BOOKS.
THE AWAKENING OF TURKEY.* Ma. KNIGHT'S book (apparently named after the Turkish patriotic play) contains, we believe, the most detailed account of the Turkish Revolution which has been printed in English. It, onfirms in all important respects what we have already been told of the genesis of the revolution by Mr. C. R. Buxton, and notably by the Times. But it contains some new material, such as the diary of Niazi Bey .after he had declared the revolution and taken to the hills at Roma; and it differs essentially from some of the Times telegrams in its testimony as to the later character of the Committee of Union and Progress. Mr. Knight declares that if any of the "old guard" have found their way into the Committee, they have bad no perceptible influence in a reactionary sense. On the other hand, he roundly .accuses the Liberal Union, which professes to be more Liberal than the Liberals, of being a reactionary body in disguise, of being heavily financed by Greek malcontents, and of having actually manipulated the counter-revolution. If these charges be true, we must confess that we understand and sympathise with what has sometimes * Tito Awakening of Turkey a History of the Turkish B000tution. By E. Y. Knight. Illustrated. London; John Milne. [10s. 6d, net.] seemed to be the rather exclusive and autocratic policy of the Committee of Union and Progress. There does not appear to be a place indefinitely for a secret body like the Committee, depending on military force for its authority, inside a Con- stitutional system ; but if there are such insidious attacks as Mr. Knight describes being made on the Constitution by professed Liberals as well as by professed reactionaries, it may be absolutely necessary for the Committee as such to survive for some time in order to preserve what it created. Those on the spot must be the best judges, and we fully acknowledge that the extraordinarily skilful investment of Constantinople and the checking of the counter-revolution by the Committee make us less ready than ever to question the wisdom of its continuing to hold the substance of power.
Mr. Knight, as is proved by the use he has been able to make of Nines diary, is in close touch with the Young Turks, who since the revolution have kept him continually informed of their plans. Enver Bey in sending his photograph to Mr. Knight described himself as "the individual who glories that he belongs to that Ottoman army which is the
true defence of the freed Ottoman Empire against its foes external and internal." These words were written before the counter-revolution, but the epithet "internal" seems signifi- cant indeed when one reflects not only on the counter- revolution itself, but on the part Enver played in it. Tlie chief fault we have to find with Mr. Knight is that recent events have not made him as tolerant towards his countrymen who used to be strongly anti-Turkish as the Young Turks are tolerant to men of every creed in their own country. He writes throughout as though the Balkan Committee, for
instance, were quite blind and ignorant, and as though all auti-Turkieh " humanitarians" in Britain bad recently become
aware for the first time that there are good qualities in the. Turks. We cannot imagine that any one who knew Turkey even at second hand was ignorant that a great number of Turks, particularly Turkish peasants, are honest, quiet, hospitable people. But when we talk of Turkey and her influence in Europe in the past we cannot, for practical reasons, be always distinguishing between the true Turks on the one hand, and Kurds, Lazes, Albanians, Circassians, Bashi-Bazouks, or Arabs on the other. All these form a very considerable, part of the Turkish Empire, and when they were employed by the Sultan as the instruments of oppression and massacre, it helped Europe not at all, least of all the victims, to say "Ah I but the fiends and fanatics who Lave committed these atrocities are not true Turks." Mr. Knight writes:— " Our humanitarian agitators had a complete misapkwehension of the aim of the movement, and were apparently convinced that no good thing could come from the modern Turks. But the Young Turks all the while knew what they were about, what they wanted, and how to set to work to get it; and the organisation that for years was preparing the revolution, worked so secretly as to conceal the importance of the movement from the Palace spies themselves."
Although we have no sympathy with what is called " humanitarianism," we are provoked by Mr. Knight's words
to ask whether any one outside Turkey, or inside Turkey for the matter of that, unless he was a Young Turk, had an inkling of what the revolution meant in its first days P Mr. Knight himself admits elsewhere that every one was taken by surprise.
Mr. Knight touches a very important point in discussing the religious character of the Young Turks. It is often said that the men who have studied Constitutional government in Paris, Geneva, and London cannot possibly be devout Mohammedans in the old narrow spirit, which made a primary virtue of intolerance. But if this is so, can the Constitution be ultimately accepted by a population which clings to old- fashioned Mohammedanism in the manner of the old Mullah at Mosul, who, when he heard that a Constitution was pro- claimed, cried " Then Islam is abandoned 1 " Mr. Knight says :- "The Young Turks have made it clear that theirs is not an irreligious movement, and that Moslem fanatics cannot with justice amuse them of holding the rationalistic views of the French revolutionaries, and of being bad Mussulmans. Writers have described this as a party of agnostics. This is an incorrect statement, and were it believed by the Turkish people the Con- stitution would have but a short life. There are, of course, some Young Turks who, during their exile in Paris and other European cities, have acquired rationalistic views; but the great bulk of them are faithful Moslems. We have at times had agnostics in our own Parliament, but it would not be fair on that account to dub England a nation of unbelievers. The Young Turkish move- ment, indeed, far from being irreligious, is tempered with the faith of Islam ; but, as a French writer recently put it, with these reformers Islamism is a motive and not an eud."
That must be accepted on Mr. Knight's authority as a satis- factory answer, so far as it goes, to a common doubt. But there are always the Arabs to be reckoned with ; they have a vast power for every kind of riot within the Empire, and it will not be disputed that their faith is bigoted. The settlement of Turkey in Europe, and even of Asia Minor, will leave the new Government with a multitude of difficulties which will require to be adjusted before it can be said that the Turkish Empire lives happily under a Constitution. We have seen so much that is wonderful lately that we are prepared to believe that possibly there will be no more religious fanaticism in Europe itself. Since the Sheikh-ul- Islam has declared that reform is in accordance with the Sacred Law, there is no reason why humbler members among the faithful should dispute it. We are much interested to
learn that the theological arguments which convinced the Sheikli-ul-Islam (who has been compared to a Lord Chancellor by Mr. Buxton) were drawn up by Ameer Ali, the well-known ca-Judge of the High Court in India, who has so ably represented the Mohammedan arguments against Lord Morley's reforms. We must quote Mr. Knight's description of the initiation of a new member of the Committee of Union and Progress :— " A member of the Society whom we will call A. would approach his friend and, perhaps, brother Mason, B, whom he knew to be a righteous and patriotic man, to whom the methods of the Despotism must necessarily be detestable, and carefully sound him. Having satisfied himself that his friend was inspired by a true zeal, and was prepared to make great sacrifices for his Country's salvation, A would say to B, have a secret, a great Mystery, which I should like to confide to you. Will you swear never to divulge what I am about to say to any one ?' On B taking the required oath, A would explain to him that there existed a powerful secret society of which he himself was a Member, whose aim was the destruction of the existing system of government, and would then ask whether as a patriot he would li,ke to join the brotherhood, warning him at the same time of the serious step he was about to take and of the great dangers which lie would have to face. On B's replying in time affirmative, A. would leave him, and a few days later two messengers would come to B and call upon him in the name of his friend A. to follow them. The messengers would lead B to a lonely place, there blindfold him, and then take him to some retired house or recess in the forest which had been selected as the place of his initiation, Hero he would be ordered to stand, the bandage still across his eyes, while lie was addressed by two or more eloquent speakers, who would draw a vivid picture of the evils of the tyranny, of the certain destruction of the Ottoman Empire to *which ill government was leading, of the great suffering which the Palace espionage had inflicted on so many of their friends and relations, and would show in burning words that it was the duty of every good Ottoman to do his utmost by all possible methods to assist in the liberation of Turkey. Turks often Possess great oratorical powers, and I am assured that in nearly every instance the candidate would be moved to tears by theso impressive exhortations The bandage would then be removed from his eyes and he would find himself in the presence of five masked men wearing long cloaks. One of these would again address the initiate. First, he would explain to him that Precautions to secure secrecy and to make treason difficult were Indispensable to the very existence of the Society, for the spies of the Palace were ever around it, while it was possible that some ',Tere even within its circle that therefore it was expedient that um initiates should be as little known for p other as possible ; and that it was on this account that those who now addressed him were masked, and, moreover, persons whom he had never i Previously mot, so that it might be impossible for him to identify them by their voices. The speaker would then proceed to explain to the initiate his duties and obligations For some weeks or months after this initiation B would undergo a term of probe- 'tea ; orders would come to him by secret channels and he would ?°09 them, but he would see no member of the Society. His Introducer, A, was responsible for his fidelity, and should B so act as to be condemned to death by the Society, it would bo the band of his friend A which would have to slay him. At last, B having proved bimaelf worthy, the messengers would again summon him to a meeting of the secret Committee, and after a ceremony somewhat similar to the first, he would bo affiliated to one of the companies into which the Society was divided." The reader must turn to the book itself for the engrossing narrative of Niazi's experiences and adventures after lie had
ad to the hills. His daring and resource and his romantic neuest of all hearts in the villages might well become a legend which will live long after the Turkish Revolution has ceased to be one of the wonders of the world.
We notice a few mistakes in the book. On p. 127 Mr. Halil Halid's name is spelt wrong, and on p. 83 the "Liberal Union" is spoken of as advocating centralisation. The truth, of course, is exactly the reverse. Mr. Knight, as a matter of fact, states that truth with precision on p. 317. But in spite of a certain provocative tone which we think unnecessary in the circumstances—for are we not all friends of Turkey now?— Mr. Knight's book is to be heartily recommended as a piece of clear and informing narrative worthy of his reputation.
Previous page
