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 natu............