THE GERMAN EMPEROR AND THE SULTAN.
[To TH1 EDITOR. OF THY "SPICTITOF.."1
SIR,—During my recent visit to Constantinople a great shock was given to the consciences of our Eastern brethren there, and no light blow dealt to their hopes. The same streets, which three years before bad run with the blood of hundreds upon hundreds of Christians, witnessed the humiliating spectacle of a Christian Emperor dining and conversing with the very man who was responsible, if he had not actually given the order, as is generally believed, for those massacres, and for countless others, all as yet left unpunished and unavenged, in different parts of his unhappy Empire. What is the explanation of this public demonstration of friendship ? The explanation which you give in the Spectator of November 5th, that has just reached me, is that the Emperor recognised in the Sultan "a good Mussnlman." And by a good Mussulman you say that you mean one who is "faithful to his con- victions," "has no compassion for Christians," and "takes their lives" whenever he pleases, in accordance with his creed. " Good " in this sense no doubt the Sultan has proved himself. Daring the last few days I have had many conversations with two Englishmen holding high position, and fully acquainted with the facts concerning those massacres. Both spoke from personal knowledge, one having been present at Constantinople, the other at Erzeroum, when the massacres occurred. They gave the number of the victims in round figures at one hundred thousand, while two hundred thousand besides they described as having "disappeared." And the brutalities with which the massacres were accompanied they represented as being too horrible to appear in the Consular Reports. It is to be hoped that the Emperor, when he condescended to shake hands with the Sultan, was unacquainted with these facts, and that it was not because he "gave full weight to the religious convictions of the Sultan," and saw in him "a devout religionist" and "a good Mussulman," murdering every Christian whom he could venture to murder, that he accepted his hospitality, and made publics display of friend- ship. No; the motives by which the Emperor was actuated had, as I hope and believe, nothing to do with religion. What they were is revealed in words lately spoken by a German diplomat at Constantinople, whose interference in the cause of humanity had been solicited by one of his own people. Refusing to interfere, he is reported to have said in self-justi- fication, "What is the massacre of two or three thousand Armenians, more or less, in comparison with the commercial interests of Germany ? " If this be the tree explanation of the Emperor's action, and you seem to think that such may be the case, for you write in your article, 'No doubt his friend- ship with the Sultan has been cemented by considerations of policy," the Emperor would appear to be engaged in the most perilous task of trying to serve those two Masters whom the Founder of our faith said no man could serve. In the address which he delivered at the consecration of the new German church at Jerusalem he said, "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." But which Master was he serving at Constantinople ? Though, for obvious reasons, nothing has been openly said by our fellow-Christians in the East regarding the Emperor's abandonment of their cause, the indifference he has shown to their sufferings and wrongs, and the slur he has cast upon their religion, it must not be
supposed that the attitude which he has thought good to take has not aroused deep shame, sorrow, and resentment. Arguing from the horror which the Armenian massacres created in England when the tidings reached our country, and from the indignation universally expressed, I presume that it must have aroused like feelings also among our own people at home, though at this critical time they have re- frained from giving them public utterance.—I am, Sir, Sze., C. W. GIBRALTAR.
Hotel Grande Bretagne, Athens, November 11th.
Previous page
