ART. XI.-1. Les Mavroyeni. Par Theodore Blancard. Paris, 1893. 2. The Outgoing Turk. By H. C. Thompson. London, 1897. 5. Die Orientalische Frage. Von Dr. Carl Hilly. 7. La Turquie et l'Hellénisme Contemporain. 8. La Macédoine. Von einem Bern, 1896. Par Victor Par Victor Bérard. Paris, 1897. 9. La Politique du Sultan. Par Victor Bérard. Same. 10. Politique Personelle de M. Hanotaux. Paris, 1897. ΟΝ N the morning of the 14th of April, 1861, a strange ceremony, at which the writer of this article was present, took place in the Sixtine Chapel in Rome. Pius IX., in the midst of a large gathering of Cardinals, of distinguished statesmen and diplomatists, and of strangers from all parts of the world, consecrated a priest named Sobolski Exarch of Bulgaria. A mass in Bulgarian was said in the presence of the Sovereign Pontiff, and it was whispered and believed by wise and grave men that the foundation of a Uniate Bulgarian Church was that day laid, and that the action of the Pope would mark a new departure in the ecclesiastical life and politics of SouthEastern Europe. At the close of the Crimean War a number of Roman Catholic Poles who had fought against Russia, settled in Bulgaria. They soon observed the deep discontent of the Bulgarian clergy and people with the Greek Patriarchate at Constantinople. The episcopal chairs were filled exclusively by Greek prelates. This grievance was most keenly felt in consequence of the system of government in Turkey under which the Bishops of the Christian Churches are invested with considerable powers over the temporal affairs of members of their respective communions. The Poles profited by this discontent to insinuate to the Bulgarian clergy and people that they might escape from the tyranny of Constantinople by union with Rome. They were assisted in their work by the money and advice of Prince Czartoryski and some other Polish nobles in Paris, who perceived that a Bulgarian Church united with Rome would be a serious injury to Russian influence throughout the whole of the Balkan peninsula. A movement with this object was commenced, and soon gathered considerable strength. Three Bulgarian priests, possessing the confidence of their countrymen, went to Rome to negotiate the terms of union. Their reception in the Eternal City was courteous and personally flattering, but no definite arrangement was come to. The Roman authorities entirely failed to grasp the situation. They hesitated to make concessions to local customs and feelings which would have been quite compatible with the doctrine and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, and when the Bulgarian envoys returned home they found an altered state of feeling. Russian agents had been active in pointing out the danger to the religious traditions and customs of Bulgaria which might arise from union with the Western Church, and from the encroachments on local ecclesiastical independence which might be expected from Rome, and especially from Pope Pius IX., the policy of whose pontificate was to do away everywhere with the slightest deviations from the Roman rite. The movement, however, against the tyranny of the Patriarchate of Constantinople went on, and the Roman authorities tried to profit by it. They imagined that it was possible to induce the Bulgarians, in their anxiety for independence of Constantinople, to submit unreservedly to the Pope; and they were encouraged in this belief by ill-informed people and also by persons who were keenly interested in preventing the increase of papal influence over any Communion in the Eastern Church. Thus it came to pass that a priest named Sobolski was suggested to them as a proper person to be entrusted with the guidance of the movement. They received the suggestion favourably, and their rash action in this respect was very inconsistent with their characteristic prudence. They neglected to make enquiries as to the past life and history of the man they were about to entrust with such an important mission. Had they done so, they would have learnt that he was in every way ludicrously unfit for any ecclesiastical charge, and that he followed a calling not very unlike that of the Clerk of Copmanhurst in Sir Walter's famous tale. Shortly after his consecration by the Pope Sobolski returned to Bulgaria, where he remained for exactly one week, administering the affairs of the new church. He then suddenly took flight, carrying with him the papal Bull and other official documents, and disappeared from history, having perfectly played the game of the Russian Government, and brought complete ridicule on the movement with which he was connected. One person at least of those present at his consecration in Rome, and probably the youngest witness witness of the ceremony, marvelled much at the time how it was possible that men in the position and with the great responsibilities of Pius IX. and his counsellors, should imagine for a moment that an ecclesiastical ceremony, however imposing, would have any serious effect in smoothing away difficulties which had been the growth of centuries. We may all smile now at the simplicity of the Pope, but the same delusion seems to prevail at this moment in the minds of influential politicians, who appear to think it the simplest thing in the world to settle the Eastern question without any reference to the ideas and circumstances out of which it has grown. All such attempts are doomed to speedy and ignominious failure. This can only be avoided by bearing constantly in mind that the present difficulty is a mere episode in the long conflict between Islam and Christianity, complicated by the differences between the Eastern and Western Church, by the jealousies of various communions in Oriental Christianity itself, and by the rivalries and ambition of the great European Powers. Islam, as represented by the Turks, established itself in Europe by force of arms, and to understand the theory upon which Moslems have invariably rested their policy in regard to conquered countries, it is necessary to realize the fact that the Koran and the received prophetical tradition ('Hadît) contain not only a body of religious doctrine, but also a revelation in politics and law. This teaching is no doubt expressed in vague and poetical language, but authoritative interpretation gradually evolved from it definite and fixed principles of action. This development is, however, by no means exclusively the product of Arabic thought; it bears upon its face traces of Judaism and of the action of the Persian mind. No portion of the Mohammedan system has been more fully and carefully treated by their learned men than that part of it which relates to the 'djchâd,' or Holy War, and which lies at the root of Moslem policy in regard to conquered countries. The germ of the doctrine of the Holy War is contained in such passages of the Koran as the following: Fight against them (the unbelievers) until there be no opposition in favour of Idolatry, and the religion be wholly God's'; and again, Fight against them who believe not in God nor the last day, and forbid not that which God and his Apostle have forbidden, and profess not the true religion of those to whom the Scriptures have been delivered until they pay tribute by right of subjection, and they be reduced low.' A doctrinal system has been evolved from these and similar passages under which it has become impossible for any body of men who do not believe in, or or at least outwardly acknowledge the divine mission of Islam, to live on any terms approaching political equality with the followers of the Prophet, in a state governed on the received principles of Mohammedan theology. This has been explained by Kremer, Tischendorf, and other learned writers, and, especially in great detail by Haneberg, who in his conscientious impartiality, wide sympathies, and profound learning, recalls the most splendid scholars of the Benedictine Order, of which he was in the nineteenth century the most striking figure. The doctrine of the divine mission of Islam to trample on the unbelievers, and that no one has a right even to live except as grace from the Commander of the Faithful, is held most firmly by the present Sultan, and therefore those who have to deal with events in the East should not only have constantly present to their minds the main doctrines of Islam; they must also take into account the character of Abdul-Hamid. Those who are personally acquainted with the Sultan agree in describing him as remarkably gentle, polite, and amiable, with an active mind, great natural penetration of intellect, and no culture. M. Blancard, in one of the books which we have placed at the head of this article, speaks of him as a prince whose heart is always open to every generous sentiment. He has succeeded in gaining the complete confidence of more than one experienced diplomatist, and amongst them the present Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, who, in a very famous essay in the Revue de Paris,' endeavoured to excuse, or even defend, some of the most sinister acts of Abdul-Hamid.* Midhat Pasha, one of the most remarkable men in the Turkish Empire of our time, and an exceptionally keen observer, spoke to the writer of this article in terms of enthusiastic admiration of the Sultan. His disciple, Mourad Bey, now the leader of the young Turkish Party, acknowledges that the throne of the Ottoman Sultans has not been for centuries occupied by a Sovereign so irreproachable in his morals as Abdul-Hamid, and he admits further that he has on more than one occasion been_persuaded that the Sultan has earnestly wished to reform the Empire on the general lines drawn out by Midhat. This is the more remarkable because the key-note of Midhat's policy was the secularisation of politics. He held that the Koran should not be regarded as containing a revelation of the principles of government, a view, not only quite inconsistent with the received doctrine of his religion in Turkey, but totally opposed * See Revue de Paris, Dec. 1, 1895, an article entitled 'En Orient,', and signed 'XXX.' to to the deepest convictions of Abdul-Hamid. It is difficult to believe that a Sovereign who appears so good and so amiable should be responsible for the wholesale massacres in Armenia and Constantinople. There is, however, little doubt of his complicity. It is proved by evidence overwhelming in character. M. Bérard, in 'La politique du Sultan,' establishes it on the testimony of persons who witnessed many of the scenes, and who knew where the orders came from. The documents, moreover, to which the responsible agents of France, Russia, and England have affixed their signatures, are conclusive on the point. The explanation seems to be that the Sultan is dominated by terror to such an extent as entirely to have lost the balance of his reason. He is afraid, on the one hand, of the daggers of fanatics who blame him for concessions to Christian Powers and for loss of territory. On the other hand, he trembles lest the young Turkish party should procure his deposition and perhaps compass his death. Fear has cured him of arrogance and pride, passions, and vices, but it has also killed every generous sentiment. He is said to have been naturally good, and to have sympathised deeply with human suffering in all its forms. In the early years of his reign he shrank from allowing capital punishment to be inflicted in any circumstances, but at the first moment when his fears were aroused he sent hundreds of men to a lingering and cruel death. He is a true Mussulman, and respects all connected with Moslem worship, but young Mussulman theologians having made themselves obnoxious to him in 1892, he ordered them to be thrown into the Bosphorus in scores. He is said to be a good father, fond of his children, an excellent master, who loads with favours those dependent on him. A short time ago, however, having to pass through the city of Constantinople, to assist at a religious ceremony, he took the youngest of his sons between his knees in his carriage, to protect him from the daggers of the assassins, and he insisted on Osman Pasha, the old hero of Plevna, sitting on the front seat, hoping that the widespread popularity of the brave old soldier would protect him from dynamite and explosive bombs. Abdul-Hamid, oppressed by the feeling of insecurity for his life, has acquired all the characteristics so remarkable in the representatives of persecuted races. He is treacherous in the extreme, and is capable of the most cruel acts. He not only holds that no unbeliever has a right to his life, except from the mercy of the Mussulman; he adheres also to the old tradition of the Porte, that whenever any portion of the Christian subjects in the Ottoman Empire become inconvenient, the simplest course |