Hazirlayanlar

492

HOŞGÖRÜ TOPLUMUNDA ERMENİLER

to decline and prime his time, it hath proceeded infi nitely to decay, in all 

those parts of Asia fi rst by the inundations of the idolatrous Tartars who 

subdued all those regions and after by the entertaining of Mehumetanism 

in many of them., But yet indeede, in the more southerly parts of Asia (es-

pecially in those where Christianity was fi rst planted and had taken deep-

est roote as Anatahia, Syria, Palestine, chaldaen, Ossyria, Mesopotamia, 

Armenia, persia, the north part of part of Arabia and the south of India, 

Christians are not only to be found, but in certain of those Regions as in 

Anatolia, Armenia, Syria, Mesopotamia, somewhat thickly mingled with 

mahumetans as they are in the south of India not far from the Promontovie 

of comorin....” (17)In certain areas of Turkey, the situation was such that 

numerical strength of non Turks surpassed that of Turks: It is written “Al-

though the Government be wholly the Turkes, yet, Muhametans scarcely 

passe one third past of the inhabitants”. But the Armenians were only a part 

of that extensive domain. If the American Ambassador, Mr. Morgenthau is 

to be believed, ‘there were twenty eight million people in Turkey and one 

million Armenians also formed a segment of the population “ in recent 

years(18). 

As mentioned earlier, living together for centuries left no grounds for 

alienness. There were indeed internally no tensions between the Armeni-

ans and Turks as no such instances have been quoted by any one of the 

travelers, Pilgrimes of Purchas or by the Indo-- Persian Chroniclers. The 

only complaint frequently mentioned in the travelogue by certain Explor-

ers and traders during their sojourn in Turkey, Central Asia, India and other 

places deals with extortion by higher offi cials (as Jenkinson, Sidi Ali Rais 

and De goeje have done)and such other complaints. These wailings and a 

few prejudices were freely aired. Henry Middleton who happened to be in 

Turkey in 1611 complained how Basha and Aga “robbed” him of his goods 

-- “such shamefull wrongs which they had falsely charged the Sultan to 

have commanded them to doe...” He feared, (like Sidi Ali Rais in India 

against the Portuguese,), even to buy the fresh victuals at Moha doubt-

ing poysoning” though he felt reassured later and recovered all pending 

dues.(19).

The secure and favourable position enjoyed by the Armenians in Tur-

key is vehemently emphasized in the sources. However, the Armenians 

were pitied by the Christians some times in earlier decades for their dif-

fi cult situation. One of the contemporary writers of Polo namely Marino 

Sanuto, is stated to have “compared the kingdom of the Pope’s faithful Ar-

---

493

Prof. Mansure HAİDAR

menians to one between the teeth of four fi erce beasts, the lion Tartar, the 

panther Soldan, the Turkish wolf, the corsair serpent.”(20).Although the 

Persian Traveller Mirza Abu Talib Isfahani refers to the miserable plight 

of Greeks, he writes about the prosperous condition of the Armenians. Ex-

pressing his utmost concern with the Greeks, Abu Talib who happened to 

be in Turkey from 1799-1803 and notes down in his “intentional record” 

that: “The governor and military men are all Turks but the rest of the inhab-

itants are Greeks, who in consequence of the despotic and tyrannical gov-

ernment of their oppressors are the most abject poor wretches I have ever 

seen; even the most oppressed subjects in India are princes when compared 

with these. The Turks adhere strictly to the Muhammedan regulations, of 

exalting the subjects of their own religion and of depressing those of any 

other. The spirits of these Greeks are entirely broken and they appear to 

have been given themselves upto despair. Meloncholy and want are so 

strongly depicted on their countenance that I could not help feeling for 

their deplorable condition.” (21). Even otherwise Mirza Abu Talib had oc-

casionally criticized the Turks very vehemently (eg. their cookery is said 

to be a “bad imitation of that of Persia and Hindostan “; their Postal system 

is said to be poor and their “mode of living is on the whole described to 

be very disgusting “to him). The bias could be due to long standing cold 

war and also several wars fought with no love lost between Ottomans and 

Persians. However elsewhere he gives a different version highly appre-

ciating the Turks. He writes: “ The Turks are,in general persons of strict 

honour, intrepid, liberal, hospitable, friendly and compassionate and their 

Government is conducted with great attention to justice than anyone of the 

Muhammedan states. They do not have the power of shedding the blood 

unjustly, nor can they follow the bent of their own inclinations or passion 

with impunity. They are obliged to consult their nobles who seldom trans-

gress “. (22) The contradictory statements are explained by Mirza’s own 

comments when he wails how the Ottomans invaded Persia and wrought 

destruction..

 Strangely enough, in the context of Armenians, Isfahani seems to be 

torn between the two confl icting emotions and somewhat puzzled by their 

indfference. Understandably, the attitude of Abu Talib towards Armeni-

ans was also determined by his own preconceived notions and also by the 

cold response he received from the circumspect Armenians which must 

have prompted him to be contemptuous His anger is poured down in some 

way or another. At Leghorn Abu Taleb found a “great variety of fruit” and 

---