Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:33:05.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Britain and The Launching of the Armenian Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Robert F. Zeidner
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In August 1894, as if by prearranged signal, a series of Muslim attacks on the Gregorian Armenian subjects of the Porte broke out in eastern Anatolia and spread gradually, province by province, throughout most of Asiatic Turkey. These disorders raged sporadically for two years until finally, in August 1896, they culminated in a similar assault on the Gregorian Armenian community of Istanbul, beneath the very windows of the embassies of the Great Powers. European estimates placed the total of Armenians killed throughout this period at between 250,000 and 300,000 men, women, and children, and 10 percent of the entire Armenian population of the Ottoman Empire.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , October 1976 , pp. 465 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The Gregorian (or Apostolic) community was by far the largest of the four Armenian minorities. The other, smaller groups were Catholic, Eastern Rite (Greek Orthodox), and Protestant. The latter groups did not escape harm entirely; they too suffered, but mildly in comparison with their Gregorian compatriots. The three smaller communities enjoyed the protection of the Great Powers; and, thus, the Ottoman Government apparently took pains to spare them—to deny the Powers a pretext for intervention. The actual attackers, on the other hand, occasionally lacked sophistication in differentiating among Armenians of different sects. See Whitman, Sidney, Turkish Memories (New York, 1914), pp. 20–21;Google ScholarSir Eliot, Charles N. (“Odysseus”), Turkey in Europe (London, 1908), p. 408.Google Scholar

2 Rev. Bliss, Edwin M., Turkey and the Armenian Atrocities (New York, 1896), pp. 368–481;Google ScholarHarris, J. Rendel. and Harris, Helen B., Letters from the Scenes of the Recent Massacres in Armenia (London, 1897) passim;Google ScholarCambon, Paul, Correspondance, 1870–1924, Vol. 1 (Paris, 1940), pp. 389–398, 405–423Google Scholar Sir Pears, Edwin, Forty Years in Constantinople (New York, 1916), pp. 144–169;Google ScholarBérard, Victor, La Politique du Sultan, 4th ed. (Paris, 1900), passim;Google ScholarHartunian, Abraham, Neither To Laugh nor To Weep, A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, trans. Vartan Hartunian (Boston, 1968), pp.10–26;Google ScholarHepworth, George H., Through Armenia on Horseback (New York, 1898), passim;Google ScholarEliot (Turkey in Europe, pp. 405–413) and Whitman (Turkish Memories, pp.10–35) contain descriptions of these events based on the memoirs and letters of interested observers, both in the provinces and in Constantinople. A more detailed survey of casualty estimates is available in Louise Nalbandian, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), p. 206 n. 54.Google Scholar The total Armenian population of the empire was about 2.6 million. For documented analyses of the Armenian population and its distribution throughout the Ottoman Empire, see Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi (Ankara, 1950), pp. 131–147;Google ScholarChichekian, Garo, “The Armenians since the Treaty of San Stefano: A Politico-Geographical Study of Population,” The Armenian Revicw, 22, 2–82 (Spring 1968), 42–49;Google ScholarAtamian, Sarkis, The Armenian Coiniuunity (New York, 1955), pp. 43–46;Google ScholarLanger, William L., The Diplomacy of Imperialism, 1890–1902, Vol. 1 (New York, 1935), p. 147 n. 3.Google Scholar

3 For examples, see The Duke of Argyll, Our Responsibilities for Turkey (London, 1896);Google ScholarGladstone, W. E., The Earl of Meath et al., “The Massacres in Turkey,” The Nineteenth Century Review, 40 (1896), 654–680;Google ScholarDiran Kelekian, ‘La Turquie et son Souverain,’Google Scholaribid., pp. 689–698; Wilfred Scawen Blunt and E. F. Du Cane, “Turkish Misgovernment,”Google Scholaribid., pp. 838–848; MacColl, Malcolm, The Sultan and the Powers (London, New York, Bombay, 1896).Google Scholar

4 The Catholic Armenians enjoyed the formal protection of France and Austria-Hungary. Russia looked after the small Orthodox sect. See text of the Treaty of April 28, 1649, in Hurewitz, J. C., ed. and trans., Diplomacy in the Near and Middle East: A Diplomatic Record, 1535–1914 (Princeton, 1956), p. 24;Google Scholar also, Treaty of K¨ç¨k Kaynarca, July 10/21, 1774,Google Scholar in ibid., pp. 54–60.

5 Mijatovich, Count Chedomille, The Memoirs of a Balkan Diplomat (London, 1917), pp. 82–83;Google ScholarTcharykov, N. V., Glimpses of High Politics through War and Peace, 1855–1929 (New York, 1931), p. 226.Google ScholarWhitman (Turkish Memories, pp. 61–62), on the other hand, absolves the sultan of any blame. For a balanced assessment of culpability in the massacres, by a keen student and observer of Hamidian Turkey, see Eliot, Turkey in Europe, pp. 391–414.Google Scholar

6 These units were raised in eastern Turkey during late 1890 or early 1891 for the alleged purpose of maintaining order along the Russian and Persian frontiers.Google Scholar See ibid., p. 392; Whitman, Turkish Memories, pp. 73, 109, 145–155; The Times (London), April 4, 1891, p. 5 (this source henceforth cited as LT); and Sir William A. White (British Ambassador to the Porte) to the Marquis of Salisbury (British Prime Minister), Feb. 24 and Mar. 13, 1891,Google Scholar Great Britain, House of Commons, Sessional Papers, ed. Erickson, Edgar L.. Readex Microprint Edition (New York, 1967), 1892, Vol. 96, pp. 19, 25 (this source henceforth cited BSP).Google Scholar

7 Count A. I. Nelidoff (Russian Ambassador to the Porte) to N. P. Shishkin (Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs), Sept. 6/18 and Nov. 18/30, 1896; Count S. Y. Witte (Russian Finance Minister) to Nelidoff, Nov. 24/Dec. 6, 1896, as summarized in Eisele, Leona W., A Digest of the Krasnayi Arkhiv: Red Archives, Vol. 2 (Ann Arbor, 1955), p.62;CrossRefGoogle ScholarDillon, J., The Eclipse of Russia (New York, 1918), pp. 231–244.Google Scholar Even the U.S. Senate, Dec. 3, 1894, resolved to request details and causes of the massacres from President Cleveland, as reflected in Richardson, James D., ed., A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of tile Presidents, 1789–1897, Vol. IX (New York, 1917), p. 557.Google Scholar

8 Sultan Hamid, Abdul II, Abdul Hamid'lin Hatra Defteri, ed. Bozbag, Ismet (Istanbul, 1960), pp. 130–133.Google Scholar For authoritative, eyewitness accounts of the events of 1909 and 1915–22, see Gibbons, Herbert Adams, The New Map of Europe (New York, 1914), pp. 190–194;Google ScholarGibbons, Helen Davenport, The Red Rugs of Tarsus: A Woman's Record of the Armenian Massacres of 1909 (New York, 1917), pp. 103–171;Google ScholarHartunian, Neither To Laugh nor To Weep, 43–205;Google ScholarZahm, J. A., From Berlin to Bagdad and Babylon (New York, 1922), pp. 205–213;Google ScholarToynbee, Arnold J., The Armenian Atrocities: The Murder of a Nation (London, 1915), passim;Google ScholarMorganthau, Henry, Ambassador Morganthau's Story (Garden City, 1918), pp. 293–384;Google Scholar and Kerr, Stanley E., The Lions of Marash, Personal Experiences with American Near East Relief, 1919–1922 (Albany, 1973), passim.Google Scholar

9 Karal, Enver Ziya, Osmanit Tarihi, Vol. 8 (Ankara, 1962), p. 126.Google Scholar For primary sources on the same issue, see Bryce, James, Transcaucasia and Ararat (London, 1896), pp. viii, 445;Google ScholarSkene, J. H., Anadol: The Last Home of the Faithful (London, 1854), pp. 353, 357.Google Scholar

10 For authoritative, dispassionate, and well–documented surveys of early Armenian history and of the antecedents of modern Armenian nationalism, see Pasdermadjian, Hrand, Histoire de l'Armenia depuis les origines jusqu'au Traite de Lausanne (Paris, 1949);Google ScholarSarkissian, A. O., History of the Armenian Question to 1885 (Urbana, 1938);Google ScholarNalbandian, , Armenian Revolutionary Movement, pp. 1–89;Google ScholarKurkjian, Vahan M., A History of Armenia (New York, 1959);Google ScholarCahen, Claude, Pre–Ottonian Turkey, trans. Jones–Williams, J. (New York, 1968), passim;Google Scholar and Atamian, Armenian Community, pp. 1–63.Google Scholar For assessments of the functioning of the millet system in the late nineteenth century, see Ubicini, M. A., Letters on Turkey, ed. and trans. Easthope, Lady, Vol. II (London, 1856), letters iv–viiGoogle Scholar; Davidson, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 1856–1876 (Princeton, 1963), pp. 12–19;Google ScholarBliss, Turkey, pp. 303–309.Google Scholar For the text of the Armenian National Constitution, see Lynch, H. F. B., Armenia: Travels and Studies, Vol. II (London, 1901), pp. 445–467. Article LVII of the constitution allowed the provinces only 40 deputies in the National General Assembly, whereas the clergy and lay Armenian (Gregorian) of Constantinople received 20 and 80 deputies, respectively. Thus, the Gregorian inhabitants of the capital alone–about 150,000 souls–became the “tail that wagged the dog.” With respect to the “back to the provinces” movement, see n. 23 below.Google Scholar

11 de Montpereux, F. Dubois, Voyage autour du Caucase (Paris, 1839–1843), 2, 263–265;Google ScholarBrant, James, “Journey through a Part of Armenia and Asia Minor,” Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 6 (1836), 201;CrossRefGoogle ScholarWilbrahim, R., Travels in the Trans–Caucasian Provinces of Russia (London, 1837), pp. 294, 314;Google ScholarBrant, James, “Notes of a Journey through Part of Kurdistan,” Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 10 (1840), 344;Google ScholarZouche, Robert Curzon, Armenia: A Year at Erzeroomn, and on the Frontiers of Russia, Turkey and Persia (New York, 1854), pp. 188, 210;Google ScholarLayard, Austen Henry, Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon (New York, 1853), p. 11;Google ScholarMillingen, Frederick, Wild Life among the Kurds (London, 1870), pp. 36, 104–106, 264;Google ScholarRamsay, William M., Impressions of Turkey during Twelve Years' Wanderings (London, 1897), pp. 110–114.Google Scholar After 1878, it is highly probable that the Porte viewed the settlement of Muslim refugees in the eastern provinces as a deterrent to separatist plotting and uprisings among the Armenians there. By that date the Porte had seen over seventy–five years of such activity among its subject Christian peoples in the Balkans.

12 White to Salisbury, May 26, 1890, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, pp. 498 ff. Both Ottoman and British estimates placed the Armenians of all faiths at about 35 percent of the total population in the provinces of eastern Asia Minor. See n. 2 above.Google Scholar

13 Ainsworth, William Francis, Travels and Researches in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia, Chaldea, and Armenia, Vols. 1, II (London, 1842), passim;Google ScholarZouche, Armenia, pp. 80, 94;Google ScholarMcCiumpha, Charles et al. eds. and trans., Essays, Speeches, and Memoirs of Field—Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, Vol. 1, (London, 1893), pp. 278–287.Google Scholar Concise sketches of the Kurdish wars of the nineteenth century are available in Safrastian, Arshak, Kurds and Kurdistan (London, 1948), pp. 49–60;Google ScholarMinorsky, V., “Kurds,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2, 1147–1148.Google Scholar

14 Parrot, Friedrich, Journey to Ararat, trans. Cooley, W. D. (New York, 1846), pp. 97–98, 230–231;Google ScholarMillingen, Wild Life, p. 262;Google ScholarBryce, Transcaucasia, pp. 336, 344, 464;Google ScholarPears, Forty Years, p. 153;Google ScholarNorman, Charles B. to LT, October 1, 1877, p. 10;Google ScholarNorman, , Armenia and the Campaign of 1877 (London, 1878), pp. 329 ff.;Google ScholarHogarth, David G., A Wandering Scholar in the Levant (New York, 1896), p. 149;Google ScholarRamsay, Impressions of Turkey, pp. 190, 207–209, 215;Google ScholarBuxton, Noel and Rev. Buxton, Harold, Travels and Politics in Armenia (London, 1914), pp. 36–37.Google Scholar The Armenian uprisings at Van, Zeytn, Mus, and Erzurum during the years 1860–1863 are notable exceptions and occurred under extraordinary circumstances. See Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, pp. 65–79, for documented outlines of these events.Google Scholar

15 Layard, Discoveries, pp. 13–16, 20;Google ScholarHamlin, Cyrus, Among the Turks (New York, 1878), p. 334;Google ScholarBuxton and Buxton, Travels, pp. viii, 19;Google ScholarHogarth, Wandering Scholar, p. 149;Google ScholarEliot, Turkey in Europe, pp. 396–397, 401.Google Scholar

16 Bey, Ali Vehbi, Pensécs et Souvenirs de l'Ex Sultan Abdul–Hamid (n.p., n.d.), p. 12; Türk Tarih Kurumu Library, Ankara, Atif Hüsnü (Hüseyin) Bey, Abdulhamid'in Hatiralari MSS, Box IX, No. 14;Google ScholarBey, Ismail Kemal, The Memoirs of Ismail Kemal Bey (London, 1920), p. 21;Google ScholarRamsay, Impressions, p. 167;Google ScholarWhitman, Turkish Memories, p. 19;Google ScholarMordtmann, Andreas D., Stambul und dos moderne Türkenthum (Leipzig, 1877–1878), 1, 129–131, 141, 177–179;Google ScholarEfendi, Murad (Franz von Werner), Tiürkische Skissen, Vol. 2 (Leipzig, 1877), p. 72;Google ScholarUbicini, Abdolonyme and de Courteille, Pavet, État présent de l'Empire Ottoman (Paris, 1876), p. 87;Google ScholarClair, G. G. B. St. and Brophy, C. A., Twelve Years' Study of the Eastern Question (London, 1877), pp. 125–134.Google Scholar

17 Capt. Trotter, Henry (British Consul at Erzurum) to Salisbury, Nov. 13, and Dec. 28, 1878, in BSP, 1879, Vol. LXXX, pp. 458, 466; Sir A. H. Layard (British Ambassador to the Porte) to Salisbury, June 12 and July 1, 1879,Google Scholar in ibid., pp. 547–548, 559; LT: April 4, 1877, p. 10; June 11, 1878, p. 10; Aug. 31, 1878, p. 10; Sept. 24, 1878, p. 6; Oct. 15, 1878, p. 4; Pears Forty Years, p. 153; Bryce, Transcaucasia, pp. 137–139, 343–346, 349, 428–429; Ramsay, Impressions, p. 205.

18 See n.4above.Google Scholar

19 Bliss, Turkey, pp. 302–311;Google ScholarUbicini, , Letters, 11, 206–208;Google ScholarVerney, Noel and Dambmann, George, Les puissances étrangeres dans le Levaut (Paris, 1900), pp. 31–145;Google ScholarHamlin, Among the Turks, pp. 24, 29 ff., 37 ff.;Google ScholarWashburn, George, Fifty Years in Constantinople (Boston and New York, 1909), pp. 1–50.Google Scholar

20 Bliss, Turkey, pp. 311–323; Washburn, Fifty Years, pp. 76–88;Google ScholarMills, Mary Patrick, A Bosphorus Adventure (Palo Alto, 1934), pp. 28 ff., 62 ff.;Google ScholarBryce, Transcancasia, pp. 466–470;.Google ScholarGriscom, Lloyd C., Diplomatically Speaking (New York, 1940), pp. 134–135;Google ScholarHornby, Edmund, Autobiography (London, 1928), pp. 124–125.Google Scholar Layard had foreseen nationalist plotting within the missionary folds, as revealed in his Discoveries, pp. 348–350. Whitman, Turkish Memories, p. 120, reported 621 Protestant schools, serving more than 27,000 students, in Asia Minor during his investigatory trip through the “Armenian” provinces in 1896.Google Scholar

21 Ibid.; Pears, Forty Years, p. 151; Burckhardt, Jacob, Die Zeit Constantine's des Grossen (Basel, 1853), p. 125.Google Scholar With the formation of a formal Protestant millet in 1849, animosity between the Gregorian Patriarchate and the Armenian Protestants gradually dwindled; and Gregorian students soon began to attend the missionary schools throughout Turkey. For more detailed discourses on these developments, see Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, pp. 30–40, 48–66; Atamian, Armenian Community, pp. 70–91;Google ScholarMegrian, Leon D., “Armenian Life and Thought in the Ottoman Empire between 1839–1863,” The Armenian Review, 16, 3–63 (09. 1963), 33–39;Google Scholar and Ara Caprielian, “H. Ajarian and his ‘The Role of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire’,”Google Scholaribid., XXI, 3–83 (Sept. 1968), 51–58.

22 Hamid, Abdul, Defter, pp. 119, 141;Google ScholarSir Pears, Edwin, The Life of Abdul Hamid (New York, 1917), p. 218;Google ScholarMinasse Tcheraz (an Armenian delegate to the Congress of Berlin) to LT, nd., in LT, April 6, 1890, P. 6.Google Scholar A copy of the Armenian petition, presented to the Great Powers at the Berlin Congress, is available in de La Jonquiere, Antoine, Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman (Paris, 1881), pp. 39–44.Google Scholar

23 The text of Article LXI of the Treaty of Berlin is reproduced in Hurewitz, Diplomacy, p. 190.Google Scholar For the personal observations of a contemporary Ottoman bureaucrat (and historian) involved in the implementation of the treaty, see Türkgeldi, Ali Fuat, Mesail—i Muhimnle–i Siyasiyye, Vol. 2 (Ankara, 1957), pp. 86–87.Google Scholar The leader of the Armenian delegation, Gregorian Archbishop Mekertitch Khriniian (Khrimian Hairig), explained the failure of his delegation, and its mission at Berlin, to his congregation in Constantinople in his famous “Sermon of the Iron Spoon.” This sermon is reproduced in toto in Asvadzadrian, A., “Armenia before the Revolutionary Movement,” The Armenian Review, 16, 2–62 (05 1963), 55–56. In short, Khrimian told his flock that Armenia, in contrast with the Christian states of the Balkans, did not win autonomy from the Porte because no Armenian blood had been shed in the cause of freedom. He vent on to say that the only hope to gain autonomy lay in sending masses of educated Armenian youth to the provinces—to raise the spirit, economic welfare, and political awareness of the Armenian peasantry. This sermon marked the de facto launching of the “back to the provinces” movement among the urban element of Turco—Armenians.Google Scholar

24 Such as James Bryce, the Dukes of Argyll and Westminster, the Earls of Meath (Reginald Brabazon), Carnarvon (Henry H. Molyneux), and Selborne (Roundell Palmer). See their letter to LT in LT, July 15, 1878, P. 7.Google Scholar Also see index of Fisher, H. A. L., James Bryce (Viscount Bryce of Dechmont, O.M.) (New York, 1972) for entries regarding their speeches and writings in support of Armenian reforms.Google Scholar

25 For the text of the Cyprus Convention, see Hurewitz, Diplomacy, pp. 187–189.Google Scholar For an exhaustive, well—documented narrative of the negotiations within and between the governments of Britain and Turkey in the conclusion of this pact, see Lee, Dwight E., Great Britain and the Cyprus Convention Policy of 1878 (Cambridge, 1934).Google ScholarTürkgeldi's impressions of the negotiations and copies of documents involved are in his Mesail, II, 93–114, 338–342.Google Scholar

26 Barkley, Henry C., A Ride through Asia Minor and Armenia (London, 1891), pp. 137, 154, 244, 281;Google ScholarKhan—Azad, Ruben, “Hai Heghapoghaganie Houshertz” (Memoirs of an Armenian revolutionary), Hairenik Ainsakir, 5 (06 1927), 60–72. Khan—Azad was one of the founding members of the Hunchakian revolutionary movement.Google Scholar

27 “Return of Recent Consular Appointments in Asia Minor,” in BSP, 1879, Vol. LXV, pp. 1 ff.;Google ScholarCapt. Townshend, A. F., A Military Consul in Turkey (London, 1910), pp. 7, 42–43, 73, 102–103, 117–118, 219–220;Google ScholarRamsay, Impressions, p. 143; Trotter to Sir Edward B. Malet (British Charge d'Affairs at the Porte), Diyarbakir, April 24, 1879, No. 32; Trotter to Clayton (British Consul in Diyarbakir), Erzurum, July 24, 1879, F.O. 195/1211; and Layard to Lord Kitchener (a military consul), Tarabya, Aug. 23, 1879, F.O. 195/1234: cited in Lee, Great Britain and the Cyprus Convention, pp. 155–156; also, Barkley, A Ride, pp. 101–102, 280.Google Scholar

28 Dillon, Eclipse of Russia, p. 75;Google ScholarLobanov—Rostovsky, Prince, Russia and Asia (New York, 1933), p. 202;Google ScholarShatirian, Martin, “The Founders of the A.R.F. on National Independence,” The Armenian Review, 11, 2–42 (07 1958), 98.Google Scholar

29 Pears, Forty Years, pp. 107 ff., 114 ff.; Patrick, Bosphorus Adventure, pp. 81 ff.Google Scholar

30 Lobanov—Rostovsky, Russia and Asia, pp. 202–203;Google ScholarLynch, Armenia, I, 459 ff. and 467 ff.;Google ScholarShatirian, “Founders of the A.R.F.,” pp. 94–95.Google Scholar

31 Abdul Hamid, Defter, p. 139;Google ScholarCol. Ertürk, Hüsamettin, Iki Devrin Arkasr (Istanbul, 1957), p. 12;Google ScholarWashburn, Fifty Years pp. 171–175.Google Scholar

32 For the personal observations of Türkgeldi on these issues, see his Mesail, II, 93–191; copies of the many notes exchanged are inGoogle Scholaribid., pp. 338–387.

33 Sir Waugh, Telford, Turkey: Yesterday, To–day and Tomorrow (London, 1930), p. 30;Google ScholarWashburn, Fifty Years, p. 153;Google ScholarPears, Forty Years, p. 153;Google Scholar and Col. Sir Charles Wilson (Chief Military Consul) to Layard, Nos. 41 and 42, April 12, 1880, F.O. 78/3129; Lord Tenterden (British Permanent Under–Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs), Memorandum, May 25, 1880, F.O. 363/5, cited in Lee, Great Britain and the Cyprus Convention, p. 157.Google Scholar

34 Abdul Hamid to Kaiser Wilhelm I (telegram), Sept. 15, 1880, in Türkgeldi, Mesail, II 380–381; German Foreign Oflice (unsigned), General Directive for the conduct of Germanpolicy in the Near East, Friedrichsruh, Nov. 7, 1880,Google Scholar in Lepsius, Johannes et al. eds., Die Grosse Politik der Europdischen Kabinette, 1871–1914, Vol. 6 (Berlin, 1926), p. 20;Google ScholarEarl Granville (British Foreign Secretary) to the British Ambassadors at Paris, Berlin, Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Rome, Jan. 12, 1881, and Lord Odo Russell (British Ambassador to Berlin) to Granville, Jan. 28, 1881. in BSP, 1881, Vol. C. pp. 750, 773.Google Scholar

35 Trotter to Salisbury, Nov. 13, 1878, in BSP, 1879, Vol. LXXX, p. 458; Memorial from the Armenian Patriotic Committee of London to Lord Salisbury, London, March 27, 1888, in LT, April 3, 1888, p. 8; Washburn, Fifty Years, p. 153;Google ScholarLocher, A., With Star and Crescent (Philadelphia, 1890), pp. 437–573;Google ScholarRamsay, Impressions, pp. 204–212.Google Scholar

36 Eliot, Turkey in Europe, p. 398; Barkley, A Ride, pp. 137, 154, 244, 281.Google Scholar

37 Lynch, Armenia, I, 219–223, 270–276; Washburn, Fifty Years, pp. 200–201; Bliss, Turkey, pp. 335–336; Abdul Hamid, Defter, pp. 130–132; and Ertürk, Iki Devrin Arkasi, pp. 40–43.Google Scholar

38 A point of considerable controversy among students of the Armenian Question.Google Scholar

39 See n. 37 above; also, Shatirian, “Founders of the A.R.F.,” pp. 93–107.Google Scholar

40 LT, Jan. 19, 1886, p. 7; Abdul Hamid, Defter, pp. 130–132.Google Scholar

41 Portugalian had been an educational organizer (and political activist) for the Gregorian Patriarchate in the Van region. The Porte banished him in 1885. For an outline of his activities in Turkey and France, see Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, pp. 90–107. He published an anthology of his journal in 1890: “L'Armenie” ie Housharar (Marseilles, 1890).Google Scholar

42 LT, April 23, 1888, p. 8; White to Salisbury, May 28 and Dec. 8, 1888, and Salisbury to White, March 29, 1889, in BSP, 1889, Vol. LXXXVII, pp. 163, 190–191, 205; LT, Feb. 14, 1889, p. 5; George Pollard Devey (British Vice Consul at Van) to Col. Chermside (British Consul at Erzurum), July 6, 1889; Chermside to White, Sept. 14, 1889, in BSP, 1890, Vol. LXXXII, pp. 9–11, 27–28; Patiguian (one of Hagopian's colleagues in London) to Koulaksizian (an activist in Van), April 25, 1889, and Portugalian to Koulaksizian, April 27, 1889, inGoogle Scholaribid., pp. 11–13; Devey to Clifford A. Lloyd (British Consul in Erzurum), Jan. 2 and Aug. 19, 1890, and White to Salisbury, April 5, 1890, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, pp. 463, 487, 534. Also, Joseph von Radowitz (German Ambassador to the Porte) to Gen. Leo von Caprivi (German Chancellor), Aug. 1, 1890, in Dugdale, E. T. S., ed., Germaun Diplomatic Documents, 1871–1914, Vol. 2 (New York, 1929), pp. 109–110.Google Scholar

43 Lord Rosebery (British Foreign Secretary) to Sir Edward Thornton (British Ambassador to the Porte), No. 218, July 6, 1886, F.O. 78/3866, and Thornton to Lord Iddesleigh (British Foreign Secretary), No. 428, Aug. 24, 1886, F.O.Google Scholar 78/3874, cited in Smith, Cohn L., The Embassy of Sir William White at Costantinople, 1886–1891 (Oxford, 1957), p. 44.Google Scholar

44 Salisbury is reported by his daughter (and biographer) as having said, upon resuming office in i886: “They [the Liberals] have just thrown it [British influence at the Porte] away into the sea, without getting anything whatever in exchange“ (Cecil, Lady Gwendolen, The Life of Robert Marquis of Salisbury, Vol. 2, [London, 1921[, p. 326.Google Scholar See also Iddesleigh to White, Private, Aug. 27, 1886, cited in Smith, Embassy of William White, p. 45; and LT, Aug. 30, 1886, p. 6.Google Scholar

45 White to Salisbury, No. 397, Secret, Aug. 9, 1890, F.O. 78/4277, cited in Smith, Embassy of William White, p. 107.Google Scholar White indeed faced a dilemma: whereas his predecessor had been recalled for supposedly squandering British influence at the Porte on Armenian philanthropy, his consular officers throughout Turkey were old veterans of the Levantine Consular Service and, no doubt, still resented the calumny heaped on them by Parliament during the Bulgarian Crisis of 1875–1876 for their alleged Turcophilism. A well-documented study of this issue is contained in Iseminger, Gordon L., “The Old Turkish Hands: The British Levantine Consuls, 1856–76,” Middle East Journal, 22 (1968), 297–316.Google Scholar

46 For examples, see LT: April 3, 1888, p. 8; April 23, 1888, p. 8; May 22, 1888, p. 5; June 14, 1889, p. 7; August 28, 1889, p. 14 September 12, 1889, p. 5; October 17, 1889, p. 13.Google Scholar

47 See entries under “Armenia & Armenians” plus appropriate entries under “Turkey” in Palmer's Index, Times Newspaper (1886–1890) (London, 1887–1891).Google Scholar

48 Radowitz to Caprivi, Aug. I, 1890, in Dugdale, German Diplomatic Document, II, 109–110; A. C. Wratislaw (British Consul at Harput) to White, August 10, 1888; Devey to Chermsid, Jan. 9, 1889; Salisbury to White, March 29, 1889, in BSP, 1889, Vol. LXXXVII, pp. 167–168, 201, 205; White to Salisbury, September 1, 1889, in BSP, 1890, Vol. LXXXII, pp. 21–24; White to Salisbury, February 24 and April, 1890; Wratislaw to White, August 30, 1890, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, pp. 482, 487, 535; Hogarth, Wandering Scholar, pp. 148–149.Google Scholar

49 F.O. (Julian Pauncefote) to Hagopian, London, March 27, 1888; Salisbury to White, March 29 and July 25, 1888; Archbishop of Canterbury to Salisbury, May 14, 1888; Evangelical Alliance to F.O., June 29 and Nov. 26, 1888; Hagopian to Salisbury, London, June 27, 1889, in BSP, 1889, Vol. LXXXVII, pp. 152–153, 158, 164, 166, 186, 229; Salisbury to White, Aug. 14, 1889; White to Salisbury, Sept. 30 and Oct. 4, 1889, in BSP, 1890, Vol. LXXXII, pp. 17, 29–31; Devey to Lloyd, Jan. 2, 1890; Salisbury to Fane (British Charge d'Affairs in Istanbul), July 18 and 23, 1890; Salisbury to White, Aug. 12 and 19, 1890; Lloyd to White, July 31, 1890, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, pp. 463, 517, 519–520, 525–527.Google Scholar

50 F.O. (Julian Pauncefote) to Hagopian, London, March 27, 1888, and Salisbury to Archbishop of Canterbury, May 21, 1888, in BSP, 1889, Vol. LXXXII, pp. 152, 161–162; Salisbury, Speech before the House of Lords, June 28, 1889, summarized in Annual Register, 1889 (London 1890), pp. 146–147; LT, May 24, 1888, p. 5.Google Scholar

51 White to Salisbury, May 26, 1890, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, p. 500.Google Scholar

52 Documents cited in n. 42 above contain examples of inquiries which brought sharp denials from White or his consular officers. White to Salisbury, Sept. 13, 1890, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, p. 536, cites the extreme difficulties involved in getting accurate information of incidents in the Near East.Google Scholar

53 Radowitz (citing White) to Caprivi, Aug. 1, 1890, in Dugdale, German Diplomatic Documents, II, 109–10; Salisbury, Speech before the House of Lords, June 28, 1889, summarized in Annual Register, 1889, pp. 146–147; LT, May 24, 1888, p. 5.Google Scholar

54 Ibid.

55 Radowitz to Caprivi (reviewing the history of the powers' involvement in the Armenian Question), Aug. 3, 1890, in Dugdale, German Diplomatic Documents, II, 111. Despite the establishment of two committees in France (Paris and Marseilles) and the publication there of L'Armenie, France was disinterested in Armenia, as reflected by the contents of Ministère des Affaires Étrangeres, Documents Diplomatiques Français, 1871–1914, 1re Ser. (Paris, 1930–1955), Vols. VII and VIII, for the period Jan. 1, 1888–Aug. 28, 1891. These sources contain only one brief dispatch on the issue. This document, Laboulaye (French Ambassador in St. Petersburg) to Ribot (French Foreign Minister), Sept. 21, 1890, outlines the position of Russia vis-à-vis Armenian autonomy—without giving even a hint of the French position—atGoogle Scholaribid., VIII, 247.

56 Count Pourtales (German Charge d'Affairs in St. Petersburg) to Caprivi, Sept. 15, 1890, in Dugdale, German Diplomatic Documents, II, 112.Google Scholar

57 Radowitz to Caprivi, Aug. 3, 1890, in Lepsius et al., Die Grosse Politik, IX, 191–192.Google Scholar For a documented analysis of Great Power involvement in the Eastern Mediterranean and Black Seas area during the late 1880s, see Gooch, G. P., History of Modern Europe, 1878–1919 (New York, 1923), pp. 115–155.Google Scholar

58 For a personal account of the founding and exploits of the Hunchakian movement, by one of its charter members, see Nazarbek, Avetis, Through the Storm: Pictures of Life in Armenia (London, 1899), passim;Google Scholar also, Khan-Azad, , “Hai Heghapoghaganie Houshertz,” Hairenik Amsakir, Vols. 5, VI (1927–1929), passim.Google Scholar For a documented history of the movement, see Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, pp. 90–131.Google Scholar

59 LT, July 29, 1890, p. 5, and July 30, 1890, p.5 White to Salisbury, Aug. 1, 1890, with enclosures, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, pp. 522–524; Lloyd to White, Aug. 21, 1890, inGoogle Scholaribid., pp. 532–533; White to Salisbury, Aug. 21, 1890, in ibid., p. 526. For the memoirs of a participant in the cathedral riot, see Jangulian, H., Notes ou the Armenian Crisis, Vol. 3 (Constantinople, 1913), passim.Google Scholar

60 Eliot, Turkey in Europe, p. 392;Google ScholarLynch, Armenia, II, 423–424;Google ScholarTcharykov, Glimpses of High Politics, p. 226.Google Scholar

61 White to Salisbury. Nov. 10, 1890, with enclosures, in BSP, 1890–1891, Vol. XCVI, p. 544–558; Fane to Salisbury, June 22, 1890, with enclosures, also June 23, 24, 27, 1890, inGoogle Scholaribid., pp. 505–509; Lloyd to Fane, June 20 and 28, 1890, in ibid., pp. 511–516.

62 LT, July 14 and 16 and August 6, 1890, p. 5 (in each issue); LT, Sept. 5, 6, 8, 12, 1890, pp. 3, 5, 3 and 7, and 8, respectively.Google Scholar See Bonsai, Stephen, Heyday in a Vanished World (New York, 1937), pp. 286–289, for an account of a fantastic, chance meeting between the author and the plotters of the Salonika fire.Google Scholar

63 Waugh, Turkey, pp. 30–32; Pears, Forty Years, p. 137; Eliot, Turkey in Europe, p. 414.Google Scholar

64 LT, April 4, 1891, p. 5; White to Salisbury, Feb. 24 and March 13, 1891, in BSP, 1892, Vol. XCVI, pp. 19, 25. Meanwhile, to allay any fears or suspicions among the Powers, Abdul Hamid had staged several spectacular acts of reconciliation between himself and his Armenian subjects in late December 1890 and January 1891, as described in White to Salisbury, Jan. 19, 1891, inGoogle Scholaribid., p. 6; LT, Dec. 26, 1890, p. 9, and Dec. 30, 1890, p. 4.