COUNT MOLTKE'S LETTERS ON TURKEY.* WI1EN Sultan Mahmoud, after the
slaughter of the Janissaries, tried to reorganise his army, he turned, in 1835, to Berlin, and
Briqfe Nun. Asian* und Begebenheilen in der Tdrkei nue den Juhren 1835 Ida 1830. Von Helmuth von Moltke. Bride Aullage. Berlin : Ernst Siegfried Mittler %Ina Sohn. 1877.
the Seraskier was instructed to ask the Prussian ambassador, Count Konigsmark, whether it would be possible to obtain permission from King Frederic William III. for some of his officers to give their services to the Seraskiate. Konigsmark, who was entirely under the influence of Butenieff, answered that he was sure there would be very considerable difficulty ; and the matter would in all probability have ended there, were it not that in the last days of November, 1835, two Prussian, staff officers, Major von Berg and Captain Helmuth von Moltke,. arrived at Constantinople. They intended to stop in Turkey for a few weeks, and then to return home by Athens and Naples ; but early in December, Moltke made the acquaintance of Chosrevr Pasha, the Seraskier, and soon after was presented to the Sultan, who made a personal request to Frederic William to prolong the leave
of absence of the Prussian officers. The request was granted. Moltke- remained from December, 1835, to October, 1839, in the service of the Porte ; and one of the results of his stay in the East was the book now before us, first published anonymously in.1841, but of which a new edition, with the author's name, hats recently appeared. Count Moltke, as an author, has not obtained in England all the attention which he deserves. The ludicrous mistakes made by English journalists, and oven military writers and politicians, in' regard to his best-known work, that on the war in 1828-29, prove. the meagre knowledge which exists in England of one of tho. most remarkable figures of the century. The other books of Count Moltke are hardly known at all. Yet there is not one oft them which is not worth careful perusal, and which ought to be read by every one who wishes to follow some important and interesting by-currents of Continental thought. His letters on, Russia show considerable acquaintance with the social and politi- cal history of that empire ; and his book on Poland, published in 1832, is a most admirable and succinct statement of the con- current economical, moral, theological, and political internal,' causes which, in conjunction with foreign intrigue, ulti- mately led to the destruction of Polish independence. Hill, book on Turkey is composed of sixty-eight letters, written to friends between the years 1835-39, and contains remarks upon almost every subject connected with the country. The daily life of Armenian families, the administration, the method of taxation and general political position of the Ottoman. Empire forty years ago, the glory of spring on the Bosphorus,. the splendid sites of Brousa and Amasia, the magnificent land- scapes of Asiatic Turkey, the excellence of the Turkish soldier,. the incapacity of Turkish officers, the campaign against Ibrahira, Pasha, the battle of Nissib in 1839, and above all, the great quali- ties and difficulties of Sultan Mahmoud, are described in that clear and simple style which characterise the writings of so many famous soldiers. Although there is not one of these letters which, has not a peculiar interest of its own, those eight are the most valuable which were written between May 2 and June 6, 1837, in which Moltke gives an account of his tour in Bulgaria with Sultan.. Mahmoud, to which must be added another letter, written two years later, in which he pronounces an elaborate judgment on the character and policy of that remarkable sovereign. Moltke- takes great pains to prove that the Sultan was not only perfectly sincere in his efforts at reform, but was also quite clear as to the means to be employed, and thoroughly understood that the okb theocratic notions of government must be definitely aban- doned, and complete religious equality established between Mussulmans and those who disbelieved in the mission of the Prophet. He explained his views very succinctly in a little speech which he made one evening to the notables. of Schumla, and which certainly was not meant to impose. upon Europe, because never intended to be known beyond the circle to which it was addressed. He insisted on that occasion on, the absolute necessity of reforms, and declared his determination, to make them a reality, not only in the capital, but throughout the length and breadth of his dominions, and then in conclusion) made use of these remarkable words,--" Greeks, Armenians, Jews, you are all servants of God, and my subjects as much as the Moslems. You differ in your faith, but the law must protect you all equally." (p. 130.) Early in 1838, Moltke went off to the wars in Asia, and when he came back to the capital,. after the disaster of Nissib, he found that Sultan Mahmoud was dead, and with his death Moltke's interest in the Ottoman Empire ceased, and he determined to return home. Before leaving Con- stantinople he visited the tomb of the Sultan, to whom he was dently much attached, and on the same day, September 1, 1839, wrote the most elaborate and valuable of these letters, in which he reviewed the whole career and policy of Mahmoud.
He begins by instituting a comparison between the Sultan and Peter the Great, enumerating the difficulties which they both had to encounter, and pointing out how much greater those were which Mahmoud had to overcome. Neither in Russia nor in Turkey did the desire for reform exist in the mass of the population, and in both countries European civilisation had to be imposed from above. In each case the people were intensely conservative, and clung with affection to their Asiatic habits and form of govern- ment, and it was the Sovereigns who saw the necessity of change, and who were determined to improve the mechanism of the State, in spite of the opposition of their subjects. But the duty of the Czar was to direct the youthful energies of a growing nation, while the Sultan propcsed to himself the impossible task of infusing a new soul into a dying empire. Just as different was the manner in which the two princes were prepared for their work. Peter was not prohibited, either by the laws, or customs, or prejudices of his people from visiting
Europe and studying its civilisation. He accordingly left his country, went forth to observe for himself the political and social mechanism of the enlightened nations of the West, and during his travels made himself remarkable for his sound sense
and restless activity. He studied naval architecture in Holland, visited the ancient Universities of England, and the principal capitals of Europe, laying aside for a time the privileges of rank, in order to come into more intimate contact with men, and observe more closely human character and the springs of human action. Very different was the preparation of Mahmoud for the task of government. His youth was spent in almost com- plete seclusion in the Seraglio at Constantinople. His great in- telligence enabled him to derive a surprising amount of profit from the intercourse with his cousin &lin; during the year that elapsed between the deposition and murder of that Sovereign, but he was then twenty-two years of age, and up to that time his educa- tion, directed by persons utterly incompetent, had been confined to a study of the Arabian and Persian languages. Count Moltke, who knew him so intimately, says that Mahmoud did not know a syllable of English, French, or German, that he therefore could get but little knowledge from books of the politics and history of Western Europe, and at the moment he was called upon to govern the Ottoman Empire, he had never seen a foot even of it beyond the pleasure-grounds on the Bosphorus. During his whole life he had to contend with these deficiencies of education, with all kinds of foreign intrigue and domestic treason, and never had a single enlightened man to stand by his aide and help in his reforms. (p. 411.)
Reschid Pasha, the reformer, was only just coming to the front, as Mahmoud was passing from the scene, and throughout his whole reign the Sultan was almost entirely dependent upon persons, like Pertew Effendi, who were opposed to his domestic policy, or like Chosrew Pasha, who for the sake of personal ad- vantage pretended to be convinced of its wisdom and necessity. On the very first day on which Moltke saw Chosrew, the shrewd soldier wrote that he could not help thinking that the Seraskier considered Mahmoud's reforming policy as a good joke (p. 30) ; and when a year later the Prussian officer went to pay him a visit, when he was out of office and in retirement, the ex-minister did not oven try to conceal his preference for the old institutions and customs of his people. (p. 100.) There were few men who did more mischief to the Ottoman Empire or followed a more dishonest and disastrous policy than Chosrew Pasha ; it is, therefore, pleasant to learn from Moltke that he was amiable and attractive in private life, and that he possessed many noble and some great qualities. It must, however, be conceded that with such Ministers it was quite impossible for Mahmoud to prosper at all in his task ; but on the other hand, the Sultan's ignorance of human character was the reason why he chose them, and was also the cause of his quarrel with Mehemed Ali, the one man in the East with whom he should have kept on good terms. It is generally assumed, particularly in England, that Meheined Ali was a mere instrument in the hands of Russia; and Warm, in his admirable Diplotnatische Geseldehte der Orientalist:hen Frage (pp. 324.333), shows how skilfully the Government of the Czar made use of him to weaken the unity of the Ottoman Empire, and to create discord between England and France. But Count Prokesch-Osten, in a valuable posthumous work which has just appeared (Meltemed AU, Vize-Konify von Aegypien), has proved that the success of the Cabinet of St. Petersburg was entirely ?wing to the ignorance of European statesmen, and to the narrow jealousies of those who enjoyed the confidence of the Sultan ; and successfully contends that if Mahmoud had not been imposed upon by Chosrew Pasha, tricked by Russia, and badly counselled by
Europe, he could have easily secured for the cause of Ottoman reform the invaluable services of Meherned Ali.
But in addition to the or hypocritical and feigned satie- faction with which the Ministers of the Sultan regarded his
policy, the astounding ignorance of most persons belonging to the official class in Turkey would have rendered them incapable of efficiently promoting the views of their sovereign. Rosen, in his Geschichte der Thrive (Vol. I., p. 60), publishes a document which proves that in the year 1828 Pertew Effendi did not know that Poland had been partitioned, or that the Republic of Venicei which had played so important a part in the politics of the Levant,. had ceased to exist. Count Moltke tells us that when he was in Turkey, hardly any one spoke a European language except a few renegades, and that even high officials had to have the letters. which they received in their own language read out to them. He says that he knew a person of considerable position and of more. than average ability who was a fanatical believer in prophecies, rejected the notion that the earth was round, and it was only after a long dispute that the Prussian officers got him to concede that it was not as flat as a plate. (p. 411.) In the same letter, Moltke describes a General officer who was so proud and delighted at having recently learnt the art of signing his name, that he was continually painting it on bits of papers with a reed pen. In order to make head against this mass of ignorance, Mahmoucl established military, naval, and engineering schools, with Italian, German, and French professors, and also had a number of young men sent to Europe to be educated. But owing to the deeply-- rooted prejudice of the Turks against foreign teaching, it was un- avoidable that an unusually long time should elapse before the public service could feel the effects of this policy, and when the time arrived when trained and able statesmen like Reschid Pasha,. Aali Pasha, and Fund Pasha, began to appear and acquire influence, Sultan Mahmoud was dead, and of his sons who succeeded him, neither the well-meaning but feeble Abdul Medjid nor the re- actionary and capricious Abdul Aziz keew how to profit by them.
It is, however, improbable that even a sovereign of the stamp, of Frederic the Great could have carried out a comprehensive. scheme of reform in Turkey, unless he was assisted by some at least of the European Powers. No one acquainted with Turkish politics from the commencement of the reign of Scrimp III. down to this moment can arrive at any other conclusion. This was the dying conviction of Sultan Mahmoud, and Count Moltke was so persuaded of its truth, and at the same time so fully aware of the difficulties in the way of a European under-
standing in Eastern affairs, that he left Constantinople evidently despairing of the future of the Empire. Seventeen years after- wards, however, it seemed as if three of the Powers had been able to come to an agreement, and Count Prokesch-Osten, Lord Stratford de Itedeliffe, and M. Thouvenel, the representatives.
in Turkey of Austria, England, and France, took an active part in the preparation of a solemn document, which has been called the Magna Charta of the Ottoman Empire, but which was simply a ratification and development of the policy inaugurated by Sclim and adopted by Mahmoud. No one acquainted with what took place at Constantinople during the months of January and February, 1856, can possibly deny that these three Powers assumed at that time a responsibility not only to the Christian and Mahommedan populations of Turkey, but to the whole of Europe, for the effectual carrying-out of the pro- visions contained in the Hattihouinayoun of that year. From the time, however, that Count Prokesch-Osten left Constantinople,. these three Powers have systematically ignored obligations which, every consideration of honour, morality, and political interest should have warned them not to neglect. The result has been that by a concatenation of circumstances, discreditable to every party concerned, the end of a policy always all but hopeless, has. come suddenly and violently upon us.
Previous page
