ARMENIA Isfalidn. In 1639, the province of Erivan, which included Echmiadzin, was assigned by treaty to Persia, and it remained in her hands until it passed to Russia, 1828, under the treaty of Turkman-chai. The Turko-Russian war of 1828-29, which advanced the Russian frontier to the Arpa Chai, was followed by a large emigration of Armenians from Turkish to Russian territory, and a smaller exodus took place after the war of 1877-78, which gave Batum, Ardahan, and Kars to Russia. In 1834 the independent power of the Kurds in Armenia was greatly curtailed ; and risings under Bedr Khan Bey in 1843, and Sheikh Obeidullah in 1880, were firmly suppressed. Gregorian Armenians.—After the capture of Constantinople, 1453, Muhammad II. organized his non-Moslem subjects in communities, or millets, under ecclesiastical chiefs to whom he gave absolute authority in civil and religious matters, and in criminal offences that did not come under the Moslem religious law. Under this system the Armenian bishop of Brusa, who was appointed patriarch of Constantinople by the Sultan, became the civil, and practically the ecclesiastical head of his community (Ermeni millet^, and a recognized officer of the Imperial Government with the rank of vizier. He was assisted by a council of bishops and clergy, and was represented in each province by a bishop. This imperium in imperio secured to the Armenians a recognized position before the law, the free enjoyment of their religion, the possession of their churches and monasteries, and the right to educate their children and manage their municipal affairs. It also encouraged the growth of a community life, which eventually gave birth to an intense longing for national life. On the other hand it degraded the priesthood. The priests became political leaders rather than spiritual guides, and sought promotion by bribery and intrigue. Education was neglected and discouraged, servility and treachery were developed, and in less than a century the people had become depraved and degraded to an almost incredible extent. After the issue, 1839, of the Hatt-i-Sherff of Giil-khaneh, the tradesmen and artisans of the capital freed themselves from clerical control. Under regulations, approved by the Sultan in 1862, the patriarch remains the official representative of the community, but all real power has passed into the hands of clerical and lay councils elected by a representative assembly of 140 members. The “community,” which excluded Roman Catholics and Protestants, was soon called the “nation,” “domestic” became “national” affairs, and the “ representative ” the “ national ” assembly. Roman Catholics.—The connexion of “ Lesser Armenia ” with the Western Powers led to the formation, 1335, of an Armenian fraternity, “the Unionists,” which adopted the dogmas of the Roman church, and at the council of Florence, 1439, was entitled the “United Armenian Church.” Under the millet system the unionists were frequently persecuted by the patriarchs, but this ended in 1830, when, at the intervention of France, they were made a community (Aatoluk millet'), with their own ecclesiastical head. The Roman Catholics, through the works issued by the Mekhitarists at Venice, have greatly promoted the progress of education and the development of Armenian literature. They are most numerous at Constantinople, Angora, and Smyrna. Protestants.—The Protestant movement, initiated, 1831, at Constantinople by American missionaries, was opposed by the patriarchs and Russia. In 1846 the patriarch anathematized all Armenians with Protestant sympathies, and this led to the formation of the “ Evangelical Church of the Armenians,” which was made, after much opposition from France and Russia, a community {Protestant millet), at the instance of the British ambassador. The missionaries
635
afterwards founded colleges on the Bosporus, at Kharput, Marsivan, and Aintab, to supply the needs of higher university education, and they opened good schools for both sexes at all their stations. Everywhere they supplied the people with pure, wholesome literature, and represented progress and religious liberty. When Abdul Hamid came to the throne, 1876, the condition of the Armenians was better than it had ever been under the Osmanlis; but with the close of the war of 1877-78 came the “Armenian events Question.” By the Treaty of San Stefano, Turkey engaged to Russia to carry out reforms “ in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Kurds and Circassians.” By the Treaty of Berlin, 13th July 1878, a like engagement to the six signatory Powers was substituted for that to Russia. By the Cyprus Convention, 4th June 1878, the Sultan promised Great Britain to introduce necessary reforms “ for the protection of the Christians and other subjects of the Porte ” in the Turkish territories in Asia. The Berlin Treaty encouraged the Armenians to look to the Powers, and not to Russia for protection; and the Convention, which did not mention the Armenians, was regarded as placing them under the special protection of Great Britain. This impression was strengthened by the action of England at Berlin in insisting that Russia should evacuate the occupied territory before reforms were introduced, and so removing the only security for their introduction. The presentation of identic and collective notes to the Porte by the Powers, in 1880, produced no result, and in 1882 it was apparent that Turkey would only yield to compulsion. In 1881 a circular note from the British Ministry to the five Powers was evasively answered, and in 1883 Prince Bismarck intimated to the British Government that Germany cared nothing about Armenian reforms and that the matter had better be allowed to drop. Russia had changed her policy towards the Armenians, and the other Powers were indifferent. The so-called “ Concert of Europe ” was at an end, but down to 1894 British ministries called the attention of the Sultan to his obligations under the Berlin Treaty. Russia began to interest herself in the Armenians when she acquired Georgia in 1801 ; but it was not until 1828-29 that any appreciable number of them became her subjects. She found them necessary to the poIjcy development of her new territories, and allowed them much freedom. They were permitted, within certain limits, to develop their national life ; many became wealthy, and many rose to high positions in the military and civil service of the state. After the war of 1877-78 the Russian Consuls in Turkey encouraged the formation of patriotic committees in Armenia, and a project was formed to create a separate state, under the supremacy of Russia, which was to include Russian, Persian, and Turkish Armenia. The project was favoured by Loris Melikof, then all-powerful in Russia, but in 1881 Alexander II. was assassinated and shortly afterwards a strongly antiArmenian policy was adopted. The schools were closed, the use of the Armenian language was discouraged, and attempts were made to Russify the Armenians and bring them within the pale of the Russian Church. All hope of practical self-government under Russian protection now ceased, and the Armenians of Tiflis turned their attention to Turkish Armenia. They had seen the success of the Sclav committees in creating disturbances in the Balkans, and became the moving spirit in the attempts to produce similar troubles in Armenia. Russia made no real effort to check the action of her Armenian subjects, and since 1884 she has steadily opposed any active interference by Great Britain in favour of the Turkish Armenians. When
