when i was in constantinople i felt the restless tossings of long enthralled nationalities awaking to the new destinies that might be theirs—armenians thirsting for their lost country and dispersed people; bulgarians panting and striving for freedom in a greater bulgaria; egyptians claiming independence; jews praying for a return to the land of david and solomon; greeks dreaming strange dreams of a greater and united greece, yes, even of an eastern empire restored to them, with constantinople as its centre. i saw the turk, still defiant but apprehensive, dimly conscious that the end is near at hand, lamenting the sins of his people—such sins as that the women do not wholly veil their faces, that the men do not slay the infidels. i discerned the subtle plotting of diplomacy to guard or gain the queen city, and so the empire of the east. everything seemed then, as now, uncertain. it might be peace, it might be war; but all were sure that the old was breaking up, whether to make way for inrushing floods of destruction, or for better days and nobler nations, none could tell. then i went to the most sacred and vital spot of stamboul, not to st. sophia, which, with all the lights and prayers of ramazan, testified only to the degradation and defeat of the purer by a coarser faith, which had become god’s scourge. i went to the bible house, and there first, while all was shaking about, i felt that i stood upon a rock, the very rock of ages. the old city had fallen because it was built upon a shut bible; this city was about to fall because it was built upon the koran. but here on the open bible was being reared a city which hath a foundation whose builder and maker is god.
—edward a. lawrence in
“modern missions in the east.”
[pg 65]
of all the races and sects of the ottoman empire, none except the turks are so closely identified with the country, its progress and present conditions, as the armenians. they have been preeminently the means and occasion for prosecuting missionary work there, and the armenian question has been discussed in the parliaments of all europe and even now is far from solution.
the armenians constitute one of the two distinct christian peoples in the empire, the other being the greeks. they stand with the greeks, a keen rival for the honors of antiquity, while from the christian standpoint they hold a position entirely unique. their antiquity, racial strength, intellectual alertness, large numbers, and importance in that empire all demand a more extended consideration.
there are two distinct sources from which account of them comes,—one, their own historians, and the other, contemporary historians. according to the former, they are the direct descendants from noah through japheth, who was the father of gomer, the father of togarmah, who begat haig, the father of the armenian race. it is a fact to be noted here that they always refer to themselves not as armenians but as haiks, and to their country as haiasdan. they find no little difficulty in pronouncing the word “armenia.” the name “armenians” was applied to the race by outside nations because of the exploits of one aram, the king of haiasdan, the seventh removed from haik, who made many conquests and impressed the power of his arms upon the weaker people about him. to [pg 66] these people the haiks were the followers of aram and so were called armenians. the armenians claim that their present language, except for the changes that have crept in through the centuries, was spoken in the ark. their traditions blend in the third and fourth centuries before christ with many facts of assyrian, median, and greek history, so it is impossible to differentiate precisely where legend ends and history begins.
there is no doubt that during the assyrian and median period there was in armenia, which included the mountains of ararat, and the upper araxes, euphrates and tigris rivers, centering perhaps in the region of lake van, a well-organized and powerful monarchy. the ancient assyrian records show that this people had to be reckoned with in all plans for campaigns in the ararat country, and not infrequently the invaders were compelled to retire in apparent haste. well-preserved inscriptions are found upon the cliffs at van and in the same language across the country six hundred miles or more to the east, which show the presence there (700 b. c.) of a powerful and warlike people. whether these were the progenitors of the present armenian race or whether they were conquered by some stronger invading force, which completely dominated the country, is not as yet clear.
the last of the haig dynasty, vahe, formed an alliance with darius iii against the macedonians. he was defeated by the forces under alexander and was slain. the people were without a leader for one hundred and thirty years, and were trampled upon and plundered by invading armies from every side. about 190 b. c. two armenian nobles arose who divided the kingdom and ruled over it. this divided kingdom was again united under tigranes (dickran ii) in 89 b. c. in 67 b. c. the armenians became an ally of rome, [pg 67] and in 30 b. c. were made tributary. for two and a half centuries thereafter the entire country was again in turmoil and political disorder. from that time to the present the armenians have never represented a political power that needed to be reckoned with. their people were scattered with no uniting force, without a commanding leader or a distinctive country.
a little armenian kingdom in cilicia in the taurus mountains maintained an existence until 1375 a. d. since that time armenians have had no political existence whatever. they have been, and are still, a people without a country, a nation without a government.
as soon as the mohammedan invasion took place they had no alternative but to yield to their conquerors or die. it was but natural that they should scatter from the old ancestral haunts to all points of the compass, in search of more liberty and a better opportunity to secure a living. they have gone into every city, if not into nearly every village of size in the empire. before the massacre of 1895-96 there were nearly a quarter of a million armenians in constantinople alone. their energy and enterprise and industry give them prominence in trade, in the professions, and in the cultivation of the soil. they have gone far beyond the borders of turkey, and are found to-day in nearly every country in the world. many hold high and honorable positions in foreign lands.
armenians exist in larger numbers still in their old haunts about lake van, where they constitute perhaps a majority of the population. in all the cities of eastern turkey, extending from the black sea south into northern mesopotamia, westward to the euphrates river, and beyond, they hold a prominent place, although they are upon the whole a minority. the rest of the population are mostly turks, the ruling body, and the [pg 68] koords. these races, especially the turks and armenians, live in the same towns, but never intermarry. the koords live more by themselves in the mountains. as we pass on into asia minor, the armenians decrease while the greeks increase in numbers and in the importance of the positions they command.
the armenians are also numerous in northern syria, especially in the region near their last cilician kingdom. adana, tarsus, marash, aintab, hadjin, oorfa and many other cities in that region have a large armenian population. their language is turanian, constructed upon the greek model, and is especially rich in its power of expressing christian truths and sentiments. the most of the armenians speak this tongue, but some in the mountains of koordistan speak only koordish, while the armenians in northern syria use the turkish language. turkish is spoken by nearly all armenians, as well as by all the races north of syria.
religiously, the history of the armenians is full of interest. their histories claim that at the time of christ their king abgar, called by tacitus the king of the arabs, resided at urfa in northern mesopotamia. he is reported to have had some communication with christ, who, at his death, through the apostle thomas, sent thaddeus to preach to the armenians. the king and his court were baptized. his successor apostatized from the faith, and so christianity was lost to the race until the fourth century. at the beginning of this century st. gregory the illuminator preached at the court of armenia with such effect that from that period to this christianity has been the national religion. the church has held the race together. it is known as the gregorian church, after st. gregory, while the people themselves always refer to their church as loosavorchagan, derived from loosavorich, meaning “the illuminator.” as this is the national church, all armenian children are baptized in infancy and become members.
an armenian ecclesiastic
a koordish chief
of southern kordistan
[pg 69] at first the gregorian church took part in the ecumenical conferences, but for some reason they had no representatives in the council which met at chalcedon in 451 a. d. in a synod of armenian bishops in 491 the decisions of the council of chalcedon were rejected, and at a later synod they declared openly for the monophysite doctrine. this led to their complete separation from the greek church.
their church government is episcopal, with the same form of patriarchal control which dominates the greek church in turkey. the bishop of the main body of the armenians resides at etchmiadzin, their holy city, now in russia, not far from the turkish borders. there is also a bishop on the island of octamar in the lake of van, and another at cis in cilicia, each with a small following. the bishops have authority over the spiritual affairs of the church, like the ordaining of priests and vartabeds, while the two patriarchs, one at jerusalem and one at constantinople, control its temporal affairs. as these patriarchs, and especially the one at constantinople, are in a measure the appointees of the sultan, and as he represents his people in all their government matters, the office is largely political and secular. the importance as well as the delicacy of the position is greatly increased during the times of political unrest.
at its beginning, the church was as pure in doctrine and practise as was the greek church at constantinople. it was an important branch of the church of christ on earth. the location of the unprotected [pg 70] armenians, in a country swept by invasion and persecutors of every kind, made the position of the church a most trying one. as illiteracy increased, the spoken language of the people underwent marked changes. the church possessed most sacredly guarded manuscript copies of the scriptures and beautiful liturgies, all in the then spoken language of the people. these were read at all church services and sermons were preached by the officiating clergy. as the spoken language changed during the last ten centuries, under the blasting influence of mohammedan rule, the sacred books of the church ceased to speak to the people. the priests read the words of the ritual, but neither they nor the people understood it. the church was too holy a place in which to make use of the vulgar vernacular, so the sermon was discontinued because there was no one to preach in the classic tongue of the race.
under these conditions the christianity of the gregorian church became, for the most part, a religion of form, from which the spirit had departed. thus bereft of the true power of christianity and subject to the temptations and persecutions of the moslems among whom they dwelt, it is not strange that the christianity of the gregorian church lost its vital power.
