armenian in spirit) from the Russians, Georgians, and other Caucasian races. The object of this move was to enable the government to check the national aspirations of the Armenians, and to give it a plausible opportunity at the end of the war to take over the Armenian vilayets without gratifying the demands of the Armenians for autonomy. From the third month of the war, it became clear to us that the Russian government pursued unswervingly its Lobanoff-policy toward the Armenians. What was that policy? In 1896, when an English cor respondent interviewed the Russian minister of foreign affairs, Count Lobanoff Rostowsky, and asked him why Russia did not occupy the Armenian vilayets of Turkey in order to save that Christian people from the Turkish massacres, the Russian minister cynically replied: "We need Armenia, but without the Armenians." It is worth while, then, to give here a few actual facts which reveal this fiendish policy pursued by the Russian government toward a people which was the only one of all the peoples of the Caucasus and the Near East to help the Russian army by its unreserved co-operation, and which was the only factor that saved the Caucasian front from an unavoidable catastrophe in 1914 and 1915. One. Every time that the Russian army was forced to retreat from the recaptured parts of Turkish Armenia, no precautionary measures were taken in order to save the local Armenian inhabitants from the inevitable massacres. For example, in December, 1914, when the Turks advanced as far as Sarikamish and Ardahan and forced the cen 88 THE ARMENIAN HERALD tral Russian army to retreat from the neighborhood of Alashkert and Bayazid, the commander of the local forces, General Abatzieff (an Acetine Moslem who had joined the Greek church) strictly ordered the local Armenian inhabitants, nearly 32,000 in number, not to stir from their places, and in order to have his command accurately carried out he placed mounted Cossack patrols in the plains of Alashkert lest the Armenian peasants should emigrate toward the Russian frontier, in which direction the Russian army with its transports had already been moving since December 13. Three days later the second battalion of the Armenian volunteers, which had been fighting in the first-line posi tions for over two months under the command of the same general, returned to the army headquarters for a well-earned rest, and there only it heard about the serious happenings already mentioned, and the extraordinary attitude assumed by the Russian general. The Armenian peasants from every side appealed to the Armenian volunteers with tears in their eyes and begged to be saved from an inevitable massacre. The commander of the Armenian volunteers, Armen Garo, and his brave assistant, Ehetcho, who died like a hero in July, 1915, on the shores of Lake Van, went immediately to General Abatzieff and asked him to re voke his order and permit the Armenian inhabitants to move with the army toward Igdir. The hostile general refused their request, his answer being that, if the people stirred from the place, he would be unable to remove the army transports soon enough. When he heard this answer, Armen Garo immediately telegraphed to Igdir and ap pealed to the commander-in-chief of the fourth army, General Oganow- sky, and in touching words asked for his intervention. On the following day only, thanks to the intervention of General Oganowsky, the Arme nian volunteers received permission to organize the retreat of the Armenian inhabitants of the plains of Alashkert toward Igdir and to de fend them from the attacks of the Kurds. During the seven days that the retreat lasted the Armenians lost only 400 persons, and most of those on account of the severe cold. Another example of this hostile treatment of the Armenians by the Russian authorities might be men tioned, —the retreat from the Van district in July, 1915. There General Nikolaeff for eight continuous days deceived the Armenian leaders and made them remain idle (telling them every day that he would not re treat under any circumstances, and that therefore it was entirely need WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE 89

less to remove the people), until behold, one day, July 18, he suddenly sent for the mayor of Van, Aram, and the commander-in-chief of the Armenian volunteers, Vartan, and informed them that he had received orders to retreat immediately, but in order to make it possible for the people to prepare for departure, he would wait until the 20th of the month. Thus the Armenian leaders were forced to remove in two or three days nearly 150,000 people of the Van region, and if those three battalions of Armenian volunteers had not been there to protect the people from Kurdish and Turkish raids, the loss of life during the journey would have been tenfold more than it actually was. Whereas, if the Russian general had not been so deceitful in his behavior but had given an opportunity of seven or eight days to organize the retreat, it would have been possible to direct the people to Erivan without the loss of a single life. The Armenians suffered a loss of 8,000 to 10,000 men, women, and children during the retreat. Two. When Turkish Armenia was almost wholly emptied of its Armenian inhabitants, due to these successive retreats, the Russian government raised all sorts of barriers before the refugees to prevent them from returning to their former homes when the Russian army re captured the Armenian vilayets. For example, in 1916-1917, scarcely 8,000 to 10,000 Armenians were permitted to go back and inhabit the region of Van; the rest were compelled to stay within the borders of the Caucasus as refugees. Toward the latter part of 1916, even among Russian governmental circles there was talk of transferring to Siberia nearly 250,000 Turkish Armenian immigrants who had sought refuge in the Caucasus, because it was objected that no available lands existed there for them. Russians considered it a settled question that even after the war the Turkish Armenians would not be permitted to return to their own homes. On the other hand, the same Russian bureaucracy resorted to every means to win the sympathy of the Turkish and Kurdish inhabitants re maining in Armenia. With that purpose in view, in the spring of 1916, on behalf of the ministry for foreign affairs at Petrograd, Count Chakhowsky with his own organization established himself in Bashkale (a city in the district of Van) and distributed nearly 24,000 rifles to the Kurds of the neighboring regions. It is needless to say that not long after those very rifles were used by the Kurds against the Russian army 90 THE ARMENIAN HERALD both in Persia and Armenia. This amazing action of Count Chakhow- sky was taken so openly that it was even known to ordinary Rus sian soldiers, who were extremely enraged against the Count, a fact which accounts for the murder of the same Count Chakhowsky in Persia by Russian soldiers, when the discipline of the Russian army was re laxed on account of the revolution which took place in the spring of 1917. Three. While the Russians were preventing the Turkish Armenian immigrants from returning to their own lands, they, in the spring of 1916, commenced to organize in Turkish Armenia colonies of Cossacks. The Russian administration sent special propagandists to the northern Caucasus to persuade the Cossacks living there to move to Armenia, and during that same year 5,000 of them, under the name of agricultural battalions, were already cultivating the plains of Alashkert, lands which rightly belonged to the Armenians. This last act of the Russian gov ernment was so revolting that even the liberal organs of the Russian press complained of the government for such inhuman proceedings, while in the Russian Duma two Russian representatives, N. Milukoff and A. Kerensky (both of whom played such great roles the following year in the downfall of Czarism), publicly criticised the government of the Czar for its base treatment of the Armenians. Documentary evi dence relating to this disgraceful action of the Russian government, which incensed the ire of prominent liberals in the Duma, may be found in the July 28, 1916, issue of the Retch, the organ of the Constitutional Democrats in Russia. In order to characterize this criminal action of the Russian bureaucracy against the Armenian people who were mar tyred for the allied cause, it may be worth while also to cite the follow ing details: In the month of July, 1915, the Armenian inhabitants of Erzeroum, nearly 25,000 in number, were likewise deported by the Turkish government, leaving all their real and personal property at the disposal of the Turks. The governor of the place, Tahsin Bey, ar ranged a scheme by means of which every Armenian before leaving the city could store his goods and household furniture (with the name of the owner on each article) in the cathedral, with the apparent pur pose of returning them to their owners after the war, but with the real purpose of preventing so much riches from falling into the hands of the Turkish mob, in order to appropriate them later for the govern WHY ARMENIA SHOULD BE FREE 91 ment. The cathedral of Erzeroum was packed with the goods of the exiled Armenians when the Russians captured the city in February, 1916. Ordinary human decency demanded that the Russians should not have touched the articles stored in that sacred edifice, especially as they belonged to the very martyred people whose professed sympathies for them (the Russians) were the cause of their being exiled to the deserts of Mesopotamia. But the fact is that the commander of the Russian army, General Kaledine himself, set the example of desecration ; he personally entered the cathedral first, and selected for himself a few car-loads of rugs and sundry valuable articles. Then the other of ficers of the Russian army followed his example, and in a few days half of the contents of the church was already pillaged before the representa tive of the Armenian Committee, Mr. Rostom, after repeated tele grams, was able to receive an order from Tifiis to stop the plunder. In that same summer of 1916, the Buxton brothers (representatives of the Armenian Committee of London) and other English Armenophiles came to Armenia. When they witnessed all these disgraceful particulars they could not believe their own eyes, so monstrous was the attitude of the Russian government toward the Armenians. The English and American friends of Armenia consoled them by saying that on their return they would have the privilege of explaining this state of affairs to their government and that they would doubtless do all in their power to protect the rights of the Armenians. These were the circumstances under which the Armenian people joined its fate to the allied cause from the very beginning of the war, and, having made colossal sacrifices dur ing three whole years, was almost crushed to death in the claws of Turkish and Russian despotism. In that same sorrowful summer of 1916 the Armenians heard the news that England, France, and Russia had signed an agreement concerning Armenia. According to that agreement Russia was to take over the three vilayets of Turkish Armenia, Erzeroum, Bitlis, and Van, while southern Armenia and Cilicia were to be put under the guardian ship of France. One must be an Armenian in order to feel the depth and intensity of the bitterness and disappointment which filled the hearts of all the wandering Armenians from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia. Every Armenian asked himself or herself: Was this to be our recompense? In those very days (September, 1916) one of the agents of the German government in Switzerland approached Dr. Zavrieff (one of 92 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

the representatives of the Armenian Committee of that place) with the following proposal : "You Armenians made a great mistake when you joined your fate to that of the Allies. It is time for you to rectify your mistaken policy. Your dreams with regard to the historic Armenia are unrealizable. You may as well accustom yourselves to that fact, and before it is too late you will do better to join the fate of your people with the German poli cies, and remove the remnants of the Armenian people to Mesopotamia, where the Germans will put at the disposal of the Armenians every means which will enable them to create for themselves a new and a more fortunate fatherland under their (German) immediate protection."

In order to persuade his Armenian opponent, the German agent con stantly reminded him of the agreement (between England, France and

Russia) , and especially of the hostile attitude of the Russians up to that time towards the Armenians. The news of this German proposal reached the Caucasus in December of the same year. It was made the subject of serious consultation among the Armenian leaders. The writer of these lines was present at those conferences, and his impression was this: Had there not been that superhuman adoration (so peculiarly Arme nian) which every Armenian has for his ancestral home and recollec tions so sanctified by blood, the German proposal would very likely have been accepted by the Armenians at that psychological moment when their hearts were overflowing with bitterness and disappointment to ward the Russian government, —a member of the allied nations. The outcome of those conferences was that we decided to continue our for mer policy toward the Entente, in spite of the base behavior of the Rus sians towards us, and at the same time to invite the serious attention of our great Allies of the west to our hopeless situation.

(Continued from the December number) THE TRAGEDY OF ARMENIA

BY BERTHA S. PAPAZIAN

IV

THE RISE AND INFLUENCE OF THE NEAR EASTERN QUESTION

The modern Near Eastern Question was a weighty factor in the ef florescence of light and hope which revealed to the Armenians of the later nineteenth century all the degradation and horror of the Turkish domination, just as it was the chief force in the determination of the last, most terrible, and most piteous phase of the entire Armenian tragedy. In so far as it was concerned with the treatment of Chris tians in general, in the Near East, it was but a resumption of the ancient discussion begun by Charlemagne and Harun al Raschid. This has been a courtly, and, on the whole, a satisfactory correspondence, as were afterwards the interchanges between the Christian knights and the mighty Saladin. But the Turks were of another order, and the motives of the Western intercessors, too, had very radically changed. The espousal of the Christian cause by Russia, her assumption of the role of protector of the Christians of the East officially conferred upon her in 1774 by the Treaty of Kainardje, has, in spite of its obvious ul terior motive, something of the old chivalrous flavor of the Middle Ages. And this glamour of a semi-disinterested championship she somehow consistently managed to sustain until the coming to power of the re actionary Alexander III. In the face of her actual accomplishment and the fact that the wars she waged time after time on behalf of the Bal kan Christians brought her no substantial increase in territory, we can hardly say that her motives were unmitigatedly sordid. We must make some possible allowance for Russian mysticism and ideality, and admit the possibility of a rude Christian esprit de corps in this uncouth na tion, so late in coming under the "rationalizing" influence of the West. Or, even if we must suspect that her motives were always wholly selfish. 93 U THE ARMENIAN HERALD we are obliged to admit that they none the less served most excellent ends. forgotten East However this may be, the revival of interest in the nothing if not frankly on the part of the other European powers was dragon-killing. utilitarian. It is certain that they did not even play at rule, especially From the first, they recognized the iniquities of Turkish more than an as it affected the subject Christians, but they took no mysticism academic interest in the matter. They had outgrown and sentimentality, and had become out and out opportunists, at least so far as foreign policies were concerned. With economic and territorial expansion as the guiding governmental motives, it was natural that the point of view of the Crusader should give way to that of the adept in diplomacy, the broker, the militarist. Especially after the first quar ter of the nineteenth century did the relation between the West and the Turkish empire take on the definite character of a politico-economic gamble. Neither the religion nor the national aspirations of the Chris tian races were of any moment in the eyes of the great imperialisms, whatever these might mean to the more idealistic men and women of the respective home populations. A corresponding change of outlook had not occurred among the Christians of Turkey. There the issues of Christianity and of Nation ality were still keen and vital, and the love and longing for freedom in these important respects were still intense because of centuries of denial on the one hand, and of valiant affirmation on the other. Besides, the Christians of the East, even the Armenians, although in the earlier days of their history as noted for their commercial genius as were the Phoenicians, and, in their later days, as are the Anglo-Saxons and the Jews, were practically untouched by that scientifically relentless com mercial spirit of the Mechanical Age which had transformed Europe. Even the shrewdest bankers and business men were unsophisticated and primitive in their outlook when compared with this new type of financier and statesman which was evolving in the West and which reckoned personal and national profits in terms of politico-economic ex ploitation. Their dreams of liberation were founded upon quite an other and simpler scheme of life. Moreover, the masses of the Armenian people were farmer* —d THE TRAGEDY OF ARMENIA 9S tradesmen,—practical, frugal, shrewd, but, strange as it may seem, simple, and, in spite of a subtle native discernment, confiding. They idealized Europe. They respected her as a co-religionist, and admired her as the exemplar of Progress and establisher of Law. In spite of themselves, they could not help looking to her for ultimate redemption. The fact that the prophets and peoples of Europe and the narrow gov erning circles were two distinct propositions, neither the Christians of Turkey-in-Asia nor those of the Balkans seem ever fully to have grasped. In the Armenian struggle, this vain but persistent hope of a chivalrous European intervention adds the crowning torture to the culminating disasters which were to overtake them with almost an nihilating force.

So much for the new factors which entered to complicate an already involved and desperate situation. On its political side, the contest re solved itself into a question either of the control or dismemberment of Turkey by one or more of the European powers or her own self-redemp tion. Her own corruption and incompetence, largely, had fashioned the impasse. Naturally, as an integral part of Turkey-in-Asia, the Arme nians were chiefly concerned with internal reform. Unlike the Balkan nationalities, with them, as Viscount Bryce remarks, "The alternative to an Ottoman State was not an Armenian State, but a partition among the Powers, which would have ended the ambitions of Turk and Arme nian alike. The Powers concerned were quite ready for a partition, if only they could agree upon a division of the spoils. This common in heritance of the Armenians and the Turks was potentially one of the richest countries in the Old World, and one of the few that had not yet been economically developed. The problem for the Armenians was not how to overthrow the Ottoman Empire but how to preserve it, and their interest in its preservation was even greater than that of their

Turkish neighbors and co-heirs. . . . Talent and temperament had brought most of the industry, commerce, finance and skilled intellectual work of Turkey into the Armenians' hands. And if the Empire wer« preserved by timely reforms from within, the position of the Arme nians would become still more favorable, for they were the only native dement capable of raising the Empire economically, intellectually and norally to a European standard, by which alone its existence could per manently be secured." 96 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

Consequently, the Armenians were bent upon securing such reform. The constitution drawn up in '76 by the Armenian statesman, Krikor Odian, Secretary to the Turkish reformer, Midhat Pasha, which was proclaimed and then immediately revoked by Sultan Abdul Hamid, would have served this end. But the Government, blind to its own interest, and radically unable to see the legitimacy of reform demands — especially as they affected Christians —persisted in its suicidal policy of oppression. After every such demand it became more cruel and reactionary than ever. However, there is a certain inexorable law, made axiomatic by the great Irish liberator, O'Connell, which we must not lose sight of. When all is said, we know that in exigencies of this sort "he who would be free, himself must first strike the blow." And we are likely to inquire if, other than by an occasional humble protest or petition, the Armenians of these modern days in any way proved themselves worthy to be ranked with the other heroic peoples —the Greeks, the Serbs, the Ru manians, the Bulgarians—who through storm and stress had been partly the means of effecting their own liberation from the Turkish yoke. Considering that from the beginning of the Turkish domination the Armenians had never been permitted to bear or to possess arms; con sidering that they were widely scattered among watchful Turkish and Kurdish populations, it is by no means a fair question. Still, it is well for us to realize that in spite of these formidable handicaps —and aside from the so-called "revolutionary" movement, undertaken only as a last resort, and then with the desperate understanding that only by the help of Europe could it in any way avail —the Armenian race, owing to the genius and courage of a number of its own sons in the service of Russia, did actually secure a virtual emancipation from the most intolerable of their wrongs, but that the fruits of this victory were de liberately destroyed by the very Powers to whom they had most right to look for sympathy. It was the Russo-Turkish war of '76-78 which brought to the Arme nians this opportunity. At the beginning of the century a portion of Armenia proper, the Caucasian district, had come under the dominion THE TRAGEDY OF ARMENIA 97 of the Czar. And the people thus freed from Turkish toils sprang to a height of material and moral prosperity sufficient to prove the artificial nature of their retardation in the interior of Asia Minor. Macler, De Morgan, Lynch, Bryce, all testify to the economic development of the region which they inhabited, once they had obtained even a measure of freedom. De Morgan states that under their hands the province be came within a comparatively few years one of the most prosperous in all Russia. But more significant even than this demonstration of economic power was the moral flowering of the people. Stimulated by their own liber ties, by study in the Russian universities, and by contact with Rus sian, German, and French thought, the race produced a succession of patriots, warriors, thinkers, dramatists, novelists, and poets, of whom any race on earth might be proud. Europe, and especially France, is coming to know —largely through the efforts at Paris of Mr. Archag Tchobanian and Professor Frederic Macler, professor of Armenian at UEcole des Langues Orientates Vivantes —something of the genius of this galaxy of writers. And the English-speaking world, through the labors of Miss Alice Stone Blackwell, Miss Zabelle Boyajian, Mr. Robert Arnot and others, is coming to know something of the poetry. But, as a potential factor in the life of the nation, no Armenian figure of the Caucasus can claim anything like the significance which invests the person of Loris Melikoff, confidante and advisor to Alexander II, who, with other Armenian generals, constituted the High Command of the Russian army on the Caucasian front in that momentous war. The Turks were superior in numbers to the Russians, but, under the inspired direction of those men who felt that they were defending the old home ground, they were so decisively repulsed as to be constrained to comply with the vigorous but not ungenerous terms dictated to them by Russia in the Treaty of San Stefano. When we remember that Melikoff was yet to draft a constitution for Russia—which Czar Alex ander was on the eve of proclaiming at the time of his assassination — that he was statesman as well as general, and that he was the greatest figure of the victorious war, we can easily recognize the influence of his hand in the sixteenth article of the Treaty of San Stefano which, under strong military guarantee, assured redemption to the Armenians of the 98 THE ARMENIAN HERALD scandalously misgoverned interior provinces. The Article follows:

"As the evacuation by the Russian troops of the territory which they occupy in Armenia, and which is to be restored to Turkey, might give rise to conflicts and complications detrimental to the maintenance of good relations between the two countries, the Sublime Porte engages to carry into effect, without further delay, the improvements and re forms demanded by local requirement in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security from Kurds and Circas sians."

This, of course, meant that not until the reforms had been consum mated would the Russian troops be withdrawn. It was the first serious attempt that had been made by any European power on behalf of the Armenians, although such reform had been stipulated under the gen eral heading "Christian" in the Treaty of Paris, and had at times since been the subject of international discussion. That the conditions de manded such drastic intervention is more than apparent from such testimony as that of C. B. Norman, then war-correspondent for the

London Times, and numerous other foreign eye-witnesses : "In my correspondence to the Times," Mr. Norman writes, "I made i£ a rule to report nothing but what came under my own personal ob servation, or facts confirmed by European evidence. "A complete list it is impossible for me to obtain, but from all sides ... I hear piteous tales of the desolation that reigns throughout—vil lages deserted, towns abandoned, trade at a standstill, harvest ready for the sickle, but none to gather it in, husbands mourning their dis honored wives, parents their murdered children, churches despoiled and desecrated, graves dug up, young of both sexes carried off, and the in habitants of villages driven naked into the fields, to gaze with horror on their burning homesteads." There was but a brief moment, however, in which to rejoice and thank God for his long-sought deliverance promised Treaty of San Stefano. Hardly was their protection assured when England, already long committed to the so-called "integrity of Turkey" policy in the interests of her own Eastern posses sions, promptly interfered and demanded that the treaty drawn up by THE TRAGEDY OF ARMENIA 99

had Russia be revised at an International Convention. Already, she sent her fleet through the Dardanelles in threat of war should Russia insist upon following up her successes. Russia was in no position to take up the challenge, so she submitted to England's dictation. The Treaty of San Stefano was annulled and that of Berlin substituted. The fruits of the well-earned victory of the Russians were effectively mini mized. Incidentally, Melikoff's signal triumph on behalf of his people was turned to black defeat. More vulerable than ever they had been in all their history, the all but liberated Armenians were handed back to their infuriated tormentors. Still there remained a hope.| By the 61st article of the Treaty of Berlin —secured chiefly through the efforts of an Armenian delegation headed by the ex-Patriarch Khrimian —the Six Great Powers, England, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, and Russia, had agreed to become the protector of the Armenians, although without any definite military guarantee. The Article read:

"The Sublime Porte undertakes to carry out, without further delay, the improvements and reforms demanded by local requirements in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds. It will periodically make known the steps it has taken to this effect to the Powers, who will superintend their application."

Almost simultaneously, in secret conference with the Turkish Gov ernment, England had negotiated the Cyprus Convention, a treaty de signed to secure both her own and Turkish interests against the fur ther advance of Russia. As one of the series of state documents which bear most strongly upon the destiny of the Armenians it deserves to be cited here. I quote the main article :

"If Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, or any of them shall be retained by Rus sia, and if any attempt shall be made at any future time by Russia to take possession of any further territories of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan in Asia, as fixed by the definitive Treaty of Peace, England en gages to join His Imperial Majesty the Sultan in defending them by force of arms. "In return, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan promises England to in-

r- • 100 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

Powers, troduce necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later by the two into the government and for the protection of the Christian and other subjects of the Porte, in these territories; and in order to enable Eng land to make necessary provision for executing her engagement His Im perial Majesty the Sultan further consents to assign the Island of Cyprus to be occupied and administered by England."

Thus Russia was ousted from her position as special protector of the Christians of the East, and Europe collectively and England particu larly assumed responsibility for the execution of reforms in Armenia. Once the Russian forces were withdrawn, the Sultan, as might have been expected, immediately began to inaugurate a policy of reprisals which had for its aim nothing less than the total impoverishment and final extermination of the Armenian population. He rightly discounted the sincerity of Europe with regard to the Armenians, and decided to eliminate this element whose presence and whose status necessitated reform and might later offer further pretext for foreign intervention. The first and most conspicuous step to this end was the organization into regular cavalry of the marauding Kurdish tribes, from whose dep redations the Armenians had especially been promised protection. These were given power over their lives, honor and property. Then, taxes already unbearable were increased and ingeniously multiplied; travel, even from town to town for business purposes, was virtually pro hibited; the collection of debts from the non-Christian population was made impossible; imprisonment without trial and the open or secret murder of the leading men became common practices ; the abduction and violation of women were encouraged and connived at by the officials. Mrs. Isabella Bird Bishop, the famous traveler, who visited Armenia in 1890, gives this report of the conditions prevailing at that time : "On the whole," she says, "the same condition of alarm prevails among the Armenians as I witnessed previously among the Syrian (often called Nestorian) Rayahs. It is more than alarm, it is abject terror, and not without good reason. In plain English, general law lessness prevails over much of this region. Caravans are stopped and robbed, traveling is, for Armenians, absolutely unsafe, sheep and cattle are being driven off, and outrages, which it would be inexpedient to narrate, are being perpetrated. Nearly all the villages have been THE TRAGEDY OF ARMENIA 101 they are squeezed reduced to extreme poverty, while at the same time the means of for the taxes which the Kurds have left them without paying." of In vain in the midst of this reign of terror did the representatives for relief and the people appeal over and over again to the Government they were the redress. Finally, when it became only too evident that Powers victims of a vindictive design, they turned to the Signatory justified on the basis of their Berlin Treaty rights. That they were foreign in doing this is evident from the official testimony of the books, consuls and ambassadors in innumerable Blue and Yellow from in the protesting speeches delivered in the European, and especially the English and French parliaments, and from the representations which the Powers made to the Porte. But, as we know, the Sultan, an adept in intrigue, took advantage of the jealousies of the Powers and played one off against the other while he continued his murderous policy with regard to the Armenians. There remained to the latter but one desperate chance. Some of the young men of the nation —many of whom had received their ideals from the prophets of Europe and America—organized themselves into patriotic societies for the sole purpose of self-defence. They managed to get possession of arms and were able successfully here and there to resist the outrage and depredations. Only thus, they had been told, might they win the respect and attention of Europe and secure her intervention. We know what followed. The great massacres of '95 and '96 are still fresh in our minds. The tears for those unpunished crimes are yet upon the cheek, the shame is yet upon the brow, the agony is yet keen in the hearts of the great army of men and women of all races and nations who longed to arrest the murderous debauch but lacked the power to do so The hills and valleys of the great tableland, the cities of the plains and of the sea coasts, even the capital city itself, dotted with foreign embassies, became the scene of a colossal butchery. In regions made sacred by the heroic defence of the Christian faith by this nation, its earliest adherent, the savage Turk was allowed to work his abhorrent will unchecked. The weaponless populations were visited with horrors which mankind had thought outgrown. 102 THE ARMENIAN HERALD kindled; while a But while the funeral pyre of a nation was being difficulties humanity which had flowered nobly in spite of insuperable sacrilegious was being thrown as dross into the flames by barbaric and all the hands; while white-haired men and women and those filled with maidens, energy of their best years, —fathers, mothers, brides, youths, trust and the angelic forms of little children who had but opened their of mar ing eyes upon this world, —were being sent to swell the hosts or tyrs to Christianity and to Freedom, the old frenzied cry of "Christ Mohammed" ringing in their ears; upon the heights of old Zeitoun and amid the cliffs of Sassoun, where the race had preserved a scant immunity from Turkish power, there thundered forth the defiant voices who, of the ancient heroes in the shouts of the brave mountaineers, scantily armed, held the foe at bay for months to the marvel of the world. Zeitoun, a hill town of the old Rhupenian dynasty, refused to sur render until formal peace terms had been entered upon by Turkey, at the instance of the foreign ambassadors. And when at Sassoun the inevitable happened and the Turks came rushing up the heights, the women of the villages, with their babies in their arms, calling upon God to accept them as sacrifices, hurled themselves from the precipices rather than fall into the debasing hands of the foe. And, on the plains, the mother river, Euphrates, received other hundreds of women and maidens who, guarding their integrity as the pearl of greatest price, flung their bodies to her rescuing waves. It is no longer possible to summon up the individual forms which crowd the stage. The drama has burst its national bounds and has become world wide, even cosmic in its character. We see two worlds, one of darkness and one of light, struggling for birth in the hearts and minds of men. The gigantic evils embodied in a succession of de praved sultans and temporizing world policies, made manifest by this great crisis, present issues and opportunities which call for potent and colossal heroes. But we see none. The aged Gladstone's Cassandra-like warning, "To serve Armenia is to serve Civilization," evokes no re sponse, except among those who, in individual capacity —like the noble American missionaries and other humanitarians —take up the great burden of terror and agony as if it were their own, and harbor, comfort and watch with the people, or, before the governments and peoples of THE TRAGEDY OF ARMENIA 103 the world, cry out the story in all its shame and pity. And even them we cease to see. In this moment of stupendous cataclysm, when the fate not only of the Armenian nation, but of Civilization itself was trembling in the balance, while yet the nations had the power to deal the death blow to the power of Autocracy which was yet to ravage the world, it is as if the spirit of the Armenian nation, the prescience of these things and of the death of all her children upon her, took tangible form. We see her turn horrified, dumbfounded and appealing eyes upon the six mighty Powers who had promised to aid her. She, the Apostle of Christianity, and its servant and defender, she, who had held back the Saracens in the days of her power, and had given of the might of her sons to the cause of the Crusades, she, a mother of Democracy, we see standing with bare, bleeding, outstretched hands in supplication to those children of the West, —the Six Great Knights, armed to the teeth, whose navies ride at will the oceans of the world, whose armies patrol the earth. We see her standing thus. But their great forms have become dwarfed, futile. Their eyes are averted ; their ears deaf. And then, her despairing eyes full of wild pleading, we see. Armenia turn to America, to that fair Galahad among nations with the glory of his own great crusades for liberty still lighting his frank brow; to America, so friendly, so hospitable, so practiced in brotherhood, so de termined to trample the evils inherited from the Old World and to develop and add to all the good; whose spirit had visited her land and had created oases whither the hunted souls and bodies of her children had found comfort and refuge. Armenia in that awful moment looks into his beautiful face. She sees the young eyes appalled at the sight of her great suffering; she sees the generous hands extended full of bounty; but she notices that though the scars of battle are upon his face, though the passion for justice is in his eyes, —the consciousness of his great mission has not yet fully dawned,—the knight is but an adolescent whose moment to enter the world's lists has not yet arrived.

(Continued From December Number) THE ARMENIAN QUESTION AND PUBLIC OPINION

GREECE AND ARMENIA

The Christian Science Monitor of January 11, 1919, and the New York Evenirw Post of January 14, 1919, have published reports on Greece's sympathies towards the Armenian cause and the manifestations in favor of Armenian Independence by the Greek House of Representatives. We are publishing below the full reports which have reached the offices of the Union. They run as follows: THE DECLARATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE GREEK CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES I desire to say one word in reply to the address made by Deputy Stam- matis regarding Armenia. The words of sympathy addressed by the Deputy of Athens to the Armenian nation, are shared by the entire Hellenic Chamber of Deputies. The people of Greece in whose soul the sentiments of liberty and jus tice are inborn, turns its eyes with great sympathy towards the Arme nian national cause with greatest sincerity and with the ardent desire to see their just aspirations realized. The links that connect us with the Armenian people are such that they cannot easily be impaired nor can they easily be forgotten. We have shared common misfortunes under the same conqueror. We are equally united by new ties whereby we have fraternized in the great struggle in which the Armenian nation has taken a glorious share by its army in the Caucasus and by its num berless volunteers. I believe I am interpreting the sentiments of the national representation in asking the Chamber to express its wishes in the following manner in regard to Armenia:

"The Hellenic Chamber of Deputies regard with extreme sympathy, the national struggles of the Armenians for the restoration of their national independence and expresses the ardent wish that the efforts of the Armenian people should be crowned by final success. It equally expresses the conviction that the Government of Greece, through its representatives before the national Congress of Peace, will plead for the final recognition of the ideals and national aspirations of the Armenian people."

104

J GREECE AND ARMENIA 105

Vice-President of the Council Mr. Repoulis, Minister of the Interior, representing Premier Venizelos, spoke as follows :

"I can confirm without equivocation that the sentiments manifested by the Greek Chamber in favor of the Armenian nation, reflect the sen timents of the Greek Government. These sentiments are born under the pressure of the same tyranny, because together we have tasted the bit terness of servitude. If a portion of Hellenism has been liberated, an other portion shares the fate of the Armenians. No nation can feel better or appreciate more deeply, the martyrdom of the Armenian na tion. Let me add this, that Greece has embraced the cause of Armenia from today and it looks forward to the future for a close co-operation with the noble Armenian nation. "Let us hope and let us wish, that the recent heroic struggles of the Armenian nation will be crowned with complete success and that they and other enslaved races will be restored to their lost heritage and in dependence."

Prolonged cheers. The whole Chamber shouts "Long live the inde pendence of Armenia." The deputy, Mr. Pop, recalls that when Greece was at Constantinople, several Armenians became Emperors. Today with pleasure, we celebrate this new fraternization and the national resurrection of Armenia. The Armenian Committee of Greece addressed the following letter to the Greek Chamber of Deputies, dated January 1, 1919.

"Boghos Nubar, President of the Armenian National Council and the entire Armenian people are gratefully and deeply touched for the of ficial manifestation made in the Greek Chamber in favor of Armenia's independence. Surrounded with the Armenian colony of Athens, I left the magnificent sitting of the Greek Chamber in which the spirit of justice proclaimed itself so nobly and which reflects the soul of the great Hellenic people and this manifestation constitutes an honor for the rights of men and for the rights of small nations. The Armenian nation will inscribe on the first pages of its golden book, this historic sitting of the Greek Chamber. "In the name of all Armenians, including especially the deported Armenians, who suffered under the abominable heel of the Turk, whose 106 THE ARMENIAN HERALD domination has been smashed to pieces by the glorious armies of

the Allies, and in the name of the Armenian soldiers who have fallen om the field of honor together with the soldiers of the Allied powers, I thank you and with all my strength and all my soul which finds an echo in the soul of the Armenian nation. "Long live the Greco-Armenian Alliance." (Signed) Kazanjian, Captain of Vessel.

The whole Greek press have reproduced this letter and are full of articles of sympathy regarding the Armenian nation, says the telegram. The following telegram of thanks was transmitted by the Armenian National Union of America to the President of the Greek Chamber on January 15, 1919:

President of Hellenic Chamber, Athens, Greece, — The Armenian National Union of America and Canada, deeply touched by the ardent sympathies manifested by the Chamber and the Greek government towards the people and the independence of Armenia, con veys to the noble and glorious Hellenic people its fraternal greetings. The active co-operation of the two historic peoples who have thrown off the same abominable yoke is imperative in order to secure the final tri umph of the ideas of justice and liberty of which our two nations in the Orient, have been for long centuries the heroic and indomitable sentinels.

On behalf of the Union, (Signed) Miran Sevasly, Chairman.

ARMENIA AND FRANCE

The following article in the form of a letter to the Editor of the New York Timets by Mr. Vahan Kalenderian appeared on January 11, 1919. It reflects the senti ment felt by the majority of the Armenians throughout the States with regard to the much criticised statement of M. Pichon, the foreign minister of French Cabinet. In the midst of fresh reports of the Armenian massacre came Mr. Pichon's statement, which has so alarmed us Armenians and friends of Armenia everywhere. Mr. Pichon speaks of France's uncontestable rights in Armenia, but what of Armenia's own rights sealed and hallowed by centuries of sacrifice? The recent contracts which Mr. Pichon adduces as the reinforcement ARMENIA AND FRANCE of France's rights are the very secret treaties which were made not only without the agreement of Armenia, but in violation of the rights of Armenians to their own national existence. In that secret treaty pub lished after the Russian revolution the old school of diplomacy and finance -expressed its cynical attitude toward the regeneration of the peoples of the Near East and parceled up territories in utter disregard of their national character. It is too late in the day for any group to assert revisionary and retroactive rights to the imperialists' claim of Czarist Russia. What makes the statement of Mr. Pichon still more menacing to the Armenians is its coupling with friendship toward the Turks. Is this attempt to revive the secret treaties as regards Asia Minor connected with the campaign carried on by concession hunters and traditional diplomatists to maintain the integrity of Turkey? Many things point to this direction. The armistice arranged at Versailles has left in the hands of Turkey the great oil regions of Baku and the great mineral regions of Trans- Caucasia. We have thus the curious spectacle of a part of the Brest- Litovsk treaty allowed to stand, while all the Austrian pretensions are annihilated by the Austrian armistice. A number of companies now are being formed in France for the exploitation of Armenia and Syria. Of course it is easy to imagine why it is to the interest of the financiers to have Turkey retain control over the oil and mineral regions which she took from Russia and over the mineral wealth of Armenia. All that the concessionaries want is a field favorable for exploitation and main tenance over as large an area as possible of a week and dependent Turkish Government, and for that reason financiers have always been the bulwark of Turkish sovereignty. The Grand Vizier recently in stalled, Prince Sabadin, would of course play the tune that they will call, and at the Peace Conference we shall hear once more of the Turkish reform and the incapacity of the subject nationalities to rule themselves, as an excuse for retaining Turkish sovereignty in some form or another under the guidance of one imperialist group or another. The American public must realize that all propaganda in favor of the Turks, or for the imposition of non-native administrations, goes to de feat the very purpose of the Allies in the war ; not only is it a violation of the superior historic rights of the peoples who had their national civilization long before the Turks devastated their country, but it is 108 THE ARMENIAN HERALD planting seeds for further strife and future wars. Nor will the Ameri can public be taken in by the camouflage of "spheres of guidance" and "spheres of assistance," etc. So transparent is the meaning of this imperialist claim that it is accompanied by the report that Armenia is urged quietly to apply for the establishment of a French protectorate over her. These methods of secret treaties of the Brest-Litovsk kind of self-determination are much too antiquated. The tide of democracy will not be stayed by these imperialist methods and claims. Armenia has its rights antedating those of Russia and France and has greater claims for reparation from Turkey than the half-billion invest ment in the Ottoman debt. Armenia has an accumulated bill of eight centuries of wrongs —loss of life and property, culminating in the un imaginable losses sustained in this present war. Armenia wants from America more than sympathy for her sufferings. She fought in the war reform and the incapacity of the subject nationalities to rule themselves, beside heroic France and Great Britain, against the Turk, whom the most fashionable clothes of Parish will never disguise into a civilized man. Had the Armenians followed the old ways, interest as against right, they would not only have been spared a million lives, but been given the complete independence which the Turks offered them as reward at the Congress of Erzerum at the beginning of the war. But Armenia chose the path of justice and confidently looks to receive justice. Armenia therefore expects that, in the present stern struggle against dark forces, democratic America, Great Britain, and heroic France will fight for the assertion of the rights of the long oppressed peoples as against secret treaties, contracts, and imperialist interests. Vahan H. Kalendebian, Columbia University, Jan. 8, 1919.

THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES, THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD MASSACRES?

The Providence Journal of December 30, 1918, published a remarkable article under this head by James Y. Baron, M. D. We reproduce most of it below. Armenia, comparatively unknown to modern history, came to a sudden prominence during the latter part of the nineteenth century by the so- called Armenian massacres. These massacres were repeated so often THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES 109 and became so general that the word Armenian became the synonym for massacres and vice versa. The world, became callous to these hor rors, and the Armenians became the object of pity and condescending charity. What were these massacres and what did they mean? Were they merely local disturbances or events of world significance? * * *

The world had had other massacres, like the Greek massacres of a century and the Bulgarian massacres of half a century ago. Were the Armenian massacres similar to these, and, if not, how did they differ from them ? In analyzing these massacres we find that there were two factors in the origin of these massacres that were common to all. 1. The desire of the Mohammedan Turk to kill his Christian neigh bors; to possess himself of his neighbor's property, his Wife and chil dren. This desire by centuries of indulgence had become so strong that it was almost an instinct for the Turk, and had made him a dangerous neighbor and an impossible ruler. 2. The natural longing of the Christian subjects of the Turk for deliverance from their heavy yoke, and their faith that some day the big Christian Powers were coming to their aid. And here the similarity of the Greek and Bulgarian massacres on the one hand, and the Armenian massacres on the other, ceases. For while the big Christian Powers were willing and able to save the Greeks and Bulgarians, they were either unwilling, unable or perhaps afraid to save the Armenians because of the sinister figure of the Kaiser, who stood back of the Turk and dared the rest of the world to interfere. We therefore have four factors in the Armenian massacres: 1. The mur derous Turk. 2. The childlike faith of the Armenians in Christian Europe and other prayer and demand for delivery. 3. The unwilling ness, inability, or perhaps the fear of Christian Europe to save the Armenians, because of 4. The Kaiser. 110 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

Nobody can deny now that it was the Kaiser and the Kaiser only who made these massacres possible by standing guard while the Turk merci lessly slaughtered the Armenians. Nobody can deny that it was German diplomacy of the last quarter of a century that has brought all efforts of reform in Turkish Armenia to naught. Why did the Kaiser defend the Turks and allow them to go on with their work of extermination of the Armenians ? The answer is because he wanted to befriend the Turks and make them his allies. There were two courses for the Kaiser to pursue in his scheme of absorption of Asia Minor and subsequent world empire. 1. To befriend Armenians and the other Christian races of Asia Minor at the expense of the Turks. 2. To befriend the Turks at the expense of his Christian subjects. The first, that is the befriending of the Christians at the expense of the Turks, was the slower but the surer way, for their is no doubt that, if the Kaiser had gradually and peacefully sent a million or more Ger man families into Asia Minor and settled them along the Berlin-Bagdad railway and in the interior of Armenia, these colonists, backed by the vast military and economic power of the Fatherland, would have turned not only the Armenian but the other Christian races of Asia Minor into German tribes, and in the course of time Asia Minor, a veritable Germany colony, would have been theirs, and the Germans might have proved themselves a blessing to the world instead of a curse. This process, however, was the process of normal evolution and too slow for an ambitious Kaiser who wanted to build a world empire by a sudden stroke. Therefore, he chose the second method, i. e., the be friending of the Turks at the expense of his Christian subjects. * * •

The befriending of the Turk by the Kaiser at the expense of his Christian subjects, and the final extermination of the Armenians and the other non-Moslem races of Asia Minor, would have the following advantages for the Germans : 1. It would have made more room for German colonists. 2. It would have eliminated all possible economic competition. 3. It would have eliminated all Anglo-Saxon culture from the land. THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES 111

For without exaggeration we can say that before 1914, there were many sections in Armenia and other parts of Asia Minor that were more Anglo-Saxon in spirit, religion and even language than many parts of this country inhabitated today by Germans and other foreigners. (This condition was due to the traditional love for the English on the part of the Armenians ; to the American educational institutions in the country and to emigration to the United States, and no doubt was a great factor in prejudicing the Germans against the Armenians. If the Armenians had adopted the Germans and their Kultur as readily as they did the Anglo-Saxon and his culture, their fate in 1915 might have been dif ferent. If there is such a thing as vicarious suffering in the history of nations, one race suffering in the other's stead, then the Armenians did suffer for the Anglo-Saxon and woe to the Anglo-Saxon race if it again forsakes the Armenian in his hour of need.) 4. It would have made the final extinction of the retrogressive and destructive Turk inevitable by destroying the progressive and creative elements of the empire. But with all these apparent advantages to the Germans, it would be unjust even to the Kaiser to say that he would have deliberately deliv ered the Armenians to the Turks if he could have gained their friendship and alliance otherwise. For there was no other way. England and France failed to keep the friendship and alliance of the Turk because they protected the Christians ; nobody could be a friend to the Turk and his Christian subject at the same time. No, not even the missionary. * * *

For the Turks on their part had their dream of world empire. In this empire all Moslems were Turks and non-Moslems dead, or if alive, "hewers of wood and carriers of water." In their grand scheme of depopulating the world and repopulating it with the faithful of Allah they needed an ally and in the Kaiser they found their ideal. For the Turks, also, there were two courses to take in their empire building, one, the constructive but the slow method of evolution, and the other the destructive but the quick ^method of extermination, and, like the Kaiser, they chose the latter. They had the advantage of being the ruling power in the land, the advantage in numbers, and the open and secret sympathy of the hun dreds of millions of the other Moslems of the world. Had they not been 112 THE ARMENIAN HERALD inherently lazy and instinctively murderous, had they followed the paths of modern civilization, they would even today be a mighty power in the world. * * •

To be fair to the Young Turk, it must be said that right after their coming into power, there were many of them who sincerely wished to form a government in which the Christian races would have equal rights, but soon found out that no party, no regime in Turkey could long sur vive if it recognized the equality of the non-Moslem with the Moslem. This temporary feeling of sympathy on the part of the Young Turks toward their Christian fellow beings was, in a way, natural, because they too had suffered under Abdul Hamid. But as soon as Hamid's iron rule was shattered, and they were free, they reverted to their atavistic instinct of murder, and in order to make their rule popular and stengthen their already failing grip on the Ottoman Empire, they also planned massacres and outdid even Hamid by conspiring not only against the Armenians, but against the very existence of all their non-Moslem sub jects. Why did the Young Turks enter the world war? The answer is, be cause they wanted to exterminate their non-Moslem subjects, especially the Armenians. They may have hoped to get Egypt, Tripoli and their lost Caucasian provinces back, but this, on their part, could have been only secondary considerations. Just as the Kaiser's main purpose in delivering the Armenians to the Turks was the gaining of their alliance, so the main aim of the Young Turks in forsaking England and France and allying themselves with Germany was the extermination of the non-Moslems of the empire. If Egypt and Tripoli and their lost Caucasian provinces stayed lost; if they even lost Arabia, Mesopotamia and even Constantinople herself, but succeeded in their scheme of extermination in Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine, they would have won the war. We, therefore, have the Turk thirsty for Christian blood, and a Chris tian Kaiser with a dream of world empire. In his dream, the Kaiser, iike the Roman Emperor of old, saw a sign in the skies. This sign was not the sign of the cross, but a crescent and a star, and underneath he read, "With this sign thou shalt conquer." If a friendless, defenceless race like the Armenian stood between him and his dream, how cheap the sacrifice. THE ARMENIAN MASSACRES 113

The Kaiser came to the throne in 1888. Almost the very first impor tant political step he took was to visit Abdul Hamid, the Sultan of Turkey and Caliph of Islam, in Constantinople in 1889. No other Chris tian ruler had done so before. The first Armenian massacres began in 1894, just five years after the Kaiser's first visit to Constantinople. These massacres continued up to 1896, and in 1898, hardly two years after the most horrible slaughter of Christians in the world's history, we find the Kaiser again in Constan tinople, shaking the bloody hands of the "Great Assassin," and in Damascus putting flowers on the grave of Saladin. The meaning of the flowers on the grave of Saladin, and the blood of tens of thousands of women and children was the same, i. e., an offering of love and peace from the hands of one of the mightiest of all the Chris tian Emperors to the head of the Mohammedan world. Armenia, there fore, was the sacrificial ram on the altar of the Kaiser's ambition of world empire. Armenian blood was the bond of love and the tie of al liance between Turk and Teuton. After 1908, when Hamid fell, there was a fear on the part of the Ger mans that, after all, they were going to lose the friendship of the Turks. For awhile it seemed as if the young Turks were determined to let the Kaiser go and attach themselves to England and France. At this time, there was an earnest effort by the Germans to befriend the Armenians, but this feeling of friendship and sympathy, like that of the Young Turks, was only temporary, for it was not long before the Committee of Union and Progress became a committee of murder and massacre, and decided to follow the footsteps of Abdul the "Damned." Here again, Kaiser Wilhelm proved himself to be a friend in need to the Young Turks as he had been, in the past, to the old. The massacres of 1900 in the city of Adana and Cilicia generally, in which more than 20,000 perished, were nothing but the love making of the Kaiser to the Young Turks. It must also be noticed that the city of Adana at that time was a prosperous Armenian centre and directly on the route of the Berlin-Bagdad railway. Cilicia was the last independent Armenian prin cipality about five centuries ago. We shall ask two questions: First, would the Young Turks in 1914, have entered the world war if the Kaiser had not previously promised to give them a free hand in deal 114 THE ARMENIAN HERALD ing with their non-Moslem subjects, especially the Armenians? The verdict of history, if just, ought to be No! Second, would the Kaiser in 1914 have started the world war if he was not previously assured of the alliance of the Young Turks? Again, the verdict of history, if just, ought to be No! Blind will the future historian be if in the Armenian massacres of the nineteenth century he does not see the very foundations of the catas trophe of 1914. For the roots of this great and terrible war were nourished deep in American blood. The fires which started in the far distant Armenian mountains of Sassoon were really the fires that were going to devastate Belgium, France, Serbia, Roumania and Russia and came near destroy ing the whole civilized world. The world in 1894 had a fire in its barn and the world did not know that its house was going to burn. From Armenia to the Lusitania the road is long, but the greater part of that road is covered with the bodies of the men, women and children of Armenia. The most amazing thing in these massacres was not the cruelty and murderous instinct of the Turks, for these "gentlemen" had murdered and massacred Greeks, Serbians and Bulgarians before, and will murder and massacre Englishmen, Frenchmen, or Armenians again, if given the chance. * * *,

It was not the endurance of the Armenians to suffering, for the Arme nians had endured and fought oppression for centuries, and had the un dying faith that, some day, somehow, their cause would prevail. It was not the fact that the Kaiser deliberately sold the Armenians to the Turks for a price, for the Kaiser had already sold his own soul for a price. The most amazing thing was the utter selfishness and the failure of the rest of the civilized world to forsee the coming catastrophe, to de tect the real cause of it—the beast with the curled mustache —and kill that vile beast while yet he was young, and save civilization. If Kaiser Wilhelm was the Antichrist of prophecy, and Russia un trustworthy, then there were, besides, twelve or more large or small Powers in Europe who called themselves Christian, and any or all of whom would, in all probability, have declared war on Turkey, if she had sunk one ship, killed one soldier, sailor or missionary of theirs. Why was the murder of 300,000 men, women and children nothing to them ? We ask why? REVIEW OF THE MONTH

The Tragedy of Armenia, a brief study and interpretation, by Bertha S. Papazian, with an introduction by Secretary James L. Barton, D. D., of the American Board. The Pilgrim Press, Boston, price $1.00.

One of the most difficult tasks, if not the most difficult, has been to make the American public realize that it is a misconception to think of Armenians as an unaggressive people with no force behind them to lift themselves from the rut they have fallen into, with no power to resist the oppression to which they have been subjected for so many years. As General Asgapetian, (an Armenian volunteer recently returned from the Caucasian front to relate to us the part played by the Armenian fighting force on that front) picturesquely stated in a recent mass meet ing at Boston, "Armenians have so far been known to the Americans as belonging to two classes, those who are forever being massacred and those who are rug merchants." Mrs. Papazian has rendered the Arme nian cause a great service in trying to dispell this mistaken view by her book which we are attempting to review. Those who will take the trouble to read her book will no more think that the tragedy of Armenia means nothing more than the history of Armenian massacres. What is the real tragedy in the life of an individual or of a nation? The real tragedy of life consists in working for an ideal, lending a hand in the emancipation of the world, striving for self-expression, but being thwarted at every turn by the world at large, being stabbed in the back by your assumed friends, or being looked upon with indifference while you bleed to death in your noble endeavors to serve a sacred cause. This is the real history of the Armenian people, and this is Mrs. Papazian's interpretation —and we believe the true interpretation —of the tragedy of Armenia. She presents to us the study of Armenia from this point of view by passing before our eyes a panoramic view of the most significant events and crises from the beginning of our long history to the present day. And it is always the same story; this "Aryan people, independent, in quiring and original in spirit, adventurous, practical and liberty loving" is placed among the most unfortunate environment, on the high road of world conquerors, and surrounded with people entirely out of sympathy with their aspirations. From the pagan days they turned their eyes to lls 116 THE ARMENIAN HERALD ward the western culture, and sent their sons to Greece and Rome to study and assimilate knowledge for which they have yearned from those days to this. They were the first to follow the ideal of the founder of the Christian faith no matter how much suffering and sacrifice it brought them. Here the law of least resistance seems to reverse its process. As Mrs. Papazian says, "it was the heroic adoption and defence of an exalted life principle which has brought the Armenians so much suffer ing. And the consequences are not to be regarded as meaningless disas ter but as genuine tragedy in the classic sense ; a doom fashioned for it self, in large measure, by high and exceptional character through uncom promising devotion to some great end." And this same people in their suffering did not forget the fate of Europe at the time of the Crusades but did their share to roll back the Moslem tide which was not arrested until it set foot on European soil and entered the sacred church of St. Sophia. But this period cost the Armenians the loss of their inde pendence. "The loss by the Armenians," truly says Mrs. Papazian, "of every ves tige of political and military power raises the plane of action to that of the naked spirit in battle with brute force, ignorance, materialism, in trigue and treachery. In a sense, it becomes an issue between one little unarmed nation and the world." In this stage of the drama, under the most hopeless circumstances, there yet appears that perpetual striving toward independence and self-expression in two salient events which Mrs. Papazian mentions. Israel Ori's undertakings in the political field and Abbott Mekhitar's great accomplishment in the educational field. His founding of the Armenian monastery of learning at St. Lazare (see Armenian Herald, February, 1918) marks the dawn of the modem Armenian Renaissance. The awakening of the former spirit of the people for independence and self-expression was launched by Abovian who published the first novel in the modern Armenian language, The Wounds of Armenia. Then fol lowed that briliant group of men, —Gregor Artzrounie, Nalpantian, Patkanian, Raffi, among the Russian Armenians, and Khrimian Hairik, Alishan, Tourian, Nar Bey, Beshiktashlian, among the Turkish Armeni ans. It is a pity that the fear of making the book too bulky has pre vented Mrs. Papazian from dwelling a few moments longer on this im portant period in modern Armenian history. It was through the efforts REVIEW OF THE MONTH 117 of the Leader of this period, headed by the grand old man of the Arme nians, Khrimian Hairik, who placed the Armenian question on the diplo matic table of Europe. The main events of the Armenian history from this time on to the present day is more or less known through the propaganda which was carried on both in Europe and America ever since the massacres of 1896. Mrs. Papazian relates the shameful attitude of the Europeans toward the Armenians during this period in a very telling way. And yet, with all these black spots on the great European nations before their very eyes, the Armenians again threw in their lot in the great war just ended on the side of the Allies with a full consciousness that they would pay untold sacrifices to the god of war. For one who has followed Mrs. Papazian's graphic pages which show Armenians always throwing in their lot on the side of culture and progress, it becomes clear that what the Armenians have done in this the greatest of the dramas is perfectly consistent with what they have always done in the past. They have al ways taken the side of right and justice because that is consistent with their just claim of an independent Armenia, forever before their eyes. Surely one who reads these pages reaches the conclusion that Peace Congress must grant them their lost heritage before its adjournment. Mrs. Papazian's story, as Miss Blackwell truly says, is "admirably and concisely told," is "remarkable for its restrained passion and power." It is remarkable also, she goes on to say, for her "power of condensing and generalising and bringing long spaces of time into a few words, and yet with a power of feeling which moves the reader." It is no wonder then that it has impressed many who have taken the trouble to read the book. Mr. Philip Moxom's statement, who writes from Springfield, may be taken as typical of the impression made on many who have been good enough to write to us concerning the book. Mr. Moxom writes : "I was not entirely unacquainted with the story of your distressed and harried country, but by no other account have I been so deeply moved as by your own. It is an amazing story of suffering and loss, of high valor and in conceivable patience. It is my profound conviction that the coming World Peace Conference must do tardy justice to your people and coun try. Armenia must be free and self-governing. Nothing less than com plete emancipation and rehabilitation of Armenia can satisfy the least immediate demands of Justice. I pray and hope that ere many months 118 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

have passed a new chapter in the history of your people will be written and a new era will dawn for them. To this cause I pledge my humble efforts." Mrs. Papazian's book is a real contribution to the great cause of Arme nian Independence and we are glad to have the opportunity, through the courtesy of the publishers, to present the whole book in serial form to our readers. A. T.

The Future of Armenia, by Lord Bryce, an article in the Contemporary Review, December, 1918.

Lord Beyce is one of the most —if not the most—well informed students of the Near Eastern Question and particularly the Armenian question. His especial line of study as a man of letters has been history,—every one is familiar with his remarkable prize essay, The Holy Roman Em pire. He has personally traveled and written about the country sur rounding Mt. Ararat. He is one of a very few persons who has climbed that majestic mountain and reached its biblical summit. He has fol lowed closely all the facts connected with the sad history of that region for nearly forty years. Ever since we can remember he has taken the keenest interest in Armenian affairs and has been a true friend of the, Armenians who have expressed their appreciation of what he has done for them whenever they have had an opportunity to do so. For these reasons, therefore, we are compelled to give very serious attention to whatever Lord Bryce has to say on Armenia. The present article is a resume of the actual conditions in Asia Minor and his frank opinion of what ought to be done for the future of Arme nia. The main points of the article may be briefly stated : Whatever set tlements may take place, he says, must be in conformity with the prin ciples laid down by leading statesmen of this war, —"Respect for the wishes of nationalities," and "Recognition of the right to self-determin ation of each nationality or people." Turkish rule of Christian popula tion is dismissed in very emphatic terms and without much ado. "Turk ish rule over populations of a different faith must cease for ever to exist." "What, then, can be done for these countries?" Lord Bryce asks. Be cause the country has been depopulated, devastated, and marauding bands of Kurds and Turks have been let loose, he goes on to say, imme diate protective force ought to be sent in to restore order so that the REVIEW OF THE MONTH 111 refugees can return and begin their work of restoration. The lenient terms of the armistice have made matters worse, for Turks have been allowed to remain in Armenian provinces for some unknown reason, to harrass the people. "When we compare the terms of armistice given to Austria with the far more lenient terms accorded to the Turks, we are forced to ask: Why should those whose cruelties have been most hor rible, and who are most likely to continue those cruelties wherever and whenever they have the chance to do so, be treated with this exceptional indulgence?" Every Armenian asked this very question to himself or herself at the time the armistice terms were signed, and the Armenian National Union protested against its unjust terms relating to Armenia. He calls for immediate correction of this mistake by sending into Arme nia all available allied forces in the Near East to curb the destructive instincts of the enemy. It never occurs to him, if we may be pardoned to say, that the people who, to quote his own words, "when they were abandoned by the Russians after the Russian Revolution in 1917 . . . continued to maintain the struggle, defending themselves against the Turks when the latter, with German officers, advanced into the interior as far as the Caspian," the people who "fought hard at Erivan and Baku, and still have a fighting force in the field," are able to curb the marauding bands and make the country safe for the return of the refu gees if they may only be given enough financial support to check starva tion, and feed and clothe the fighting forces and supply them with am munition. That seems to us the only rational solution which would also give an opportunity for the Armenians to demonstrate their ability to wards the formation of their own government. Lord Bryce then discusses the area of the future Armenia. His con clusion is that the six villayets and Cilicia "will be the New Armenia." Strange to say he does not say a word about Russian Armenia, the very heart of Armenia proper, the seat of the Catholicos of all the Armenians from the days of Gregory the Illuminator to our own day, the most densely populated section of Armenia. There seems to be a mysterious silence about the very section of Armenia which bore the brunt of thef fighting against the Turks, an utter ignoring of the Republic of Ararat which ought to have been recognized by the Allies, allowed to sit in the Peace Congress, and given an opportunity to claim the extention of its boundaries to include all the lands lawfully belonging to Armenia on 120 THE ARMENIAN HERALD

historic and ethnological grounds. Is not this consistent with the prin ciple of "self determination" which the Allies have declared as one of

their fundamental principles ? After the restoration of order and safety what is there to be done to Armenia? Lord Bryce thinks that "the process of reconstruction can hardly take less than fifteen or twenty years," and so during that in terval he proposes a protectorate by United States preferably, or by a European power or powers under some scheme of autonomy until the new state is created. Here again it does not occur to Lord Bryce that with some help in men and money the Armenians themselves would be able to form the new Armenian state immediately and undertake the reconstruction work. As Lord Bryce well knows, Turkey has been gov

erned for as long as anybody can remember by the talent of Armenians ; some of the greatest industrial works in Russia and the Caucasus, —such as the great oil works at Baku, —have been managed by the Armenians. Would not these men be available for the reconstruction work ? To these local talents would be added an army of Armenians from Europe and America, trained specialists in all branches of learning, who certainly would work with the greatest zeal for the reconstruction of their own native land. If they have been great political and industrial administra tors of Turkey and Russia what earthly reason is there that they will be incapable of administrating their own country? We would like very much to have had Lord Bryce argue this point and give us some valid reasons for discarding our scheme and proposing a protectorate- ship. From our passed bitter experience we may be pardoned to be somewhat suspicious of this word "protectorate." If the fate of Armenia was left in the hands of Lord Bryce, or of our illustrous president, Mr. Wilson, we would feel absolutely secure that whatever they did would be for the very best interests of Armenia with the definite purpose in view of an Independent Armenia, but that not being the case, we resent the idea of a protectorate, for when once a nation sets foot on our soil, with a change of administration unfavorable to our independence, how can we be certain of our ultimate deliverance from a foreign yoke. A. T.