BOOKS

LETTERS FROM THE NEAR EAST.*

MR. Ma.unicE BARING'S letters from the Near East were written partly just after what was called the counter- revolution in Turkey in April, 1909, and partly in 1912 during the earlier part of the present war. The letters make a book slight in volume and slight in manner ; yet Mr. Baring is always entertaining and sympathigue, and it happens in this case that the two seta of letters make as illuminating a con- trast as one could have between the beliefs of the time when men thought or hoped that Turkey was really regenerating herself and the disillusionment that followed. Mr. Baring has wisely left his letters exactly as he wrote them, and the professions of the Young Turks and their sequel make what one hopes may be a perpetual warning against the crazy belief that a Moslem Government, by uttering political incantations, can change its character in a moment. The complete object-lesson is comprised within a space of four years—indeed in much less than that if one dates the visible failure of the Young Turk movement from the introduction of the policy of Ottomanization by force, or from the Adana massacre in which the complicity of Young Turks has since been proved.

When Mr. Baring arrived at Constantinople in April 1909 he found all foreign opinion, and especially English opinion, in a ferment of enthusiasm for the Young Turks and in a tumult of indignation against the British Embassy because it was said to be lukewarm in its sympathy with the new

order. Mr. Baring bad a mind devoid of all precon- ceptions or desires. He fell in for the time being with the prevalent mode of thought, and eventually admitted, like others, his disillusionment when facts were too strong for him. Naturally an inquiring and industrious intellect like his set itself to ask whether the Moslem mind is permanently incapable of adaptation, and his answer, founded on the con- clusions of men like Sir C. Eliot, seems to us fair and temperate, but at the same time unequivocal. If ever reform were possible it could be only by a very long and gradual transition. Bradlaugh said, "Religions do not die; they change," and we imagine that if an Islamic State reproduced Western forms of government, with their essential motives and elements, it could be only when Islam bad changed itself so that it was constructively a new religion. The Western- izing politicians of Turkey are not, and cannot be, strictly practising Mohammedans. Where they profess to be strict Mohammedans they do so to reassure popular opinion. Lord Grouser came to the eonclus:on years ago that Mohammedanism is an inelastic code, incapable of expansion or adaptation unless violence be done to the obvious meanings of the Koran on which the fighting and conquering Turks built up their remarkable polity. Mr. Baring quotes one of • Letters from the Near East, 1909 and 1912. By Maurice Boxing. Londolia _Smith, Elder and Co. [3a. 6d. net.1

his informants as saying on this subject of the possible reform of Islam : —

"By reforming it altogether I do not mean abolishing it, but I mean slowly and gradually introducing a fundamental and progressive change in its social and political character. I mean by 'reforming Islam altogether' not introducing superficial changes in its outward form of government, but introducing fundamental changes in its social structure which will convert its government into one which is not Western in form but Western in fact. You may say that this is impossible. You may argue that to reform Islam is to abolish it. There is a great deal to be said for that view : but in answer I would urge that in certain Moslem countries the thing is being done, only, of course, it can only be done slowly ; it cannot be done in a hurry. And in any case, whether it be possible or not to reform Islam altogether, one thing is certain : that if you superimpose on it the forms without the reality of a constitutional and Western Government, the result will be (a) a ferocious despotism ; (b) internal dissension and ultimate collapse. This holds good for Persia, India, and any country where Islam plays a large part—not for China, which is totally different—and what is happening in Turkey now is a tremendous object-lesson for England."

That is surely extremely well put. It is folly to expect a Turkish soldier to be compliant and perfectly undisturbed if he is suddenly told that Lis faith means something that he never understood it to mean. His faith is narrow because it embodies a code of laws which were framed in definite relation to particular circumstances; it is not like Christianity, which offers principles of permanent application in all circumstances. It is a creed of an undoubted grandeur in its austerities and discipline and devotion; but it was the creed of an intolerant conquering soldiery who scorned the civilizations with which it is now sought to reconcile it.

It is pathetic to-day to read some of the stories of the new birth of Turkish political character which were readily accepted —and may even have been true—when the enthusiasm for the revolution was still in its first freshness. For instance, Mr.

Baring tella how some Young Turks wished to put themselves so far above the mere appearance of corruption that they would not accept the customary Royal presents. It was a Turk who told him the story :—

"He said that the Sultan, on his accession, summoned his two principal generals and offered them each a bag containing .250. They refused, and the Sultan said to them 'Why do you not accept it -P I am your father and you are my children.' But they answered that the ex-Sultan had made these kinds of presents and that it had done harm. They therefore thanked the Sultan very much, but refused to accept the gifts."

Mr. Baring's anecdotes are always relevant as well as enter- taining, and we particularly like those which illustrate the ignorance and scepticism respectively among the poorer people in Turkey and Russia about a constitutional revo- lution :—

"After the Revolution of July, when it was announced all over Turkey that the era of freedom had begun, a certain Vali (Governor) in Asia Minor summoned the people of his district and told thom that they had been granted freedom. What does this all mean? asked a Moslem peasant who was present, indig- nantly. Were we slaves up till now ?' I remember a thing like this happening in Russia, and the difference between the stories enables one to estimate the vast difference between the political status of the two countries. When the Emperor granted his constitutional manifesto, a certain Governor, who was utterly bewildered by this novel 'Ukase. summoned the local elders and told them they had been granted freedom. But you must remember,' he added, that this means you are free to do good and to behave well, but you are not free to do evil." Ah !' said a peasant, `it was just like that before, your Excellency.' The Russian was sceptical as to the efficacy of any manifesto granting freedom. The Turk simply did not know what it was all about, because he considered himself already as free as the air, and rightly so."

In the second part of his book Mr. Baring has nothing to tell about the fighting, as he saw none. He, however, observed both the Bulgars and the Servians in their time of triumph and the Turks in their humiliation. He says that with the Rutgers patriotism is their religion, their art, their ambition, their recreation, their occupation, their inner life. In Servia he noticed much the same spirit, but with it all there was the consciousness of older traditions, the tinge and hue of a rich and ancient literature, and rather more exuberance than the modest Bulgarians permitted themselves. The Bulgarians, according to Mr. Baring, discreetly ignore their successes like an English public-school boy who makes a point of assuring you that be is "no good at "something in which he notoriously

excels. Mr. Baring's estimate of Bulgarian toughness of filwarabsemse of slovenliness, directness, unity, and singleness; of purpose makes one feel that the fall of the Turks at the

hands of men possessing these virtues could not in any case have been very long delayed.

Finally, Mr. Baring gives a haunting account of the cholera. among the Turkish troops. It seems pretty clear that the disease was not in itself of a virulent type, but the victims. suffered so much from neglect and the want of proper food. that the mortality was appalling. The stoical resignation of the Russian sick at Sevastopol, as described by Tolstoy, could scarcely have matched the quiet and dignified suffering

in silence of the unhappy Turks. Mr. Baring has no doubt. that the almost entire disappearance of the Turks from,

Europe is a blessing ; he has not a word to say in extenuation of their incompetence as rulers or of their collective cruelty.

His tribute to their heroism in suffering is therefore the more weighty.

"With regard to the sick, great as was the distress of these' wretched victims, they were sublime in their resignation. They consented, like Job, in what was worse than dust and ashes, to- the working of the Divine will. They most of them had military water bottles ; they used to implore to have these bottles filled; and when they were filled—thirsty as they were—they would not. drink all the water, but they kept a little back in order to perform, the ablutions which the Mohammedan religion ordains should accompany the prayers of the faithful. Even in their agony the- Turks never lost one particle of their dignity, and never for one moment forgot their perfect manners. They died as they lived— like the Nature's noblemen they are—always acknowledging every assistance; and when they refused a gift or an offer they put into. the refusal the graciousness of an acceptance."

Mr. Baring tells us of the devotion of the Swiss lady, Miss Alt, and the Austrian lady, Madam Schneider, who, on a capital of 24, inaugurated the relief work in the terrible camp. at San Stefano, but he modestly says nothing of his own work in the same perilous service.