[87] Anatolia is from the Greek word 'Ανατολπ which, like the Latin Oriens, signifies the eastern land, the land of sunrise. It is the modern name of Asia Minor which the Ottomans call Anadoli.

[88] For an interesting account of the two œcumenical councils of Nicæa see Hefele’s scholarly Histoire des Conciles, Tom. I, Livre II and Tom. III, Livre XVIII (trans. by Dom H. Leclercq, Paris, 1910).

[89] Cf. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 93 (by W. M. Ramsay, London, 1890).

[90] “The fate of these cities,” observes a recent traveler in Anatolia, “is that of numerous others whose names are a part of classic history. Everywhere throughout Asia Minor decaying ruins mark the sites where art and culture were united with barbaric power. Everywhere are evidences of past refinement, splendor and greatness. And over all the prostrate columns and broken entablatures, the domed mosques and black-green cypresses, the fertile valleys and the great desert, the dark-visaged men and the silent, veiled women lingers the spell, undefinable but wondrously fascinating, of Asia; the cradle of the human race, the land of luxurious magnificence, the abode of mighty empires that rose and crumbled long before the western world had emerged from darkness; the birthlace, too, of subtle mysticism and of every religion that has soothed the soul in anguish and comforted it with hope.” Asia Minor, p. 317 (by W. A. Hawly, London, 1918).

[91] See the author’s Woman in Science, p. 12 et seq. (New York, 1913).

[92] Ionia and the East, pp. 8, 9 (by D. G. Hogarth. Oxford, 1907). Another eminent Orientalist, H. R. Hall, expresses substantially the same view when he tells us that “It was in Ionia that the new Greek civilization arose; Ionia, in whom the old Ægean blood and spirit most survived, taught the new Greece, gave her coined money and letters, art and poesy, and her shipmen, forcing the Phœnicians from before them, carried her new culture to what were then deemed the ends of the earth.” The Ancient History of the Near East from the Earliest Times to the Battle of Salamis, p. 79 (London, 1916).

[93] The Story of Turkey, p. 78 (by Stanley Lane-Poole, New York, 1888).

[94] The historian Hammer-Purgstall tells us that the ablest generals and statesmen under the reigns of Selim and Solyman the Magnificent—those who raised the Ottoman Empire to its acme of prosperity—were renegades. During this period no fewer than eight out of ten of the grand viziers were likewise apostates. “Si donc la puissance ottomane foula aux pieds tant de nations, ce resultat ne doit pas être attribué au caractère indolent et grossier des Ottomans, mais à l’esprit de ruse et de finesse qui distingue les peuples grecs et slaves, a la témérité et a la perfidie des Allanais et des Dalmates, à la persévérance et à l’opiniâtreté des Bosnien et des Croates, enfin à la valeur et aux talents des renégats des pays conquis.” Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, Tom. VI, p. 452–454 (Paris, 1835).

[95] The Story of the Barbary Corsairs, p. 66 (by Poole and Kelly, New York, 1893).

[96] Op. cit., Tom. I, p. 18.

[97] Op. cit., p. 346 et seq.

[98] Tableau Général de l’Empire Ottoman, Tom. II, p. 217 (Paris, 1790).

[99] The Foundation of the Ottoman Empire, p. 117 (by H. A. Gibbons, New York, 1916).

[100] Freeman writes to the same effect when he declares “between renegades, Janissaries and the mothers of all nations, the blood of many a Turk must be physically anything rather than Turkish.” Op. cit., p. 187.

[101] A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, Vol. III, p. 475 (Oxford, 1877). Among these causes Finlay indicates three which deserve special attention. “First, the superiority of the Ottoman tribe over all contemporary nations in religious convictions and in moral and military conduct. Second, the number of different races which composed the population of the country between the Adriatic and the Black Sea, the Danube and the Ægean. Third, the depopulation of the Greek Empire, the degraded state of its judicial and civil administration and the demoralization of the Hellenic race.”

[102] Gibbons, op. cit., p. 173.

[103] No one is more familiar with the Ottoman people or their history than Professor William Ramsay who does not hesitate to declare: “It has almost always been by the strength and skill of Christian allies that the Turks have vanquished the Christians:

Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Years Wandering, p. 271 et seq. (London, 1897).

“The Christians were crushed by the arts and arms of their own brethren; Constantinople fell, not before the Saracen or the Turk but before warriors of Greek and Slavonic blood.” Op. cit., p. 272.

[104] Gibbons, op. cit., p. 302.

[105] Ibid., p. 123.

[106] H. A. Gibbons, op. cit., p. 81.

[107] Sura II, 257.

[108] Sura X, 99, 100.

[109] The erudite Assemani, Librarian of the Vatican Library, writing of certain persecutions of the Christians by Mohammedans, declares: “Non raro persecutionis procellam excitarunt mutuæ Christianorum ipsorum simultates, sacerdotum licencia, præsulum fastus, tyrannica magnatum potestas, et medicorum præesertim scribarumque de supremo in gentem suam imperio altercationes.” Biblotheca Orientalis Clementino-Vaticana, Tom. III, Pars, II (Rome, 1719–1728).

[110] The Preaching of Islam, a History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, pp. 422, 423 (by T. W. Arnold, London, 1913).

[111] Ibid., pp. 79, 80.

Of all who have made a careful study of the character and religion of the Mohammedans of Asia, no one probably, is better qualified to express an opinion on the subject under consideration than M. A. de Gobiñeau. As the result of thorough investigation during several years residence among them, he does not hesitate to declare that if one separates religious doctrines from political necessity which has often spoken and acted in its name, there is no religion that is more tolerant, one might almost say more indifferent regarding mens’ faith than Islam. “Cette disposition organique est si forte qu’en dehors des cas ou la raison d’État mise en jeu a porté les gouvernments mussulmans à se faire arme de tout pour tendre à unité de foi, la tolerance la plus complète a été la regle fournie par le dogme.... Qu’on ne s’arrête pas aux violences, aux cruautés commises dans une occasion ou dans une autre. Si on regarde de prés, on ne tardera pas à y découvrir des causes toutes politiques ou toutes de passion humaine et de tempérament chez le souverain ou dans la population. Le fait religieux n’y est invoqué que comme pretexte et, en réalité, il reste en dehors.” Les Religions et les Philosophies dans l’Asie Central, pp. 24, 25 (Paris, 1865).

What has been said of the tolerance of the Osmanlis or of the peoples of Central Asia the distinguished Orientalist, Prince Caetani, claims for the Arabian followers of the Prophet. “Gli Arabi,” he writes in his monumental work Annali dell’ Islam, Vol. V, p. 4 (Milan, 1912), “nei primi anni non perseguitarono invece alcuno per ragioni di fede, no si diedero pena alcuna per convertire chicchessia, sicche sotto l’Islam, dopo le prime conquiste, i Christiani Semiti goderono d’una tolleranza religiosa quale non si era mai vista da varie generazioni.”

[112] L’España Sagrada, Teatro Geografico de la Iglesia de España, Tom. XXXVII, p. 312. Cardinal Hergenröther hold the same view when he declares that Islam was a Strafe—punishment—for the degenerate Christians of the Orient whose moral corruption, religious schism, and desecration of sacred things through arbitrary state-power had paved the way for it. Handbuch der Allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte, Tom. I, p. 748 (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1884).

The distinguished historian, F. X. Funk, expresses a similar opinion when he writes: “The Carthaginians were safely gathered under the standard of the Prophet and the conquerors were free to continue their victorious march on the Barbary States and the West of Africa, the many divisions and enmities to which Christological disputes had given rise among the Eastern Christians greatly facilitating their task.” A Manual of Church History, Vol. I, p. 132 (London, 1909).

[113] “Estimates of population,” observes Marriott, “are notoriously untrustworthy, but it seems probable that at a time when Henry VIII ruled over about four million people the subjects of Sultan Suleiman numbered fifty million.” The Eastern Question, p. 89 (Oxford, 1917).

“After the conquest of Constantinople,” writes Finlay, “the Ottomans became the most dangerous conquerors who have acted a part in European history since the fall of the western Roman Empire. Their Dominion, at the period of its greatest extension, stretched from Buda on the Danube to Bussora on the Euphrates. On the north, their frontiers were guarded against the Poles by the fortress of Kamenietz, and against the Russians by the walls of Azof; while to the south the rock of Aden secured their authority over the southern coast of Arabia, invested them with power in the Indian Ocean, and gave them the complete command of the Red Sea. To the east, the Sultan ruled the shores of the Caspian, from the Kour to the Tenek; and his dominion stretched westward along the southern coast of the Mediterranean, where the farthest limits of the regency of Algiers, beyond Oran, meet the frontiers of the empire of Morocco. By rapid steps the Ottomans completed the conquest of the Seljouk sultans in Asia Minor, of the Mamlouk sultans in Syria and Egypt, of the fierce corsairs of northern Africa, expelled the Venetians from Cyprus, Crete, and the Archipelago, and drove the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem from the Levant, to find a shelter at Malta. It was no vain boast of the Ottoman sultan that he was the master of many kingdoms, the ruler of three continents, and the lord of two seas.” History of Greece, Vol. V, p. 6 (Oxford, 1877).

[114] The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, p. 23 (by W. M. Ramsay, London, 1890).

[115] L’Islamisme et la Science, p. 19 (Paris, 1883).

[116] Count Henry de Castries, in L’Islam, Impressions et Études, p. 121 (Paris, 1912).

[117] “It is an amusing fact,” writes an English woman who had an intimate knowledge of Turkey, “that an idea of impropriety is attached by Europeans who have never visited the East, to the very name of harem, while it is not less laughable they can never give a reason for their prejudice. How little foundation exists for so unaccountable a fancy must be evident at once when it is stated that harem, or woman’s apartment, is held so sacred by the Turks themselves, that they remain inviolate even in cases of popular disturbance, or individual delinquency; the mob never suffering their violence to betray them into an intrusion on the wives of their victims; and the search after a fugitive ceasing the moment that the door of the harem separates him from his pursuers.” Julia Pardoe, in The Bosphorus and the Danube, p. 126 (London, 1839).

Another English woman, Grace Ellison, who is familiar with the life of the harem and who has given public lectures in London on Turkish life, was seriously told by the secretary of a certain society: “You must not put the word ‘harem’ on the title of your lecture. Many who might come to hear you would stay away for fear of hearing improper revelations, and others would come hoping to hear those revelations and go away disappointed!” Cf. A Turkish Woman’s European Impressions, p. 16 (by Zeyneb Hanoum, Philadelphia, 1913).

[118] For an illuminating account of an Assyrian harem in the time of Sargon, more than seven centuries B. C., see Histoire de l’Art dans Antiquité, Tom. II, p. 435, et. seq. (by G. Perrot and Chipiez, Paris 1884). See also the account of the prehistoric palace of the Kings of Tiryns, as given in Schliemann’s Tiryns, p. 239, et. seq. (New York, 1885). According to Dr. Dörpfeld and other eminent archæologists this palace, the oldest in Greece, is distinctly oriental in plan and its smaller megaron was obviously a harem. Cf. also Schuchardt’s Schliemann’s Excavations, p. 31. For interesting descriptions of visits to harems in Turkey and Syria, consult the Bosphorus and the Danube, p. 125, et seq. (by Julia Pardoe, London, 1839), and the Inner Life of Syria, Chap. XI (by Lady Isabel Burton, London, 1884). Both of these women during their sojourn in the East, had exceptional opportunities for studying the real life of the harem where they were always cordially welcomed by its inmates.

The custom of wearing the veil, it may here be remarked, dates back almost as far, if not fully as far, as the harem. Cf. Genesis, xxii:65, and Isaiah, iii:23. Nor is the wearing of the veil in the Orient to-day confined entirely to Moslem women. Christian and other non-Moslem women wear it and have worn it from time immemorial. How erroneous, therefore, is the statement, so often made, that it was Mohammed that imposed the veil on the women of the Orient and inhumanly incarcerated them in the harem!

[119] Observations on the Mussulmans of India, p. 168 (London, 1917).

[120] Everyday Life in Turkey, p. 108 (London, 1897).

The Princess Christina Belgiojoso who spent three years in making a careful study of the people of Asia Minor writes: “The household of the Turkish peasant resembles that of the Christian peasant and, I am sorry to add, the former would often serve as a model for the latter. With equal fidelity, the advantage is in favor of the Turk, for his fidelity is neither imposed on him by civil or religious law, nor by public opinion, nor by local manners, customs and usages; he is led to it simply through the goodness of his nature to which any idea of causing grief to his associate would be repugnant.

“The Turkish peasant cherishes his companion as parent and as lover; never does he knowingly or willingly oppose her; there is no provocation to which he will not cheerfully submit through love for her.... I have seen women old, decrepit, infirm and hideous, led, comforted and adored by fine old men with long, flowing, silvery beards, strong, serene eye and as erect as mountain firs.” Oriental Harems and Scenery, p. 108–110 (New York, 1862).

[121] A well-known English journalist, Sidney Whitman, who was long on terms of intimacy with some of the most distinguished men of the Ottoman Empire, tells us that “The stranger, whatever his opportunities, only comes into contact with one-half of the Mohammedan population; the other is barred from his observation, from his very sight. In the course of all my visits to Turkey I never had an opportunity of approaching a Turkish woman within speaking distance.” Turkish Memories, p. 267 (London, 1914).

Writing from Constantinople, where she made a special study of the Turks, their manners and customs, the gifted and brilliant Lady Mary Wortley Montague, tells her correspondent in England, “It is a particular pleasure to me here to read the voyages of the Levant which are generally so far removed from the truth and so full of absurdities. I am very well diverted with them. They never fail giving you an account of the women whom it is certain they never saw and talking wisely of men, into whose company they are never admitted, and very often describe mosques which they dared not even peep into.” Letters, Vol. II, p. 5 (London, 1793).

As wife of the British ambassador to the Porte, Lady Mary had the entrée of the homes of the Turks, rich and poor, where she was always cordially received and hospitably entertained. Besides this, she was familiar with the language of her hostesses of the harems which she visited and was thus able to become far more intimately acquainted with the people than those who must needs depend on unreliable interpreters. For these reasons her sprightly pictures of the life of the Turkish women have always had special value and one can easily understand her admiration for them and for many of their customs which are so different from those of her own country—England. She would have fully endorsed what her distinguished countrywoman, Lady Isabel Burton wrote many years afterwards: “As a rule I met with nothing but courtesy in the harems and much hospitality, cordiality and refinement.” The Romance of Isabel Lady Burton: The Story of Her Life Told in Part by Herself and in Part by W. H. Wilkins, Vol. II, p. 452 (New York, 1897).

[122] Turkey and the Turks, p. 84, et seq. (by Z. D. Ferriman, New York, 1911).

“There has been,” writes an American woman who has had exceptional opportunities for studying the condition of women in Turkey, “a vast amount of pity wasted upon the Moslem woman. It may surprise even the woman suffragist to learn that the laws of Mohammed confer upon women a greater degree of legal protection than any code of laws since the middle Roman law. The more recent liberties and protection granted to married women by the laws of divorce and the exclusive property rights now in the United States alone can be properly compared to those in force in, Turkey.” In the Palaces of the Sultan, pp. 448, 449 (by Anna Bowman Dodd, New York, 1903).

[123] Ibid.

[124] The Evil of the East, or Truths about Turkey, p. 42 (London, 1888).

[125] See the North American Review.

[126] Lieutenant Wood in his “Journey to the Source of the Oxus,” p. 194 (London, 1872), writes: “Nowhere is the difference between European and Mohammedan society more strongly marked than in the lower walks of life. The broad line that separates the rich and poor in civilized society is as yet but faintly drawn in Central Asia. Here unreserved intercourse between their superiors has polished the manners of the lower classes and, instead of this familiarity breeding contempt, it begets self-respect in the dependent.... Indeed, all the inferior classes possess an innate self-respect and a natural gravity of deportment which differs as far from the suppleness of a Hindustani as from the awkward rusticity of an English clown.” These characteristics of the people of Central Asia, which so impressed the gallant explorer of the Oxus, are much more striking in the inhabitants of Anatolia.

Another author writes: “The fine manners of all classes of Mohammedans in Constantinople were a constant source of admiration to me. It was as if the grace and dignity of past times—of Courts of the eighteenth century—had taken refuge in Stamboul. Your Caiquejee, your Cafeje and the very boot-blacks, if they are Mohammedans, know how to be unobtrusively polite and well-bred towards each other, and even towards the Giaour himself, if he treats them civilly. The older fashioned, the more prejudiced, the Turkish gentleman, the finer are his manners, the more gracious and delightful his welcome.” The Sultan and His Subjects, Vol. I, pp. 280, 281 (by Richard Davy, New York, 1897).

[127] “The houses of the great Turkish ladies,” declares that keen observer, Lady Montague, “are kept clean with as much nicety as those in Holland.” Letters, Vol. II, p. 24 (London, 1793).

[128] Destruction of the Greek Empire, p. 524 (London, 1903).

[129] Diary of a Turk, p. 64 (London, 1903).

Writing to the poet, Pope, Lady Montague declares: “I can assure you that the Princesses and great ladies pass their time at their looms embroidering veils and robes, surrounded by their maids, which are always very numerous, in the same manner as we find Andromache and Helen described.” Op. cit., Vol. I, p. 110.

[130] Op. cit., pp. 54, 55, 98, 99.

[131] Letters, Vol. I, p. 104.

[132] The noted traveler and Orientalist, Sir Richard Burton, graphically defines the meaning of the word Kaif, so frequently heard in the Near East as “The savoring of animal existence; the passive enjoyment of mere sense; the pleasant languor, the dreamy tranquillity, the airy castle-building which in Asia stands in lieu of the vigorous, intensive, passionate life of Europe. It is the result of a lively, impressible, excitable nature and exquisite sensibility of nerve—a facility for voluptuousness unknown to northern regions where happiness is placed in the exertion of mental and physical powers; where niggard earth commands ceaseless sweat of brow; and damp, dull air demands perpetual excitement, exercise or change, or adventure, or dissipation for want of something better. In the East man requires but rest and shade; upon the banks of a bubbling stream or under the cool shelter of a perfumed tree he is perfectly happy smoking a pipe, or sipping a cup of coffee, or drinking a glass of sherbert, but, above all things, deranging his body and mind as little as possible; the trouble of conversations, the displeasures of memory and the vanity of thought being the most unpleasant interruptions to his Kaif. No wonder that Kaif is a word untranslatable in our mother-tongue.” Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to El-Medinah and Meccah, pp. 23, 24 (Boston, 1859).

[133] Ferriman, op. cit., p. 334. Professor W. M. Ramsay, than whom no one has a more intimate knowledge of the Osmanlis, writes: “Whenever any work has to be done for which absolute honesty is required, there is always a Turk employed; they are human watchdogs whom everybody employs and trusts.” Impressions of Turkey During Twelve Tears Wanderings, p. 43 (London, 1897).

Dr. Schliemann bears the same testimony to their honesty and trustworthiness in his Troja, pp. 10, 11.

[134] Turquie Agonisante, p. 49 (Paris, 1913).

[135] Les Massacres d’Arménie, pp. 19, 20 (Paris, 1918).

[136] Ansayrii, Vol. II, p. 144 (London, 1851). Cf. Schliemann’s Troja, p. 338.

[137] The Odyssey, XIV, 57, 58.

[138] Don Quixote, Part I, Chap. XL.

[139] Cf. Pierre Loti in Turquie Agonisante, p. 49 (Paris, 1913).

[140] A History of Greece from its Conquest by the Romans to the Present Time, Vol. V, p. 161 (Oxford, 1877). Finlay gives the following quotation from the Turco-Græcia, p. 487, of Crusius who writes as vigorously in favor of the Osmanlis as Knolles or Pierre Loti.

“Et mirum est inter barbaros in tanta tantæ urbi colluvie nullas cædes audiri, vim iniustam non ferri, ius cuivis dici. Ideo Constantinopolin Sultanus refugium totius orbis scribit: quod omnes miseri ibi tutissime lateant: quodque omnibus, tam infimis quam summis, tam Christianis quam infidelibus iustitia administretur.” Could the verdict of history be more explicit than in the remarkable statements here quoted?

[141] See also his informing brochure, Les Massacres D’Arménie (Paris, 1918).

[142] In Persia, according to the eminent traveler and Orientalist, Arminius Vambery, “Inferior officials cheat the people, and the latter again avail themselves of every opportunity to cheat the officials. Every one in that country lies, cheats and swindles. Nor is such behavior looked upon as anything immoral or improper; on the contrary, the man, who is straightforward and honest in his dealings is sure to be spoken of contemptuously as a fool or madman.” The Life and Adventures of Arminius Vambery, written by Himself, p. 284 (London, 1914).

How the Persians have degenerated since the days of Cyrus and Darius! Then, according to Herodotus, their sons were carefully instructed from their fifth to their twentieth year in three things alone—to ride, to draw the bow, and to speak the truth—“παιδεύονσι δε τους πᾶιδας, απ πενταετέος αρξάμενοι μέχρι εικοσαέτεος, τρία μουνα, ἱππεύειν καὶ τοξεύειν καὶ άληθίξεσθαι.” I, 136.

[143] It is interesting to note here that in the Treaty of Amity and Commerce which was concluded in 1535 between France and the Sublime Porte one of the articles reads: “It is forbidden to molest the French in matters of their religion which they have full liberty to practice.” This guarantee of religious freedom included the Christians of all other nations—a guarantee with which the Ottoman government has always faithfully complied. Cf. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, Tom. I, p. 171, 173 (by the Vicomte de la Jonquière, Paris, 1914).

[144] Quoted from Turkey and the Ottomans, p. 142, et. seq. (by Lucy M. Garnett, New York, 1911).

[145] Cf. Turkish Memories, p. 128, et passim (by Sidney Whitman). See Through Armenia on Horseback, Chap. VIII (by G. H. Hepworth, New York, 1918), and In the Palaces of the Sultan, pp. 426, 427 (by Anna Bowman Dodd).

[146] Op. cit., p. 108.

[147] Ibid., p. 116.

[148] Op. cit., p. 231.

[149] November 29, 1912.

[150] Le Chemin de Fer de Bagdad, p. 226 (Paris, 1915).

[151] Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition carried on by Order of the British Government during the years 1835, 1836 and 1837, p. 360 (London, 1868).

[152] Ibid., p. viii.

[153] Lord Palmerston, it is interesting to observe in this connection, did not hesitate to declare in Parliament that the construction of the Suez Canal, as planned by De Lesseps, was physically impracticable and that the project was but a trap set for gullible capitalists.

[154] “Ismaili to Koweit Ry.,” National Review, p. 464, May, 1902.

[155] Nineteenth Century, p. 1084, June, 1909.

[156] Ibid., p. 1085.

[157] Nineteenth Century, p. 966 et seq., May, 1914.

[158] June, 1901, p. 629.

[159] June, 1901, p. 629.

[160] Nineteenth Century, p. 961, May, 1914.

[161] Chéradame, op. cit., p. V.

[162] “Le tres distingué M. Eugène Gallos de la Société de Géographie de Paris qui, avec M. Le Général Dolot, ont parconru en 1914 la Syrie et la Mesopotamie peuvent affirmer qu il y avait la-has une seconde France, aimant inlassablement celle qui est en train d’ écrire sa plus belle page dans l’histoire des nations.” Bagdad, Son Chemin de Fer, Son Importance, Son Avenir, p. 25 (by Émile Aublé, Paris, 1917).

[163] The Geographical Journal, p. 33 et seq., July, 1917.

[164] The Fortnightly Review, p. 777, May, 1911.

[165] Speaking in the British Parliament April 8, 1903, Lord E. Fitzmaurice went still further when he declared: “Bound up with the future of this (Bagdad) Railway there is probably the future political control of large regions in Asia Minor, Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf.”

[166] The Fortnightly Review, p. 216, February, 1914.

[167] “Les Gouvernment français et anglais refuserent formellment leur approbation et leur appui et conseillerent a leur nationaux de s’en abstenir.” E. Aublé, op. cit., p. 15.

[168] The Nineteenth Century, p. 1090 et seq., June, 1909.

It is gratifying to know that this anti-German feeling was not shared by Sir Clinton and his associates and by clear-visioned men like Sir Edwin Pears who did not hesitate to declare: “The Germans, in inviting British coöperation from the first, have acted fairly and loyally.” The Contemporary Review, p. 589, November, 1908.

[169] M. Aublé, op. cit., p. 16, referring to this matter, writes: “Si en elle—même l’enterprise du Chemin de Fer de Bagdad est resté telle qu’elle s’est presentée au début, une œuvre allemande, c’est parce qu’on n’a pas voulu profiter des offres allemandes pour lui donner un caractère international.”

[170] The Nineteenth Century, p. 1312, June, 1914.

[171] Ibid., p. 1313. After all negotiations looking towards internationalization of the Bagdad Railway had failed, M. Geraud, who is evidently a monarchist, wrote: “We cannot help regretting that the two powers who held the protectorate of the Orient—France her old religious protectorate, and England the protectorate of Anatolia sanctioned by the Cyprus Convention—should, in the space of one generation, have laid down such beneficent weapons.... In order that so much destruction could be consummated, all that was responsible in England and France was the rule of democracy.”

[172] Cf. his interesting brochure, Les Chemins de Fer in Turquie d’Asie (Zurich, 1902).

[173] Revue de Géographie, p. 398, May, 1902.

[174] According to Herodotus it was a three months’ journey from Ephesus to Susa—a somewhat greater distance than from Constantinople to Bagdad.

[175] Süddeutsche Monatshefte, September, 1915. Cf. The Quarterly Review, p. 149, January, 1917.

[176] Der Kampf um die Dardanellen (Stuttgart, 1916).

[177] The Quarterly Review, p. 528, October, 1917.

[178] For an interesting article on this subject, see “Plato in the Folk-lore of the Konia Plain,” by F. W. Hasluck, in the Annual of the British School of Athens, No. XVIII.

[179] Called Rum—Rome—because it was, before its conquest by the Seljuks, a portion of the Roman-Byzantine Empire.

[180] See Turkey in Europe, p. 185 (by C. Eliot, London, 1908).

[181] In the Koran, Sura V., it is written, “O believers! surely wine and games of chance and statues, and divining arrows are an abomination of Satan’s work! Avoid them that ye may prosper.”

[182] Cf. Mishcat-Ul-Masabih, or a Collection of the Most Authentic Traditions Regarding the Actions and Sayings of Mohammed, Vol. II, pp. 368–370 (trans. from the Original Arabic by Capt. A. N. Mathews, Calcutta, 1809). “The Angel Gabriel did not visit Mohammed as he promised to do one night because of the presence of a puppy, saying to Mohammed ‘we angels do not go into a house in which are pictures or dogs.’” Vol. II, p. 368.