again, and when at length he did open his mouth, it was to express his conviction that the Chelleby Effendi's fever had affected his head. "For," added he, "if the Chelleby Effendi would hire a cart to-morrow, we might go to that vineyard and take away as many grapes as would sell for £2." And he sighed as he thought of the loss which my strange infatuation had caused. He could not understand such a Chelleby Effendi at all. Now, this man was one of the best of his class. I never once saw him lift his hand to strike any one; he was as gentle as he was brave, but his education, such as it was, had taught him that what belonged to the Bulgarian was his as a Moslem, while what belonged to him was strictly his own. And this idea had been assiduously fostered in him by all that he had seen around him. As a Turk, he knew well that no Bulgarian could meet him on equal terms in a court of justice, and that alone conveyed to his mind a powerful moral.
A zaptieh, be it remembered, is a Turkish policeman, a man therefore whose duty it was to protect the property of the man whom he coolly proposed to rob of all the fruit of his hard toil. But the instructive part of the story is that the zaptieh, "one of the best of his class," did not think that he was doing anything wrong, but thought that the Englishman must be crazy for thinking differently. Had the Bulgarian rayah resisted the plunder of his goods, this "kind and gentle" policeman would have slain him without compunction, and would consider any man a fool or a madman who suggested that he had committed a crime.
Nor is it in life alone that the intolerance of the Turk is shown; it pursues the rayah into the grave. Dr. Humphrey Sandwith[1] has published the form of burial certificate which is given when a Christian dies, and here it is: —
- We certify to the priest of the Church of Mary that the impure, putrefied, stinking carcase of Sardeh, damned this day, may be concealed underground.
- (Sealed)El Said Mehemed Faizi. A.H. 1271, Rejib 11 (March 29, 1855).
So much as to the principles which are instilled into the mind of the Turk, and woven into the very texture of his being, with regard to the life and property of his non-Mussulman neighbor. As to the teaching which he receives in respect to the relation of the sexes, there is no space to discuss it, and it would be scarcely possible to do so if there were. The softa revels through many volumes of what Sir W. Muir calls "a mass of corruption, poisoning the mind and the morals of every Mahometan student."[2] The result is that the Mahometan Turks, smitten by the withering poison of unspeakable vices, are dying out at a rate which, if nothing intervene to arrest the decay, will clear them out of Europe in about fifty years.
Am I not right, then, in saying that there is a generic difference between Turkish atrocities and atrocities committed by other nations, whether Russian or English? What constituted the peculiar horror of the abominations of the Canaanites of old was that they "did them unto their gods;" so that there was no hope of amendment, morality being corrupt at the fountain-head, without a pure stream anywhere in reserve to draw from. And what made the case of the tribes of Canaan hopeless makes the case of the Turks hopeless too. What is the use of programmes which, however excellent on paper, have to be executed by human beings whose minds and souls are saturated with principles of morals such as I have described? When men can gather grapes of thorns, and figs of thistles, then, and not before, may we expect the Ottoman government to do justice to its non-Mussulman population. Politicians may say, as indeed Lord Derby has said, that the right and truly British policy is to turn a deaf ear to the cries of the oppressed in Turkey, and advise the Turkish government "that they had better follow the policy which they thought most consistent with their own interests."[3] "The policy which they thought most consistent with their own interests" in Bulgaria this year was to outrage and massacre some thousands of innocent human beings. Achmed Agha and the rest, infamous as they are, are not quite so bad as the government which first sent them on their errand of slaughter, and then decorated them for their various achievements. It is hardly fair that Achmed Agha should be even tardily arrested, while his employer Midhat Pasha goes free. Let us support this policy if England wills it so; but let us do it honestly, and in the face of day. It will be quite as beneficial to the Christians of Turkey as any scheme of reform short of real autonomy, and it will not add the additional sting of mockery to their disappointment.
