Online Encyclopedia

WAR OF INDEPENDENCE

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V27, Page 467 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!
WAR OF INDEPENDENCE.) On the 6th of March 182I Prince Alexander Ypsilanti, son of the hospodar Constantine, and a general in the Russian service, crossed the Pruth, proclaiming the revolt of the Greeks against the sultan and the intention to restore the Greek Empire of the East. But in the principalities, where the Vlach peasants regarded the Phanariots as worse oppressors than the Turks, the movement had little chance of success; it was doomed from the moment that the emperor Alexander disavowed Ypsilanti's claim to his support (see ALEXANDER I.). After some initial successes the Greeks were finally routed at the battle of Dragashani (June 19, 1821). It was far otherwise with the insurrection which broke out at the beginning of April in the Morea. The Mussulman population of the Morea, taken unawares, was practically exterminated during the fury of the first few days; and, most fatal of all, the defection of the Greeks of the islands crippled the Ottoman navy by depriving it of its only effective sailors. The barbarous reprisals into which Sultan Mahmud allowed himself to be carried away only accentuated the difficulty of the situation. The execution of the patriarch Gregorios, as technically responsible for the revolt, was an outrage to all Christendom; and it led at once to a breach of diplomatic relations with Russia. To prevent this breach developing into war was now the chief study of the chanceries. Public opinion throughout Europe was violently excited in favour of the Greeks; and this Philhellenic sentiment was shared even by some of the statesmen who most strenuously deprecated any interference in their favour. For at the outset Metternich was not alone in maintaining that the war should be allowed to burn itself out " beyond the pale of civilization." The mutual slaughter of barbarians in the Levant seemed, even to George Canning, a lesser evil than a renewed Armageddon in Europe; and all the resources of diplomacy were set in motion to heal the rupture between Turkey and • Russia. In spite of the emperor Alexander's engagements to the Grand Alliance and the ideal of European peace, this was no easy matter; for the murder of the patriarch was but the culmination of a whole series of grievances accumulated since the Treaty of Bucharest. Moreover, the Porte was thrown into a suspicious mood by the contrast between the friendly language of the western powers and the active sympathy of the western peoples for the Greeks, who were supported by volunteers and money drawn from all Europe. But, though the sultan remained stubborn, the emperor Alexander, who since the Congress of Laibach had been wholly under Metternich's influence, resisted the clamour of his people for war, and dismissed his Greek minister Capo d'Istria (q.v.). The Congress of Verona (1822) passed without any serious developments in the Eastern Question. The stubborn persistence of the Greeks, however, dashed Metternich's hope that the question would soon settle itself, and produced a state of affairs in the Levant which necessitated some action. In the instructions drawn up, shortly before his death, for his guidance at Verona, Castlereagh had stated the possibility of the necessity for recognizing the Greeks as belligerents if the war continued. The atrophy of the Ottoman HISTORY] sea-power had left the archipelago at the mercy of the Greek war-brigs; piracy flourished; and it became essential in the interests of the commerce of all nations to make some power responsible for the policing of the narrow seas. On the 25th of March 1823 accordingly, Canning announced the recognition by Great Britain of the belligerent character of the Greeks. This roused the emperor Alexander to action, since it seemed as though Great Britain was aiming at ousting Russian influence in the Levant. He suggested a joint intervention of the powers; but the conference, which met at St Petersburg in April 1824, came to nothing, since Turkey and the Greeks alike refused to be bound by its decisions, and Canning would not hear of coercion being applied to either. The sole outcome of the conference was the offer in March 1825 of the joint mediation of Austria and Russia, which the Porte rejected. Meanwhile Mahmud, realizing the impossibility of crushing the Greek revolt unaided, had bent his pride to ask the help of Mehemet Ali, who was to receive as his reward Crete, the Morea and the pashaliks of Syria and Damascus. The Egyptian fleet and disciplined army were now thrown into the scale; and from the moment when Ibrahim Pasha landed at Modon (Feb. 24, 1825),, the fate of the Greeks seemed sealed. The Morea was quickly overrun; in April 1826 Missolonghi fell, after a heroic defence; in June 1827 Athens was once more in the hands of the Turks. Crowds of Greek captives were being sent as slaves to Cairo; and, should the powers not intervene, there was every prospect of Greece being depopulated and colonized with Mussulman negroes and fellahin. At the close of 1825 an isolated intervention of Russia had seemed probable. A great army was assembled in the south of Russia, and the emperor Alexander had gone to place himself at its head when he died (Dec 22, 1825). It was to prevent such an intervention that Canning seized the opportunity of the accession of Nicholas I. to send the duke of Wellington to St Petersburg in order to concert joint measures. The result was the protocol of St Petersburg of the 4th of April 1826, by which Great Britain was empowered to offer to the Ottoman government a settlement of the Greek question based on the establishment of Greece as a vassal and tributary state. Should the Porte refuse, the two powers were to take the earliest opportunity, either separately or in common, of establishing a reconciliation on the basis of the protocol. Russia, meanwhile, had seized the occasion to send to Constantinople an ultimatum demanding satisfaction for her own particular grievances; the Porte resented the intrusion of new convention demands before the others had been dealt with, of and hurried on preparations for war. The reform Akkerman. of the army, however, involved the destruction of the Janissaries (q.v.), and though their massacre on the 15th of June left the sultan free to carry out his views with regard to the army, it left him too weak to resist the Russian demands. On the 7th of October, accordingly, these were conceded by the Convention of Akkerman. Its terms were: the confirmation of the Treaty of Bucharest and the opening of the navigation of the Black Sea to the Russian flag; a stipulation that the hospodars of Walachia and Moldavia should be elected by the boyars for seven years, their election being confirmed by the Porte which, however, had no power to dismiss them without the concurrence of the Russian ambassador at Constantinople; finally, Servia's autonomy was recognized, and, save in the fortresses, no Mussulman might reside there. The Greek question was however, not yet settled. Months passed without any action being taken under the protocol Agreement of the 4th of April; and Russia suspected Great of the Britain of merely using the protocol to prevent her powers as own isolated intervention. The situation was how-to Greece. ever materially altered by the end of August 1826; for the Greeks, driven to desperation, had formally invited the mediation of England, thereby removing Canning's objection to an unasked intervention. He now invited the co-operation of Russia in representations to the Porte on457 the basis of the protocol, and, in the event of its refusal to come to terms, suggested certain measures of coercion. The tsar consented, and proposed that the coercion should take the form of a pacific blockade of the Morea, so as to force Ibrahim, by cutting off his supplies, to evacuate the country. To this Great Britain agreed in principle; for Canning clearly saw the need for yielding on the question of a joint intervention, if the isolated intervention of Russia were to be prevented. In the conference of the five powers of the Grand Alliance opened at London in the early summer of 1827, however, a divergence of views at once became apparent. Austria and Prussia pro-tested against any coercion of the Porte " to serve revolutionary ends " and, failing to carry their views, withdrew from the conference. France thereupon proposed to convert the protocol of the 4th of April into a treaty; Russia and Great Britain agreed; and on the 6th of July the Treaty of London was signed by the three powers. By the patent articles of the treaty the powers agreed to secure the autonomy of Greece under the suzerainty of the sultan, but without any breach of friendly relations with Turkey. By additional secret articles it was agreed that, in the event of the Porte not accepting the offered mediation, consuls should be established in Greece, and an armistice proposed to both belligerents and enforced by all the means that should " suggest themselves to the prudence " of the high contracting powers. In general it was allowed that these means should be the " pacific blockade " proposed by the tsar. Instructions to this effect were sent to the admirals commanding in the Levant. The armistice, accepted by the Greeks, was refused by Ibrahim, pending instructions from Constantinople, though he consented to keep his ships in the harbour of Nava- Navarino. rino. The Greeks, having put themselves in the right with the powers, were free to continue the war; and the destruction of a Turkish flotilla off Salona on the 23rd of September followed. Ibrahim, taking this as a breach of the convention, set sail from Navarino northwards, but was turned back by Sir Edward Codrington, the British admiral. Then, the Russian and French squadrons having joined, it was deter-mined to put further pressure on the Egyptian commander, and the allied fleets, on the morning of the loth of October, stood into the bay of Navarino. A chance scuffle led to a battle, and by the evening the Turkish and Egyptian fleets had ceased to exist (see NAVARINO, BATTLE OF). The effect on the passionate sultan of this " unparalleled outrage on a friendly power in time of peace " is easy to imagine. In spite of the weak efforts of the British government to palliate the significance of this " untoward incident," Turkey broke off diplomatic relations with the three powers concerned, and on the loth of December Mahmud, giving full vent to his rage, issued a hatt-i-sherif denouncing the cruelty and perfidy of the Christian powers, declaring the convention of Akkerman null and void, and summoning the faithful to a holy war. The struggle that followed was, however, destined once more to be a duel between Russia and Turkey. Great Britain, when Canning was no longer at the helm of state, had reverted to the traditional policy of preserving Ottoman integrity at all costs; the invitation of the tsar to accept the logical consequences of Navarino was refused; and Russia was left to settle her account with Turkey. The war that followed proved once more the wonderful resisting power of the Turks. In spite of the confusion due to the destruction of the Janissaries and army reforms as yet hardly begun, it cost the tzar two hardly fought campaigns before the audacious strategy of General Diebitsch enabled him to dictate the terms of the treaty of Adrianople (Sep. 14, 1829). Meanwhile the other powers had taken advantage of the reverses of the Russian arms to discount the effect of their ultimate victory by attempting to settle the Greek question. In July 1828 France had been commissioned to oust Ibrahim from the Morea; and though by a convention, concluded on the 9th of War with Russia. August by Codrington with Mehemet All, the principle of evacuation by the Egyptian troops had already been settled before the arrival of the French expedition, the Morea remained for the time in French occupation. On the 16th of November a protocol of the London conference placed the Morea, with the neighbouring islands and the Cyclades, under the guarantee of the powers; and on the 22nd of March 1829 another protocol extended the frontier thus guaranteed to the line Arta-Volo and included the island of Euboea. According to this instrument Greece was to be erected into a tributary state, but autonomous, and governed by an hereditary prince chosen by the powers. The Treaty of Adrianople, by which the Danubian principalities were erected into practically independent states, the treaty Ureek Inge- rights of Russia in the navigation of the Bosporus pendence. and Dardanelles confirmed, and the districts of Anapa and Poti in Asia ceded to the tsar, included also a settlement of the Greek question on the terms of the protocol of the 22nd of March. This fact, which threatened to give to Russia the whole prestige of the emancipation of Greece, spurred the other powers to further concessions. The acceptance of the principle of complete independence, once more warmly advocated by Metternich, seemed now essential if Greece was not to become, like the principalities, a mere dependency of Russia. On the 3rd of February 1830 was signed a protocol embodying the principle of an independent Greece under Leopold of Coburg as " sovereign prince." This was ultimately expanded, after the fall of the Wellington ministry, into the Treaty of London of the 7th of May 1832, by which Greece was made an independent kingdom under the Bavarian prince Otto. (See GREECE: History.) Before the final settlement of the Greek question a fresh crisis had arisen in the affairs of Turkey. Her lessened prestige Syria. had already received a severe blow from the boln- bardment and capture of Algiers by the French in 1830, and her position was further embarrassed by revolts in Bosnia and Albania, when news reached Constantinople that Mehemet All had invaded Syria (Nov. 1, 1831), nominally in order to punish his enemy Abdullah, pasha of Acre, really in order to take by force of arms the pashaliks of Syria and Damascus promised as a reward for his services in Greece. An account of the collapse of the Turkish power before Mehemet Ali, and of the complicated diplomatic developments that followed, is given in the article MEHEMET ALt. Here it must suffice to say that the recognition of Mehemet Ali's claims, forced on the sultan by France and Great Britain, was followed in 1833 by the signature cf the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, which seemed to place Turkey wholly in the power of Russia, after which Sultan Mahmud concentrated his energies on creating a force strong enough to crush his rebellious vassal. At last, in 1839, his eagerness would no longer be restrained, and without consulting his ministers, and in spite of the warnings of all the powers, he determined to renew the war. On the 21st of April the Ottoman army, which had been massed under Hafiz Pasha at Bir on the Euphrates, crossed the stream, by the sultan's orders, and advanced on Damascus. On the 23rd of June it was attacked by Ibrahim at Nezib and annihilated. As for Mahmud, the news of the disaster reached Constantinople when he was unconscious and dying. Early on the 1st of July he was dead, and his son Abd-ul-Mejid, a lad of eighteen, reigned in his stead (see MAHMUD II.). The Eastern Question had now suddenly once more entered an acute phase. The news of Nezib was immediately followed And-ui- by that of the treason of Ahmed Pasha, the Ottoman Mepd, admiral, who, on the plea that the sultan's coun-1839-1861. se]lors were sold to Russia, had sailed to Alexandria and handed over the fleet to Mehemet Ali. With an inexperienced boy on the throne, divided and untrustworthy counsels in the divan, and the defences of the empire shattered, the house of Osman seemed doomed and the Turkish Empire about to dissolve into its elements. If Russia was to be prevented from using the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi for her own purposes, it was essential that the powers should concert measures to deal with the situation. The story of the diplomatic negotiations that followed is told elsewhere (see MEHEMET Au). Here it may suffice to say that the desire of the emperor Nicholas to break the entente between Great Britain and France led him to waive his special claims under the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, and that in the ultimate concert by which the question was settled France, which throughout supported Mehemet Ali, had no part. The intervention of the powers, based on the convention of London of the 15th of July 184o, led to the withdrawal of Ibrahim from Syria, and the establishment by the firman of the 13th of February 1841 of Mehemet All as hereditary pasha of Egypt under conditions intended to safeguard the sovereign rights of the Ottoman sultan. On the loth of July the four signatory powers of the convention of London signed a protocol recording the closure of the incident (protocole de cloture), and on the 13th France united with them in signing another protocol (protocole des detroits) by which the powers engaged to respect the principle proclaimed by the sultan as to the closing of the Dardanelles to foreign warships. The severe crisis through which the Ottoman Empire had passed accentuated the need for strengthening it by a drastic reform of its system. For such an experiment, Reform though hampered by continual insurrections within policy in and troubles without, Mahmud had done some- Turkey. thing to pave the way. The destruction of the Tanzimaf. Janissaries and the suppression of the quasi-independent power of the derebeys had removed the worst disturbing elements; the government had been centralized; a series of enactments had endeavoured to secure economy in the administration, to curb the abuses of official power, and ensure the impartiality of justice; and the sultan had even expressed his personal belief in the principle of the equality of all, Mussulman and non-Mussulman, before the law. It was therefore no sudden revolution when, on the 15th of November 1839 Abd-ul-Mejid signalized his accession by promulgating the Tanzimat, or Hatti-Sherif of Gulhane, a decree abolishing the arbitrary and unlimited power hitherto exercised by the state and its officials, laying down the doctrine of the perfect equality of all Ottoman subjects of whatever race or creed, and providing for the regular, orderly and legal government of the country and the security of life, property and honour for all its inhabitants. Yet the feelings of dismay and even ridicule with which this proclamation was received by the Mussulmans in many parts of the country show how great a change it instituted, and how strong was the opposition which it encountered among the ruling race. The non-Mussulman subjects of the sultan had indeed early been reduced to such a condition of servitude that the idea of their being placed on a footing of equality with their Mussulman rulers seemed unthinkable. Preserved merely as taxpayers necessary to supply the funds for the maintenance of the dominant and military class, according to a foreign observer in 1571, they had been so degraded and oppressed that they dared not look a Turk in the face. Their only value was from a fiscal point of view, and in times of fanaticism or when anti-foreign sentiment ran high even this was held of little account, so that more than once they very nearly became the victims of a general and state-ordered massacre. Thus Sultan Ibrahim was dissuaded from such a step in 1644 only by the refusal of the Sheikh-ul-Islam to sanction the proceeding. The humane and tolerant measures provided for in the " nizam-i-jedid," or new regulations for the better treatment of the Christians enacted by Mustafa Kuprili during his grand vizierate (1689-1691), did for a time improve the position of the rayas. But the wars with Russia and other Christian powers, and the different risings of the Greeks and Servians, helped to stimulate the feelings of animosity and contempt entertained towards them by the ruling race; and the promulgation of the Tanzimat undoubtedly heralded for the subject nationalities the dawn of a new era. first sultan who entered into regular relations with foreign powers, and employed permanent ambassadors; the practice was discontinued at the time of the Greek revolution and the consequent rupture with the powers. Later, during the Egyptian negotiations, ambassadors were accredited to London, Paris and Vienna. Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz's journey to Europe and the return visits paid by foreign princes strengthened Turkey's relations with foreign states. The ministry of the Evkaf or pious foundations was established in 1827 and extended ten years later. Such foundations had been created from the earliest times, and the execution of the testator's wishes was generally left to his descendants, under the supervision of some high official designated in the act of endowment. In case of failure in the line of succession an administrator was appointed by the state. But many such foundations fell into disorder, and the ministry was created to exercise the requisite supervision. Though the provisions of the Tanzimat were not fully observed, they afforded convincing proof that reform was entirely practicable in Turkey. Reforms were effected in every direction; the finances and the army were Results Reto: ms. reorganized, military instructors being procured from Europe; the administration was gradually centralized, and good relations were cultivated with the powers, the only serious international controversy arising in 1848—1849 over the refusal by Turkey, with the support of England, to surrender the Hungarian and Polish insurgents who had taken refuge within her borders. It cannot indeed be said that complete tranquillity prevailed throughout the country meanwhile; disturbances in the principalities and in the Lebanon gave serious trouble, while in 1842 the unsettled state of the Turco-Persian frontier nearly led to war. By the mediation of England and Russia the Treaty of Erzerum was signed (1847) and a frontier commission was appointed. But as the frontier was not definitely demarcated the door was left open for controversies which have occurred frequently up to the present day. Turkey's progress in the path of reform was viewed with some uneasiness in Russia, the cardinal principle of whose policy since 1829 had been to maintain her own Russian influence at Constantinople by keeping the Otto- Policy since man government weak. In favour of this view 1829. the traditional policy of Peter the Great and Catherine II. had been deliberately given up, and by the secret convention signed at Munchengratz on the 18th of September 1833 the emperor Nicholas had agreed with his brother sovereigns of the revived " Holy Alliance" to maintain the integrity of Turkey, where Russian influence seemed to have been rendered supreme and permanent by the Treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. The crisis which ended in 1841, however, materially altered the situation from the Russian point of view. By his concert with the other powers in the affair of Mehemet Ali, the tsar had abdicated his claim to a unique influence at Constantinople, and he began to revive the idea of ending the Ottoman rule in Europe, an idea which he had only unwillingly abandoned in 1829 in response to the unanimous opinion of his advisers. In 1844 he took advantage of his visit to England to propose to British ministers a plan of partition, under which Great Britain was to receive Egypt and Crete, Constantinople was to be erected into a free city, and the Balkan states were to become autonomous under Russian protection. This proposal, as might have been expected, only served to rouse suspicions as to Russia's plans; it was politely rejected, and the whole Eastern Question slumbered, until, early in 1850, it was awakened by an incident trivial enough in itself, but pregnant with future trouble: a quarrel of Catholic and Orthodox monks about the holy places in Palestine. By the Capitulations signed on the 28th of May 1740 on behalf of Sultan Mahmud I. and Louis XV. " emperor of France, " not only French pilgrims to Jerusalem, but all members of " Christian and hostile nations " visiting Then the Ottoman Empire, had been placed under the protection of the French flag, and by a special article the Frank, i.e. Roman Catholic, ecclesiastics had been guaranteed certain rights in the holy places. These stipulations of the treaty, which were in effect a confirmation of the firman granted in the announcement of a new sultan's accession. Selim III. was the 1620 by Murad IV. to Louis XIII., had fallen into oblivion The reforms introduced by Sultan Mahmud and by the Tanzimat necessitated the remodelling of nearly all the departments Remodelling of state. Towards the end of Mahmud II.'s reign of the ministries had been instituted, and a council of Adm;n;stra- ministers had been established, presided over by tton. the grand vizier. In 1837 the " council of the Sublime Porte " and the " supreme council of legal affairs " were established: the latter was the tribunal to which were referred all complaints against officials or claims pending between the state and private individuals; the council of the Sublime Porte was in 1839 transferred to the ministry of commerce; the supreme council of legal affairs after under-going various modifications was in 1868 absorbed in the council of state. In 1837 a " council of public works " was instituted, converted ten years later into a separate ministry. In 1835 the " ministry of administration " was formed; two years later its title was changed to ministry of the interior. Regulations prescribing the duties of the local governors and officials of all ranks were drawn up only in 1865 and 1870, but since Mahmud's time their functions were exclusively civil and administrative. A regular hierarchical order was elaborated for the official classes, both civil and military, whereby the rank of each person was clearly defined. The military reorganization dates from the destruction of the Janissaries (June 15, 1826). On that day Aga Hussein Pasha was appointed " Seraskier (commandant) of the victorious Mahommedan troops "; at first only two divisions were established, quartered respectively at Constantinople and Scutari. In 1833 the reserves were instituted, and three years later reserve commandants were appointed in six principal provinces. In 1843 the corps d'armee of Constantinople, Rumelia, Anatolia and Arabia were formed, and a military council was appointed. In 1847 a recruiting law was promulgated, reducing the period of service (until then unlimited in point of time), to five years. Military schools were founded. For the reorganization carried out from 1908 to 1910 see section Army, above. After the Greek revolution the system of manning the navy from the Christian natives of the archipelago and the Mediterranean littoral was abandoned, and recruits for the navy are now selected under the ordinary law. A naval school and a modern factory and arsenal were established. The direction of the police, formerly left to the Janissaries, was formed into a ministry, and a body of gendarmerie was instituted. For the financial reforms see the section Finance, above. The ministry of public instruction was established in 1857; until the reign of Selim III. (when a few military schools were established) Education. the only schools had been the colleges of the Ulema and such preparatory schools as had been founded by private munificence. In 1838 the council of education had been created and several secondary state schools were founded. In 186o the regulations for public education were promulgated; schools were everywhere opened, and in 1882 a portion of the receipts from certain vakufs were appropriated to their maintenance. As all the preparatory schools founded by the state were for Mussulman children only (the various Christian communities maintaining their own schools), idadi or secondary schools were established in 1884 for the instruction of children of all confessions. In 1868 the Imperial Lycee of Galata Serai was founded; most of the later generation of officials received their education there. Special state schools of medicine, arts, science, crafts, &c., have been created successively, and in 1901 a university was founded. Educational affairs in the provinces are now superintended by special officials. After the promulgation of the reforms, the judicial duties of the Imperial Divan, which with other functions also exercised those Justice. of a kind of supreme court of appeal, were transferred to the Sheikh-ul-Islam. The codification of the civil law, which soon became necessary, was effected by the promulgation in 1859 of the Mejelle, or civil code. Commercial and criminal codes, as well as codes of procedure, were drawn up, largely on the basis of the Code Napoleon. The rules regulating the Ulema were amended, a school for judges was founded, and the Sheikh-ul-Islam was charged with the duty of revising all judgments. In 1865 the court of cassation was founded. In 1835 the Reis-ul-Kuttab, to whom the superintendence of foreign affairs was entrusted, received the designation of minister Foreign for foreign affairs. Turkey had originally maintained Relations. no representatives abroad, and appointed such only for special occasions as e.g. the signature of a treaty or during the age of Voltaire and the turmoil of the Revolution; and meanwhile, every advance of Russia had been marked by further encroachments of the Orthodox clergy in Palestine on the ancient rights of their Latin rivals. The quarrels of these monks might have been left to the contempt they deserved, had not Napoleon III. seen in the situation an opportunity at once for conciliating the clericals in France and for humiliating Russia, which had given to his title but an equivocal recognition. His ambassador, accordingly, handed in at Constantinople a formal demand for the restitution of the Catholics in all their property and rights. The Ottoman government, seeking to gain time, proposed a " mixed commission "of inquiry; and to this France agreed, on condition that no documents later than 1740 should be admitted as evidence. To this suggestion, which would have excluded the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, the emperor Nicholas replied by a haughty demand that nothing should be altered in the status quo. It was now clear that no less an issue was involved than a contest between France and Russia for paramount influence in the East, a con-test into which Great Britain would inevitably be dragged. The British government did its best to help the Porte to evolve a compromise on the questions immediately at issue, and in March 1852 a firman was issued, which to Protestants and Mahommedans might well seem to have embodied a reasonable settlement. Concessions were made to one side and the other; and the question of the right of " protection " was solved by the Turkish government itself undertaking the duty. But neither Napoleon nor Nicholas desired a settlement. The French emperor wanted a war for dynastic reasons, the tsar because he conceived his honour to be involved, and because he judged the moment opportune for expelling the infidel from Europe. France, he believed, would never come single-handed to the assistance of Turkey; Austria would be bound at least to benevolent neutrality by " gratitude " for the aid given in 1849; the king of Prussia would sympathize with a Christian crusade; Great Britain, where under the influence of John Bright and Richard Cobden the " peace at any price " spirit seemed to be in the ascendant, would never intervene. Nicholas even hoped for the active sympathy of Britain. Lord Aberdeen made no secret of his dislike for the Turks, and openly expressed his disbelief in the reality of their reforms; and in January 1853 the tsar, in conversation with Sir Hamilton Seymour, the British ambassador at St Petersburg, spoke of the Ottoman Empire as " the Sick Man," and renewed the proposals for a partition made in 1844. Early in 1853 the Russian army was mobilized, and Prince Menshikov, a bluff soldier devoted to the interests of Orthodoxy and tsardom, was sent to present the emperor's ultimatum at Constantinople. He demanded the recognition of the status quo in the holy places, and of the tsar's right, under the Treaty of Kuchuk Kainarji, to the protectorate of all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman dominions. The Porte, in alarm, turned to Great Britain for advice and assistance. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, who reached his post at Constantinople shortly after the arrival of Menshikov, at once grasped the essential facts of the situation. The question of the holy places was insignificant in itself—it might be settled if France were granted political compensation elsewhere; that of the protectorate claimed by Russia over the Christians involved the integrity of the sultan's sovereignty. With great address he succeeded in persuading Menshikov to present the two demands separately. On the 22nd of April the French, Russian and British ministers came to an agreement on the question of the holy places; with the result that, when the question of protectorate was raised, Menshikov found himself opposed by the ambassadors of all the other powers. On the 5th of May, nevertheless, in obedience to his peremptory instructions, he presented his ultimatum to the Ottoman government, which, backed now by all the other powers, rejected it. On the 22nd Menshikov and the whole of the Russian diplomatic staff left Constantinople; and it was announced that, at the end of the month, the tsar's troops would enter the Danubian principalities. Onthe z2nd of June the Russian army, under Prince Gorchakov, crossed the Pruth, not—as was explained in a circular to the powers—for the purpose of attacking Turkey, but solely to obtain the material guarantees for the enjoyment of the privileges conferred upon her by the existing treaties. The news of this aggression roused intense excitement in England; but the British government still exerted itself to maintain peace. In August a conference of the four powers assembled at Vienna, but the settlement they proposed, which practically conceded everything demanded by Russia except the claim to the protectorate, though accepted by the tsar, was rejected by the Porte, now fallen into a mood of stubborn resentment at the Russian invasion. At the beginning of October Turkey formally declared war; on the 22nd the French and British fleets passed the Dardanelles. Lord Aberdeen still hoped to secure peace, and the Russian government was informed that no casus belli would arise so long as Russia abstained from passing the Danube or attacking a Black Sea port. To the emperor Nicholas this was tantamount to a declaration of war; and in effect it was so. On the 3oth of November the Russian fleet attacked and destroyed a Turkish squadron in the harbour of Sinope; on the 3rd of January the combined French and British fleets entered the Black Sea, commissioned to " invite " the Russians to return to their harbours. The emperor Nicholas had been singularly misled as to the state of public opinion in Europe. The news of the affair of Sinope, rather wanton slaughter than a battle, Crimean raised excitement in England to fever heat; while war. the excellent bearing and consistent successes of the Turkish troops during the first months of the campaign on land excited the admiration of all Europe. The belief in the rejuvenation of Turkey seemed to be justified; and when, on the 27th of March 1854, Great Britain and France declared war on Russia, the action of the governments was supported by an overwhelming public opinion. As regards Austria, too, the emperor Nicholas was no less mistaken. If she maintained neutrality, it was due to no impulse of gratitude, and it was far from " benevolent." As the Russians withdrew from the Danubian principalities, Austrian troops occupied them, and by a convention with the Porte the Austrian government undertook to resist by arms any attempt of the Russians to return. So far as the extreme claims of the tsar were concerned, neither Austria nor Prussia was willing to concede them, and both had joined with France and Great Britain in presenting, on the 12th of December 1853, an identical note at St Petersburg, drawn up at the Conference of Vienna, reaffirming the principles of the treaty of 1841. Save for the benevolent neutrality of Prussia, therefore, which enabled her to obtain supplies from the north, Russia was pitted single-handed against a coalition of Turkey, Great Britain and France, to which Sardinia was added later. The events of the war that followed are told elsewhere (see CRIMEAN WAR). The main operations were confined to the Crimea, where the allied troops landed on the 14th of September 1854, and they were not concluded, in spite of the terrible exhaustion of It assia, till in December 1855 the threatened active intervention of Austria forced the emperor Alexander II. to come to terms. These terms were ultimately embodied in the Treaty of Paris of the 3oth of March 1856. Its provisions, held by some to be so unduly favourable to Russia as to justify the question whether she had not been victorious in the war, were as follows: Russia abandoned all pretensions to exercise a protectorate over the Christians in Turkey, or to an exclusive right of interference in the Danubian principalities, to which Bessarabia was restored; the navigation of the Danube was made free and placed under the supervision of an international commission; the Black Sea was closed to warships, while open to the commercial flags of all countries; the Asiatic frontier between the two empires remained unchanged; Turkey was admitted to the concert of Europe, and all the contracting parties agreed to respect her independence and the integrity of her territory; moreover, the provisions of the Tanzimat were reaffirmed in a fresh decree of the sultan, which was incorporated in the treaty, and further provided for a large measure of local autonomy for the Christian communities. It was stipulated that Turkey's promises of reform gave no power the right of interference on behalf of the Christians. The Treaty of Paris was regarded as opening a new era in the progress of Turkey. Admitted on equal terms to the European TbeNew family of nations, the Ottoman government had Bra. given a solemn guarantee of its intention to make the long-promised reforms a reality. But it soon became apparent that the time was scarcely come for liberal measures; and fanatical outbreaks at Jidda (1858) and in Syria (186o) gave proof that the various sections of the population were not yet prepared to act together in harmony. The Syrian disturbances brought about a French occupation, which Fuad Pasha, ably seconded by Ahmed Vefyk Effendi, the Turkish ambassador in Paris, contrived to restrict, and to terminate as soon as possible. The immediate local result was the institution, by a reglemenl,i signed at Constantinople on the 6th of September 1864, of autonomy for the Lebanon under a Christian governor appointed by the powers with the concurrence of the Porte, an arrangement which has worked satisfactorily until the present day. In 1859 the Danubian principalities, deliberately left separate by the Congress of Paris, carried out their long-cherished design of union by electing Prince Cuza both in Moldavia and in Walachia, a contingency which the powers had not taken into account, and to which in the end they gave a grudging assent (see RUMANIA). On the 25th of June 1861 Sultan Abd-ul-Mejid died, being succeeded by his brother Abd-ul-Aziz. The new sultan's reign marked, if not the beginning, at least the high tide 1861Abd--17876876. . z, of that course of improvident and unrestrained expenditure, facilitated by the enthusiasm created in Europe by Turkey's admission to the ranks of the powers which loosened for her the purse-strings of the foreign investor. The viceroy of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, followed his suzerain's example in this respect, and was lavish in his bribes to his imperial overlord to obtain the extension of his own privileges and the establishment in Egypt of succession from father to son; these concessions were granted to him by the firmans of the 27th of May 1866 and the 8th of June 1867, in the latter of which the viceroy is addressed for the first time as " khedive." Abd-ul-Aziz is said to have yielded the more readily as being desirous of bringing about a similar alteration in the succession in Turkey, in favour of his own eldest son, Prince Yussuf Izz-ed-din; public opinion was, however, opposed to so sweeping a change, and the succession to the throne in Turkey still goes to the eldest surviving member of the house of Osman. Though the foreign relations of Turkey remained untroubled, disturbances in Servia, Montenegro and Crete continued throughout the " sixties." Servia had long resented the occupation of her fortresses by Turkish troops; frequent collisions arising from this source resulted in June 1862 in the bombardment of Belgrade; some slight concessions were then made to Servia, but it was not until 1867 that, through the mediation of England and other powers, she succeeded in obtaining the withdrawal of the Turkish garrisons. The Cretan insurrection rose to a formidable height in 1868-69, and the active support given to the movement by Greece brought about a rupture of relations between that country and Turkey. The revolt was suppressed, the Turko-Greek conflict was settled by a conference of the powers in Paris, and Crete received a charter of local self-government which for a time pacified the island.2 Abd-ul-Aziz had visited the Paris Exhibition of 1867 and had paid his respects to Queen Victoria, who conferred on him the order of the Garter._ In 1869 the visit was returned by many sovereigns and princes on their way to the opening of the Suez Canal, among these being the empress Eugenie. An important event not to be passed over without mention is the grant on the loth of March 187o of the firman instituting the Bul- garian exarchate, thus severing the Bulgarian Church from ' Text in Holland, p. 212. 2 " Correspondence . respecting the rupture of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Greece, &c.," in State Papers, fix. 584, &c., Protocols of Conferences, p. 813, &c.the jurisdiction of the Greek patriarch of Constantinople. This concession, given under strong pressure from Russia, aroused the deepest resentment of the Greeks, and was the principal factor in the awakening of the Bulgarian national spirit which subsequent events have done so much to develop. Russian influence at Constantinople had been gradually increasing, and towards the end of 187o the tsar took advantage of the temporary disabling of France to declare himself no longer bound by those clauses of the Treaty of Paris which restricted Russia's liberty of possessing warships on the Black Sea. An international conference convoked in London early in 1871 laid down the principle that treaty engagements were binding, and then proceeded to abrogate this particular engagement. Russia and Turkey thus regained full liberty as regards their naval forces and armaments in the Euxine; the passage of the straits remained interdicted to ships of war. A reform not unworthy of notice was effected by the law promulgated on the 18th of June 1867 whereby foreigners were for the first time allowed to hold landed property throughout the Ottoman Empire (save in the Hejaz) on condition of their being assimilated to Ottoman subjects, i.e. divested of their right to the protection of their own authorities in every respect concerning such property. Meanwhile in Turkey national bankruptcy was brought within measurable distance by the sultan's extravagance and the incompetence of his ministers; it was staved off only by loans contracted almost annually to pay the interest on their predecessors. External influences and latent fanaticism were active; a serious insurrection broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875, and. the efforts to quell it almost exhausted Turkey's resources; the example spread to Bulgaria, where abortive outbreaks in September 1875 and May 1876 led to those cruel measures of repression which were known as `.` the Bulgarian atrocities," a Mussulman public feeling was inflamed, - and an attempt at Salonica to induce a Christian girl who had embraced Islam to return to her faith caused the murder of two foreign consuls by a fanatical mob. The finances of Turkey now col-lapsed, and the inevitable bankruptcy was declared, whereby more than through any other cause she lost such Deposition sympathies as she possessed in western Europe. ofAbd-ut-Turkey's distress was Russia's opportunity; the Aziz. sultan fell entirely under the influence of General Ignatiev, the tsar's ambassador, and it became evident that the country was hastening to its dissolution. A conspiracy to bring about a change was hereupon formed by certain prominent statesmen, whose leaders were Midhat Pasha, Mehemed Rushdi Pasha and Mahmud Damad Pasha, the husband of a princess of the blood, sister to Prince Murad. These succeeded in gaining over the Sheikh-ul-Islam, and in obtaining from him a fetva for the deposition of Abd-ul-Aziz. In virtue of this judgment of the supreme legal authority, and with the aid of the fleet, Abd-ul-Aziz was deposed, being shortly afterwards found dead, apparently by his own hand. Murad V. reigned in his stead. But the change of sultans brought no relief to the troubled state: Servia and Montenegro declared war, and in less than three months it had become evident that Murad was incapable of governing. Murad's brother Abd-ul-Hamid was accordingly proclaimed sultan on the 31st of August 1876. The -diplomacy of Europe had been searching in vain since the autumn Accession of 1875 for the means of inducing Turkey to institute ofAbd-uteffective administrative reforms and to grant to Hamid H., its European provinces that autonomy which now 1876' appeared essential. But the new sultan was as averse from accepting any of the formulae proposed as were his predecessors: Servia and Montenegro were with great difficulty pacified, but it was plain that Russia, whose Slavonic and Orthodox sympathies had been strongly aroused, would soon begin hostilities herself. Turkey now made a show of going even beyond the demands formulated by Europe, 'and the international conference which met at Constantinople during See Mr Baring's reports in Parl. Papers (1878), lxxxi. the last days of 1876 was startled by the salvo of artillery which heralded the promulgation of a liberal constitution, not for the European provinces only, but for the whole empire, and the institution of a Turkish parliament. The decisions of the conference, moderate though they were, in the end requiring merely the nomination of an international commission to investigate the state of the European provinces of Turkey, and the appointment by the sultan, with the approval of the Russo- powers, of governors-general for, five years, were Turkish rejected by the Porte. The statesmen of Europe War. still continued their efforts to avert a conflict, but to no purpose. On the 24th of April 1877 Russia declared war and her troops crossed the Turkish frontiers. Hostilities were conducted both in Europe and Asia for nearly a year. Rumania joined the Russians, and in Europe no effective opposition was encountered by the invaders until the assaults on Plevna and the Shipka Pass, where the valiant resistance of the Turks won for them the admiration of Europe. By November the defence of the Turks in Asia Minor had entirely collapsed. Plevna surrendered on the 9th of December 1877 after a heroic struggle under Osman Pasha. Thereafter the Russians advanced practically unchecked (see Russo-Maxim WARS). An armistice and preliminaries of peace were signed on the 31st of January 1878 at Adrianople, and a definitive treaty was concluded at Treaty of San Stefano on the 3rd of March 1878. Its terms sanste/ano.were: the creation of an autonomous tributary principality of Bulgaria extending from the Black Sea to the Aegean; the recognition by Turkey of the independence of Rumania, Servia and Montenegro, with increased territories; the payment of a war indemnity; the introduction of reforms in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the cession to Russia of Bessarabia and the Dobruja; the opening of the passage of the straits at all times to the merchant vessels of neutral states; and the razing of the fortresses on the Danube. Great Britain had throughout the war preserved strict neutrality, but, while making it clear from the outset that she could not assist Turkey, had been prepared for emergencies. Turkey's severity in repressing the Bulgarian insurrection had raised up in England a storm of public opinion against her, of which the Liberal opposition had taken the fullest advantage; moreover the suspension of payments on the Ottoman debt had dealt Turkey's popularity a blow from which it had never recovered. But upon the approach of the Russians to Constantinople the British reserves were called out and the fleet was despatched to the Bosporus. Accordingly, and as her line of retreat might be threatened by Austria, Russia consented to a revision of the Treaty of San Stefano at a congress to be held at Berlin. congress of Before the meeting of this congress, which assembled Berlin, on the 13th of June 1878, the powers principally 1878. interested had arrived at an understanding as to the modifications to be introduced in the treaty, and by a convention concluded with Turkey on the 4th of June 1878 England had undertaken to defend the Asiatic dominions of the sultan by force of arms, provided that his majesty carried out all the necessary reforms, to be agreed upon later, and assigned to England the island of Cyprus, which was however to be restored if Turkey fulfilled her engagements as to reforms and if Russia gave back to her Kars, Ardahan and Batum. On the 13th of July 1878 the Treaty of Berlin was signed: the Great Bulgaria of the San Stefano Treaty was diminished to an autonomous province north of the Balkans, the south-eastern portion, no longer extending to the Aegean, was formed into a self-governing tributary province styled Eastern Rumelia; Turkey abandoned all pretension to suzerainty over Montenegro; Servia and Rumania received their independence (but the last named was made to cede Bessarabia to Russia, receiving instead the Dobruja); the Asiatic frontier was readjusted, Kars, Ardahan and Batum becoming Russian. It was further provided that Bulgaria should pay to Turkey an annual tribute, and should moreover (as well as the other Balkan states receiving accessions of territory at Turkey's expense) bear a portion of the Ottoman debt. The sums payable by the different countries were to be fixed by the powers; but no effect has so far been given to this reason-able stipulation, which may now be looked upon as null and void. Turkey undertook to pay to Russia a war indemnity of 300,000,000 roubles, and the status of the straits remained unchanged. Measures of reform in Armenia were also provided for, as also the convocation of an international commission for drawing up a reform scheme for the European provinces left to Turkey. The organic law for Crete was to be carried out, and special laws enacted for other parts of Turkey. Bosnia and Herzegovina were handed over to the administration of Austria; Montenegro and Greece received accessions of territory to which only strong pressure coupled with a naval demonstration induced Turkey to consent three years later. Peace once restored, some attempt was made by Turkey in the direction of complying with her engagements to institute reform. Financial and military advisers were procured from Germany. English officers were engaged to reform the gendarmerie, and judicial inspectors of foreign nationality were to travel through the country to redress abuses. It was not long before the unsubstantial character of all these undertakings became apparent; the parliament was dissolved, the constitution was suspended and its author exiled. Egyptian affairs next threatened complications. In May 1879 the misgovernment of Ismail Pasha and the resulting financial crisis rendered the deposition of the khedive inevitable; in order to anticipate the action of England and France, who would otherwise have expelled the erring viceroy, the sultan deposed him himself ; the succession devolved upon his son Mahommed Tewfik Pasha. (For the subsequent history of the Egyptian question The see EGYPT: History.) The revolt of Arabi Pasha Bgypuaa in 1881 broke up the Anglo-French condominium in Questloa. Egypt and led to outrages at Alexandria followed by a bombardment on the 11th of July 1882. The occupation of the country by Great Britain gradually took a more permanent form, and though negotiations were more than once entered into with Turkey with a view to its termination, these either proved abortive or were rendered so (as e.g. the Drummond-Wolff convention of 1887) by the action of other powers. The Anglo-French agreement of 1904 left England in undisputed mastery. The financial straits of Turkey after the war became so acute that the sultan was compelled to consent to a measure Public Debt. of foreign control over the finances of the country; the administration of the public debt being established in December 1881. (See Finance, above.) In 1885 the practically bloodless revolution of Philippopolis on the 18th of September united Bulgaria and Eastern Rumelia, severed by the Treaty of Berlin. A conference held at Constantinople sanctioned the union on terms which were rendered acceptable to the sultan; but Said Pasha, who had assisted the sultan in centralizing at Yildiz Kiosk the administration of the country, and who had become grand vizier, was a strong adherent of the policy of armed intervention by Turkey, and the consequence was his fall from office. His successor in the grand vizierate, Kiamil Pasha, was soon called upon to deal with Armenian unrest, consequent on the non-execution of the reforms provided for in the Treaty of Berlin and the Cyprus Convention, which first found vent about 1890. But Kiamil Pasha was not subservient enough to his imperial master's will, and his place was taken by a military man, Jevad Pasha, from whom no independence of action was to be apprehended. It is from this period that the German ascendancy in Constantinople is noticeable. Railway concessions were given to Germans over the heads of British applicants already Qcrman in possession of lines from which they were expro- Activltyin priated, thus affording the nucleus of the Bagdad Turkey. railway (of which Germany obtained the concession in November 1899). (See BAGDAD, vol. iii. p. 197.) From 1890 Crete was frequently the scene of disturbance; the Christian communities in other parts of Turkey began to chafe under the attempted curtailing of their privileges; about Christmas 1893 the Greek patriarch caused all the Orthodox churches to be closed as a protest: and the Armenian agitation entered upon a serious phase. The Kurds, the constant oppressors of that people, had received official recognition and almost complete immunity from the control Armenian Troubles. of the civil law by being formed into a yeo- manry frontier-guard known as the Hamidian cavalry. The troubles arising from this cause and from greater energy in the collection of taxes led the Armenians in outlying and mountainous districts to rise against the authorities. The repression' of these revolts in the Sassun district in the autumn of 1894 was effected under circumstances of great severity by Turkish troops and Kurdish irregulars. A commission composed of British, French and Russian officials held an inquiry into the events which had occurred, and early in 1895 England, France and Russia entered actively into negotiations with a view to the institution of reforms. The scheme propounded by the three powers encountered great objections from the Porte, but under pressure was accepted in October 1895. Its acceptance was however the signal for a series of massacres in almost every town of importance throughout Asia Minor, which there is but too strong evidence for suspecting were committed with the connivance of the authorities, and in which upwards of 200,000 persons are computed to have perished. In 1896 Lord Salisbury induced the other powers to unite in urging the execution of the reforms, but no agreement could be come to for the use of coercion, and Europe could but look on and protest. Changes of ministry at Constantinople were powerless to bring about an improvement, and early in 1886 Cretan affairs became so serious as to call for the intervention of the powers. In September yet another Cretan charter of self-government was promulgated. Shortly before, a revolutionary attack by an Armenian band on the Ottoman bank at Constantinople brought about a general massacre of Armenians in the capital (where a widespread revolutionary organization undoubtedly existed), in which at least 3000 victims fell, and the persecution of Armenians became the order of the day. The neglect of the Porte to carry out all the stipulations of the Cretan arrangement of 1896 led to a renewal of the disturbances, and Greece began to take steps for the invasion of Greek War 0189 7. ~ the island; in February 1897 Colonel Vassos sailed 01189 from the Piraeus with an armed force, intending to proclaim the annexation of Crete to Greece, and Greek troops were massed on the Thessalian frontier. Diplomacy busied itself with fruitless attempts to avert hostilities; on the 17th of April 1897 war was declared by Turkey. The resistance offered by Greece was feeble in the extreme: Europe was obliged to intervene, and Turkey gained a rectification of frontier and a war indemnity of 4,000,000, besides the curtailment by the treaty eventually signed of many privileges hitherto enjoyed by Hellenic subjects in Turkey. But Europe was determined that the Cretan question should be definitely settled, at least for a period of some years, and, after an outbreak at Candia, in which the lives of British troops were sacrificed, the four powers (Germany and Austria having with-drawn from the concert) who had taken over the island en depot handed it over in October 1898 to Prince George of Greece as high commissioner (see CRETE: History). Crete being thus removed from the scope of her action, Turkey found ample occupation in the almost constant turbulence of the Yemen, of Albania and of Macedonia. After 1892 the revolts, frequently renewed, of the so-called imam of Sana, necessitated the despatch of large and costly expeditions to Arabia, in which thousands of Turkish, troops have fallen in guerrilla warfare or through the inhospitable climate; in Albania disturbance became almost endemic, owing to the resistance offered by the intractable population to successive attempts of the central authorities to subject the country to regular taxation and the operation of the laws. Unsettled claims by French citizens led to a breaking off of relations and the occupation of Mitylene by France in November 1901; the rupture was of short duration and Turkey soon gave way, according complete satisfaction both in this matter and on certain other French demands. In 1901 and 1902 Turkishencroachments on the hinterland of Aden brought about a dangerous state of tension between Great Britain and 'Turkey, which had its parallel in 1906 in similar trespasses Disputos by the Ottoman authorities on the Egyptian land with France frontier near Akaba. In both cases Turkey eventually and Britain• yielded; a similar question arose in 1906 with France over the boundaries of the African possessions of the two countries. But Macedonia was Turkey's chief source of anxiety. That country, left by the Treaty of Berlin with its status unaltered, was in a continued condition of disturbance. The Christian population, who in common with their Mussul-QUestjonon. Questi. man fellow subjects suffered from the defective methods of government of their rulers, had at least before them the example of their brethren—Greeks, Bulgarians or Servians—dwelling in independent kingdoms under Christian governments on the other side of the frontier. The hope of eventual emancipation was stimulated by sedulous propagandists from each of these countries; from time to time armed bands of insurgents were manned and equipped in the small neighbouring states, with or without the co-operation of the governments. So long as Stembolov, the energetic Bulgarian statesman, was alive he succeeded in keeping the Bulgarian element quiet, and the peace of the country was less liable to disturbance. But for some years the three rivals in Macedonia, to which a fourth, the Rumanian element, must be added, were in constant strife (see MACEDONIA). A serious Bulgarian insurrection in Macedonia in the autumn of 1903 induced Austria and Russia to combine in formulating the Murzsteg reform programme, tardily consented to by Turkey, by which Austrian and Russian civil agents were appointed to exercise a certain degree of control and supervision over the three vilayets of Salonica, Monastir and Kossovo. It was also arranged that foreign officers should be named to reorganize the gendarmerie. An Italian officer, General De Giorgis, was appointed to the chief command in the reorganization, and the three vilayets were apportioned among the great powers into districts, in each of which was appointed a staff officer with a number of subordinate officers of his nationality under his orders. The work of reorganization was efficiently carried out, and the gendarmerie school at Salonica, under British supervision, showed excellent results. But the achievements of the two civil agents were less noteworthy; and in 1905 it was agreed that, in view of the financial necessities of the provinces, the other great powers should each appoint delegates to a financial commission with extensive powers of control in fiscal matters. The Porte opposed the project, and an international naval demonstration and the occupation of Mytilene by the powers became necessary before Turkey gave way in December 1905. Even so it proved impossible to fulfil the Murzsteg programme, though the attempt was prolonged until 1908. The Austro-Russian entente had then come to an end; and after a meeting between King Edward VII. and the tsar Nicholas II. at Reval, a new scheme of reforms was announced, under the name of the " Reval pro-gramme. 'The enforcement of these reforms, however, was postponed sine die owing to the revolution which transformed the Ottoman Empire into a constitutional state; and the powers, anticipating an improvement in the administration of Macedonia by the new government, withdrew their military officers in the summer of 1908. The Young Turkish party had long been preparing for the overthrow of the old regime. Their central organization was in Paris and their objects were known throughout The young Europe, but except at Yildiz Kiosk their power was Turks. almost everywhere underrated. The Porte strove by every means at its disposal to thwart their activity; but elsewhere they were regarded as a body of academic enthusiasts, more noisy than dangerous, who devoted their scanty funds to the publication of seditious matter in Paris or Geneva, and sought to achieve the impossible by importing western institutions into a country fit only to be ruled by the sheriat and the sword. Such was the opinion held even by experienced diplomatists and by historians. It was strengthened by the fact that the Young Revolts In Arabia. 464 Turks had deliberately abstained from violent action. They had, in fact, learned from events in Russia and Poland that sporadic outbreaks on a small scale would inevitably discredit their cause, and that a successful revolution would require the support of the army. To gain this, an extensive propaganda was carried on by secret agents, many of whom were officers. At the beginning of 1908 a favourable opportunity for action arrived. The Otto-man troops in Arabia were mutinous and unpaid; the Albanians, long the mainstay of Turkish military power in the west, had been irritated by unpopular taxes and by the repressive edicts which :deprived them of schools and a printing-press; foreign interference in Crete and Macedonia was resented by patriotic Moslems throughout the empire. In these circumstances the head-quarters of the Young Turks were transferred from Paris to Salonica, where a central body, known as the committee of union and progress, was established (1908) to organize the revolution. Most of its members were military officers, prominent among them being Majors Enver Bey and Niazi Bey, who directed the propaganda in Albania and Macedonia. By midsummer the Albanian leaders and the greater part of the Turkish army in Europe had sworn fidelity to the constitution. On the 25th of May an insurrection broke out in Samos, owing to a dispute between the Samian Assembly and Kopassis Effendi, " prince," or governor of the island. After the port of Vathy had been bombarded by Ottoman war-ships the revolt was easily crushed. This affair however was of little more than local importance, and the Young Turks were not directly concerned in it. They The struck their first blow on the 22nd of July 1908, Revolution when Niazi Bey and his troops raised the standard of I908. of revolt at Resna, a town on the road from Monastir to Ochrida. On the 23rd the committee of union and progress, under the presidency of Enver Bey, proclaimed the constitution in Salonica, while the second and third army corps threatened to march on Constantinople if the sultan refused to obey the proclamation. On the 24th the sultan yielded, and issued an irade, restoring the constitution of 1876, and ordering the election of a chamber of deputies. Various other reforms, notably the abolition of the spy system and the censorship, were announced soon afterwards. Some of the more unpopular officials associated with the old regime were assassinated, among them Fehim Pasha, the former head of the espionage department, who had been exiled to Brusa in 1907 at the request of the British and German ambassadors. Otherwise the revolution was effected almost without bloodshed; for a time the insurgent bands disappeared in Macedonia, and the rival " nationalities " —Greek, Albanian, Turk, Armenian, Servian, Bulgarian and Jew—worked harmoniously together for the furtherance of common constitutional aims. On the 6th of August Kiamil Pasha, an advanced Liberal, became grand vizier, and a new cabinet was formed, including a Greek, Prince Mavrocordato, an Armenian, Noradounghian, and the Sheikh-ul-Islam. The success of the Young Turks created a serious situation for the statesmen of Austria-Hungary and Bulgaria. A regene- rated Ottoman Empire might in time be strong enough Bosala and to demand the evacuation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria. and to maintain or extend the nominal suzerainty over Bulgaria which the sultan had exercised since 1878. Accordingly, at the beginning of October 1908, the emperor Francis Joseph informed the powers signatory to the treaty of Berlin that the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Dual Monarchy had become necessary, and this decision was formally announced in an, imperial rescript dated the 7th of October. The independence of Bulgaria was proclaimed on the 5th. The Ottoman government protested to the powers, but it wisely limited its demands to a claim for compensation. Austria-Hungary had from the first undertaken to withdraw its garrisons from the sanjak of Novibazar—an important concession; after prolonged negotiations and a boycott of all Austrian goods exported to Turkey, it also agreed to pay £2,200,000 as compensation for the Turkish crown lands seized in Bosnia [HISTORY and Herzegovina. This arrangement was sanctioned by the Ottoman parliament, which assented to the annexation on the 6th of April 1909 and recognized the independence of Bulgaria on the 19th of April, the Russian government having enabled Bulgaria to pay the indemnity claimed by Turkey on account of the Eastern Rumelian tribute and railways (see BULGARIA: History). On the 3rd of February 1910 the Porte accepted a Bulgarian proposal for a mixed commission to delimit disputed sections of the Turco-Bulgarian frontier, and in March King Ferdinand visited Constantinople. Meanwhile the Young Turks were confronted with many difficulties within the empire. After the first fervour of enthusiasm had subsided the Christian nationalities The Re-in Macedonia resumed their old attitude of mutual action in the jealousy, the insurgent bands began to reappear, Provinces. and the government was in 1909–1910 forced to undertake the disarmament of the whole civil population of the three vilayets. In Albania serious discontent, resulting in an insurrection (May-September 1909), was caused by the political rivalry between Greeks and Albanians and the unwillingness of the Moslem tribesmen to pay taxes or to keep the peace with their neighbours, the Macedonian Serbs. In Asia Minor the Kurdish troops under Ibrahim Pasha revolted, and, although they were defeated with the loss of their commander, the Kurds continued to attack indiscriminately the Turks, Nestorians and Armenians; disturbances also broke out among the other reactionary Moslems of this region, culminating in a massacre of the Armenians at Adana. In Arabia Ratib Pasha, the Turkish commander-in-chief, joined the enemies of the new regime; he was defeated and captured in the autumn of 1908, but in the following year frequent raids upon the Hejaz railway were made by Bedouin tribesmen, while a Mandist rebellion, broke out and was crushed in Yemen. More serious than any of these local disturbances was the counter-revolution in Constantinople itself, which began with the revolt of Kiamil Pasha, the grand vizier, against The con. the authority of the committee of union and pro- stantinople gress. Kiamil Pasha was forced to resign (Feb. 14, counter. 1909) and was succeeded by Hilmi Pasha, ex-high revolution. commissioner of Macedonia. Strife then arose between the committee and the Liberal Union, a body which mainly represented the Christian electorate, and on the 5th of April Hassan Fehmi Effendi, who edited the Serbesti, the official organ of the union, *as assassinated. He was an Albanian, and his fellow countrymen in the Constantinople garrison at once made common cause with the opponents of the committee. Mutinous troops seized the parliament house and the telegraph offices; the grand vizier resigned and was succeeded by Tewfik Pasha (April 14) ; and delegates were sent by the Liberal Union, the association of Ulema and other bodies to discuss terms with the committee. But Abd-ul-Hamid had issued a free pardon to the mutineers, and the committee had now decided that the new regime 'would never be secure while the sovereign favoured reaction. They refused to treat with the delegates, and despatched 25,000 men under Mahmud Shevket to Constantinople. The senate and chamber met at San Stefano, and, sitting jointly as a National Assembly, issued a proclamation in favour of the committee and its army (April 22, 1909), by which Constantinople was now invested. Part The New Regime. of the garrison remained loyal to the sultan, but after five hours of severe fighting Shevket Pasha was able to occupy the capital (April 25). The National Assembly met in secret session two days later, voted unanimously for the deposition of Abd-ul-Hamid II., and chose his younger brother Mahommed Reshad Effendi (b. Nov. 3, 1844) as his successor, with the style of Mahommed V. Abd-ul-Hamid II. was removed to Salonica on the 28th, and on the loth of May the new sultan was formally invested with the sword of Osman. Hilmi Pasha again became grand vizier, but resigned on the 28th of December 1909, when he was succeeded by Hakki Bey. On the 5th of August 1909 the new constitution described above was be obtained from parliamentary papers. These are too numerous for detailed mention, but the following periods may be cited as the most interesting: 1833–1841 (Egyptian question); 1849–1859 (Crimean War and the events by which it was preceded and followed) ; 1868–1869 (Cretan insurrection) ; 1875–1881 (Bosnian and Herzegovinian insurrection, Russo-Turkish War, Berlin treaty and subsequent events) ; 1885–1887 (union of Eastern Rumelia with Bulgaria) ; 1889–1890 (Cretan disturbances) ; 1892–1899 (Armenian and Cretan affairs) ; 1902–1907 (Macedonia) ; 1908–1910 (revolution and reform). Some analysis of the unpublished documents in the record office, for the period 1815–1841, by W. Alison Phillips, will be found in the bibliographies to chs. vi. and xvii. of vol. x. of the Cambridge Modern History. (X.) Literature. In all literary matters the Ottoman Turks have shown them-selves a singularly uninventive people, the two great schools, the old and the new, into which we may divide their literature, being closely modelled, the one after the classics of Persia, the other after those of modern Europe, and more especially of France. The old or Persian school flourished from the foundation of the empire down to about 183o, and still continues to drag on a feeble existence, though it is now out of fashion and cultivated by none of the leading men of letters. These belong to the new or European school, which, in spite of the bitter opposition of the partisans of the old Oriental system, has succeeded, partly through its own inherent superiority and partly through the talents and courage of its supporters, in expelling its rival from the position of undisputed authority which it had occupied for upwards of five hundred years. For the present purpose it will be convenient to divide the old school Old School into three periods, which may be termed respectively the pre-classical, the classical and the post-classical. Of these the first extends from the early days of the empire to the accession of Suleiman I., 1301-1520 (700-926); the second from that event to the accession of Mahmud I., 1520-1730 (926-1143); and the third from that date to the accession of `Abd-ul-`Aziz, 173o-1861 promulgated by imperial irade; parliament was prorogued for three months on the 27th, and during the recess the committee of union and progress met at Salonica and modified its own rules (Oct. 23), ceasing thenceforward to be a secret association. This was regarded as an expression of confidence in the reformed parliament, which had laid the foundation of the important financial and administrative reforms already described. On the 13th of September 1909 the Macedonian international commission of finance met for the last time; its members were reappointed to a higher finance board for the whole empire, under the presidency of Djavid Bey. Ch. Laurent had already been nominated financial adviser to the empire (Sept. 16, 1908), while Sir William Willcocks became head of the irrigation department; the reorganization of the army was entrusted to the German General von der Goltz, that of the navy to Admiral Sir Douglas Gamble (resigned Feb. 1, 191o). The evacuation of Crete by the four protecting powers was followed in 1909 by renewed agitation. Turkey was willing Crete, to concede the fullest local autonomy, but not to Greece and abandon its sovereign rights over the island. In Rumania. Ju,ly 1909, however, the Greek flag was hoisted in Canea and Candia, and it was only lowered again after the war-ships of the protecting powers had been reinforced and had landed an international force. The Cretan administrative committee swore allegiance to the king of the Hellenes in August, and again, after a change of government, at the end of December 1909. This situation had already given rise to prolonged negotiations between Greece and Turkey. It also contributed towards the conclusion of an entente between Turkey and Rumania in the summer of 1910. Both of these powers were interested in preventing any possible accession of territory to the Bulgarian kingdom; and Rumania (q.v.) had for many years been a formidable opponent of Hellenism among the Macedonian Vlachs. Greece and Crete were thus confronted with what was in effect a defensive alliance between Turkey and Rumania. The Cretans had insisted upon their demand for union with Greece and had elected three representatives to sit in the Greek national assembly. Had this act been ratified by the government at Athens, a war between Greece and the Ottoman Empire could hardly have been avoided; but a royal rescript was issued by the king of the Hellenes on the 3oth of September 1910, declaring vacant the three seats to which the Cretan representatives had been elected; the immediate danger was thus averted. 2. Monographs: Much information on modern Turkish history and politics will be found in the works dealing primarily with topo- r-aphy, finance, law and defence, which have been cited above. See also S. Lane-Poole, Life of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe (2 vols., London, 1888) ; A. Vandal, Memoires du marquis de Nointel (French ambassador at Constantinople from 167o to 1678) ; E. Engelhardt, La Turquie et le Tanzimat (Paris, 1882) ; E. Driault, La Question d'orient depuis ses origins jusqu'd nos jours (Paris, 1898) ; V. Berard, La Turquie et l'Hellenisme (Paris, 1897) ; idem, Le Sultan, l'Islam et les Puissances (Paris, 1907) ; idem, La. Revolution turque (1909). Official Publications and Collections of Treaties: Sir E. Hertslets Treaties Regulating the Trade, &c., between Great Britain and Turkey (London, 1875) presents a summary of all the principal treaties between Turkey and other states; see also Gabriel Effendi Noradounghian, Recueii d'actes internationaux de l'empire ottoman, 1300-1789, t. i. (Paris, 1897). Much valuable information is to (1143-1277)- The works of the old school in all its periods are entirely Persian in tone, sentiment and form. We find in them the same beauties and the same defects that we observe in the production Geaeral of the Iranian authors. The formal elegance and Geneac'erof conventional grace, alike of thought and of expression, Ottoman so characteristic of Persian classical literature, pervade Literature. the works of the best Ottoman writers, and they are likewise imbued, though in a less degree, with that spirit of mysticism which runs through so much of the poetry of Iran. But the Ottomans did not stop here: in their romantic poems they chose as subjects the favourite themes of their Persian masters, such as Leyli and Mejnun, Khusrev and Shirin, Yusuf and Zuleykha, and so on; they constantly allude to Persian heroes whose stories occur in the Shah-Nama and other store-houses of Iranian legendary lore; and they wrote their poems in Persian metres and in Persian forms. The mesnevi, the Iasida and the ghazel—all of them, so far at least as the Ottomans are concerned, Persian—were the favourite verse-forms of the old poets. A mesnevi is a poem written in rhyming couplets, and is usually narrative in subject. The l~asida and the ghazel are both mono-rhythmic ; the first as a rule celebrates the praises of some great man, while the second discourses of the joys and woes of love. Why. Persian rather than Arabian or any other literature became the model of Ottoman writers is explained by the early history of the race (see TURKS). Some two centuries before the arrival of the Turks in Asia Minor the Seljulfs, then a mere horde of savages, had overrun Persia, where they settled and adopted the civilization of the people they had subdued. Thus Persian became the language of their court and government, and when by-and-by they pushed their conquests into Asia Minor, and founded there the Seljuk Empire of Rum, they carried with them their Persian culture, and diffused it among the peoples newly brought under their sway. It was the descendants of those Persianized Seljulrs whom the early Otto-mans found ruling in Asia Minor on their arrival there. What had happened to the Seljulp two centuries before happened to the Otto-mans now: the less civilized race adopted the culture of the more civilized; and, as the SelA Empire fell to pieces and the Ottoman came gradually to occupy its place, the sons of men who had called themselves SelAs began thenceforth to look upon themselves as Ottomans. Hence the vast majority of the people whom we are accustomed to think of as Ottomans are so only by adoption, being really the descendants of Seljulcs or Seljulfian subjects, who had derived from Persia whatever they possessed of civilization or of literary taste. An extraordinary love of precedent, the result apparently of conscious want of original power, was sufficient to keep their writers loyal to their early guide for centuries, till at length the allegiance, though not the fashion of it, has been changed in our own days, and Paris has replaced Shiraz as the shrine towards which the Ottoman scholar turns. While conspicuously lacking in creative genius, the Ottomans have always shown them-selves possessed of receptive and assimilative powers to a remarkable degree, the result being that the number of their writers both in prose and verse is enormous. Of course only a few of the most prominent, either through the intrinsic merit of their work or through the influence they have had on that of their contemporaries, can be mentioned in a brief review like the present. It ought to be premised that the poetry of the old school is greatly superior to the prose. Ottoman literature may be said to open with a few mystic lines, the work of Sultan Veled, son of Maulana Jelal-ud-Din, the author - of the great Persian poem the Mathnawi. Sultan Veled classics] Pre flourished during the reign of Osman I., though he Period. did not reside in the territory under the rule of that prince. Another mystic poet of this early time was `Ashik Pasha, who left a long poem in rhyming couplets, which is called, inappropriately enough, his Divan. The nocturnal expedition across the Hellespont by which Suleiman, the son of Orkhan, won Galipoli and therewith a foothold in Europe for his race, was shared in and celebrated in verse by a Turkish noble or chieftain named Ghazi Fazil. Sheikhi of Kermiyan, a contemporary of Mahommed Land Murad II., wrote a lengthy and still esteemed mesnevi on the ancient Persian romance of Khusrev and Shirin; and about the same time Yaziji-oghlu gave to the world a long versified history of the Prophet, the Mulzammediya. The writers mentioned above are the most important previous to the capture of Constantinople; but there is little literature of real merit prior to that event. The most notable prose work of this period is an old collection of stories, the History of the Forty Vezirs, said to have been compiled by a certain Sheikh-zada and dedicated to Murad II. A few years after Constantinople passed into the hands of the Ottomans, some ghazels, the work of the contemporary Tatar prince, Mir 'Ali Shir, who under the nom de plume of Nevayi wrote much that shows true talent and poetic feeling, found their way to the Ottoman capital, where they were seen and copied by Ahmed Pasha, one of the viziers of Mahommed II. The poems of this statesman, though possessing little merit of their own, being for the most part translations from Nevayi, form one of the landmarks in the history of Ottoman literature. They set the fashion of ghazel-writing; and their appearance was the signal for a more regular cultivation of poetry and a greater attention to literary style and to refinement of language. In Sinan Pasha (d. 1420), another minister of Mahommed the Conqueror, Ottoman prose found its first exponent of ability; he left a religious treatise entitled Tazarru'at (Supplications), which, notwithstanding a too lavish employment of the resources of Persian rhetoric, is as remark-able for its clear and lucid style as for the beauty of many of the thoughts it contains. The most noteworthy writers of the Conqueror's reign are, after Ahmed and Sinan, the two lyric poets Nejati and Zati, whose verses show a considerable improvement upon those of Ahmed Pasha, the romantic poets Jemali and Hamdi, and the poetesses Zeyneb and Mihri. Like most of his house, Mahommed II. was fond of poetry and patronized men of letters. He himself tried versification, and some of his lines which have come down to us appear quite equal to the average work of his contemporaries. Twenty-one out of the thirty-four sovereigns who have occupied the throne of 'Osman have left verses, and among these Selim I. stands out, not merely as the greatest ruler, warrior and statesman, but also as the most gifted and most original poet. His work is unhappily for the greater part in the Persian language; the excellence of what he has done in Turkish makes us regret that he did so little. The most prominent man of letters under Selim I. was the legist Kemal Pasha-zada, frequently called Ibn-Kemal, who distinguished himself - in both prose and verse. He left a romantic poem on the loves of Yusuf and Zuleykha, and a work entitled Nigaristan, which is modelled both in style and matter on the Gulistan of Sa'di. His contemporary, Mesihi, whose beautiful verses on spring are perhaps better known in Europe than any other Turkish poem, deserves a passing mention. With the accession of Selim's son, Suleiman I., the classical period begins. Hitherto all Ottoman writing, even the most highly Classical finished, had been somewhat rude and uncouth; but period. now a marked improvement becomes visible alike in the manner and the matter, and authors of greater ability begin to make their appearance. Fuzuli (d. 1563), one of the four great poets of the old school, seems to have been a native of Bagdad or its neighbourhood, and probably became an Ottoman subject when Suleiman took possession of the old capital of the caliphs. His language, which is very peculiar, seems to be a sort of mixture of the Ottoman and Azerbaijan dialects of Turkish, and was most probably that of the Persian Turks of those days. Fuzuli showed far more originality than any of his predecessors; for, although his work is naturally Persian in form and in general character, it is far from being a mere echo from Shiraz or Isfahan. He struck out a new line for himself, and was indebted for his inspiration to no previous writer, whether Turk or Persian. An intense and passionate ardour breathes in his verses, and forms one of the most remarkable as well as one of the most attractive characteristics of his style ; for, whilefew even among Turkish poets are more artificial than he, few seem to write with greater earnestness and sincerity. His influence upon his successors has scarcely been as far-reaching as might have been expected—a circumstance which is perhaps in some measure owing to the unfamiliar dialect in which he wrote. Besides his Divan, he left a beautiful mesnevi on the story of Leyli and Mejnun, as well as some prose works little inferior to his poetry. Baki (d. 1599) of Constantinople, though far from rivalling his contemporary Fuzuli, wrote much good poetry, including one piece of great excellence, an elegy on Suleiman I. The Ottomans have as a rule been particularly successful with elegies; this one by Baki has never been surpassed. Ruhi, Lami'i, Nev'i, the janissary Yahya Beg, the mufti Ebu-Su'ud and Selim II. all won deserved distinction as poets. During the reign of Ahmed I. arose the second of the great poets of the old Ottoman school, Nef'i of Erzerum, who owes his pre-eminence to the brilliance of his kasidas. But Nef'i could revile as well as praise, and such was the bitterness of some of his satires that certain influential personages who came under his lash induced Murad IV. to permit his execution. Nef'i, who, like Fuzuli, formed a style of his own, had many to imitate him, of whom Sabri Shakir, a contemporary, was the most successful. Na'ili, Jevri and Fehim need not detain us; but Nabi (d. 1712), who flourished under Ibrahim and Mahommed IV., calls for a little more attention. This prolific author copied, and so imported into Ottoman literature, a didactic style of ghazel-writing which was then being introduced in Persia by the poet $a'ib; but so closely did the pupil follow in the footsteps of his master that it is not always easy to know that his lines are intended to be Turkish. A number of poets, of whom Seyyid Vehbi, Raghib Pasha, Rahmi of the Crimea, Kelim and Sami are the most notable, took Nabi for their model. Of these, Sarni is remarkable for the art with which he constructed his ghazels. Among the writers of this time who did not copy Nabi are Sabit, Rasikh and Talib, each of whom endeavoured, with no great success, to open up a new path for himself. We now reach the reign of Ahmed III., during which flourished Nedim, the greatest of all the poets of the old school. Little appears to be known about his life further than that he resided at Constantinople and was alive in the year 1727 (A.H. 1140). Nedim stands quite alone: he copied no one, and no one has attempted to copy him. There is in his poetry a joyousness and sprightliness which at once distinguish it from the work of any other Turkish author. His ghazels, which are written with great elegance and finish, contain many graceful and original ideas, and the words he makes use of are always chosen with a view to harmony and cadence. His kasidas are almost equal to his ghazels; for, while they rival those of Nef'i in brilliancy, they surpass them in beauty of diction, and are not so artificial and dependent on fantastic and far-fetched conceits. The classical period comes to an end with Nedim; its brightest time is that which falls between the rise of Nef'i and the death of Nedim, or, more roughly, that extending from the accession of Ahmed I. 1603 (1012), to the deposition of Ahmed III., 1730 (1143). We will now glance at the prose writers of this period. Under the name of Humayun Name (Imperial Book) 'Ali Chelebi made a highly esteemed translation of the well-known Persian Classical classic Anvar-i Suheyli, dedicating it to Suleiman I. Prose Sa'd-ud-Din (d. 1599), the preceptor of Murad III., wrote a valuable history of the empire from the earliest Writers. times to the death of Selim I. This work, the Taj-ut-Tevdrikh (Crown of Chronicles), is reckoned, on account of its ornate yet clear style, one of the masterpieces of the old school, and forms the first of an unbroken series of annals which are written, especially the later among them, with great minuteness and detail. Of Sa'd-ud-Din's successors in the office of imperial historiographer the most remark-able for literary power is Na'ima. His work, which extends from 1591 (1000) to 1659 (1070), contrasts strongly with that of the earlier historian, being written with great directness and lucidity, combined with much vigour and picturesqueness. Evliya, who died during the reign of Mahommed IV., is noted for the record which he has left of his travels in different countries. About this time Tash-koprizada began and 'Ata-ullah continued a celebrated biography of the legists and sheikhs who had flourished under the Ottoman monarchs. Haji Khalifa, frequently termed Kati]) Chelebi, was one of the most famous men of letters whom Turkey has produced. He died in 1658 (1068), having written a great number of learned works on history, biography, chronology, geography and other subjects. The Persianizing tendency of this school reached its highest point in the productions of Veysi, who left a Life of the Prophet, and of Nergisi, a miscellaneous writer of prose and verse. Such is the intentional obscurity in many of the compositions of these two authors that every sentence becomes a puzzle, over which even a scholarly Otto-man must pause before he can be sure he has found its true meaning. The first printing-press in Turkey was established by an Hungarian who had assumed the name of Ibrahim, and in 1728 (1141) appeared the first book printed in that country; it was Vankuli's Turkish translation of Jevheri's Arabic dictionary. Coming now to the post-classical period, we find among poets worthy of mention Beligh, Nevres, Hishmet and Sunbuli-zada Vehbi, each of whom wrote in a style peculiar to himself. Three poets of note--Pertev, Neshet and Sheikh Ghalib—flourished under Selim III. The last-named is the fourth great poet of the old school. Haan u 'Ashk (Beauty and Love), as his great poem is called, is an allegorical romance full of tenderness and imaginative Post. power. Ghalib's style is as original as that. of Fuzuli, Post-cal Neff or Nedim. The most distinguished prose writers historio- Period. of this period are perhaps Rashid, the imperial historio- grapher, 'Asim, who translated into Turkish two great lexicons, the Arabic Kamus and the Persian Burhan-i Kali', and Kani, the only humorous writer of merit belonging to the old school. When we reach the reign of Mabmud II., the great transition period of Ottoman history, during which the civilization of the Transition West began to struggle in earnest with that of the East, we find the change which was coming over all things Period. Turkish affecting literature along with the rest, and preparing the way for the appearance of the new school. The chief poets of the transition are Fazil Bey, Wasif, notable for his not altogether unhappy attempt to write verses in the spoken language of the capital, 'Izzet Molla, Pertev Pasha, 'Akif Pasha, and the poetesses Fitnet and Leyla. In the works of all of these, although we occasionally discern a hint of the new style, the old Persian manner is still supreme. More intimate relations with western Europe and a pretty general study of the French language and literature, together with modern the steady progress of the reforming tendency fairly school. started under Mabmud II., resulted in the birth of the new or modern school, whose objects are truth and simplicity. In the political writings of Reshid and 'Akif Pashas we have the first clear note of change; but the man to whom more than to any other the new departure owes its success is Shinasi Effendi, who employed it (1859) for poetry as well as for prose. The European style, on its introduction, encountered the most violent opposition, but now it alone is used by living authors of repute. If any of these does write a pamphlet in the old manner, it is merely as a tour de force, or to prove to some faithful but clamorous partisan of the Persian style that it is not, as he supposes, lack of ability which causes the modern author to adopt the simpler and more natural fashion of the West. The whole tone, sentiment and form of Ottoman literature have been revolutionized by the new school: varieties of poetry hitherto unknown have been adopted from Europe; an altogether new branch of literature, the drama, has arisen; while the sciences are now treated and seriously studied after the, system of the West. Among writers of this school who have won distinction are Ziya Pasha, Jevdet Pasha, the statesman and historian, Ekrem Bey, the author of a beautiful series of miscellaneous poems, Zemzema, IIamid Bey, who holds the first place among Ottoman dramatists, and Kemal Bey (d. 1878), the leader of the modern school and one of the most illustrious men of letters whom his country has produced. He wrote with conspicuous success in almost every branch of literature—history, romance, ethics, poetry and the drama; and his influence on the Young Turk party of later days was profound. (For the Turkish language see Tvxxs) (E. J. W. G.) The magnum opus in English on Turkish poetry is E. J. W. Gibb's History of Ottoman Poetry (5 vols., 1900-8, vol. v. ed. E. G. Browne).
End of Article: WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
[back]
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
[next]
INDEPENDENT

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click and select "copy." Paste it into a website, email, or other HTML document.