Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T16:45:34.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Protestantism and British Diplomacy in Syria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Caesar E. Farah
Caesar E. Farah
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The first twelve months following the arrival of the American Protestant missionaries to the shores of Syria, the eastern Mediterranean haven of religious dissidence, constituted the “bright spring time of the mission” as one observer put it. Soon thereafter in 1824 the ecclesiastical authorities of the Maronites, “Romanists”, and Uniat Meichites awoke to the danger threatening them and began to resent their presence. The reason for the short honeymoon is not difficult to perceive: when the missionaries took stock of the situation it soon dawned upon them that they could function in one of two ways, “either silently in the bosom of native churches to revive religion or attempt a reformation of rites and ceremonies”. They chose the second course, and the end result was both hostility to their activities and a feeble Protestant community at best, unable to survive without outside protection and support.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , July 1976 , pp. 321 - 344
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Richter, Julius, A History of Missions in the Near East (Edinburgh and London, 1910), p. 587.Google Scholar

2 Tibawi, A. L., American Interests in Syria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), p. 99.Google Scholar

3 Richter, A History of Missions in the Near East, p. 188.Google Scholar

4 Ibid., p. 189.

5 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Archives, Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (hereafter cited as ABC-FM), 16:8.I; vol. 118, Syria, I (1838–1844), communiqué of July 4, 1839, from Salisbury Square to the Church Mission Society entitled “Religious Toleration in the Turkish Empire”, no. 124.Google Scholar

6 Ibid. While this important document, received in Boston August 22, 1839, bears no official signature, the person with twelve years residence then is Eli Smith; the handwriting and style of expression is his.

7 Public Records Office, Foreign Office, London, Correspondences (hereafter cited as FO). Rose to Palmerston, 22 May 1841, no. 39 in FO 195/187.Google Scholar

8 Letter of 3 R 1252/18 July 1836 to Sarίf Pasa, Egyptian Arab Republic National Historical Archives (‘Abdîn Palace), no. 364, Defter 212, p. 77.Google Scholar

9 See letters of 2 July and 20 October 1841 to the Mission in Syria, ABC-FM, Series ABC:2.1.1, Vol. IV.Google Scholar

10 Pato kept a careful record of the events in the work he wrote anonymously under the title, The Modern Syrians (London: Longman & Longmans, 1844).Google Scholar

11 Smith to Anderson, Beirut, 7 October 1841, no. 141 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

12 Chasseaud was a Levantine, nephew of Peter Abott, then English consul and a good friend of the missionaries whose family had backed their activities for two decades. He was officially appointed consul for Syria with residence at Beirut in 1836 and served in that capacity until 1849. He had tried to obtain the post as early as 1830 when he applied directly to the Secretary of State for it, on September 24 to be exact, but with no initial success. Ibrahim Pasşa recognized him as consul for Syria in 1831, and he served unofficially until 1836.Google Scholar See Rustum, A., al-Usşūl al-'Arabīyah li-Ta'rīh Sūrīyah fī 'Ahd Muhammad 'Alî (Materials for a Corpus of Arabic Documents Relating to the History of Syria under Mehmet Ali Pasha), Vol. II (05 31, 1832, to April 29, 1835) (Beirut: American Press, 1934) (hereafter cited as Rustum, Usşūl), pp. 97–98.Google Scholar

13 U.S. National Archives, Department of State, Record Group 59, Constantinople Legation, Vol. II, dispatch of 12 January 1832; also Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, p. 88 n.2.Google Scholar

14 ABC-FM, 16:8.I, no. 206.Google Scholar

15 Ibid. See also Smith, Thomson, et al. to Porter, 20 July 1841, and Chasseaud to Porter, 1 August 1841, in U.S. National Archives, M46–II.

16 Dispatch to Porter from the Secretary of State, 16 July 1842, no. 125 in Department of State, Record Group 59, Constantinople Legation.Google Scholar

17 Dated August 2, 1841. no. 63 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

18 The Missionary Herald, Vol. 33 (1837), pp. 299, 397 and 445; and Tibawi, American Interests in Syria, p. 79.Google Scholar

19 Palmerston to Rose, Foreign Office, 15 July 1841, FO 195/187.Google Scholar

20 Rose to Palmerston, Ghazīr [Mount Lebanon], 7 September 1841, no. 86 in FO 78/456.Google Scholar

21 Palmerston to Rose of July 15.Google Scholar

22 Rose to Palmerston of September 7.Google Scholar

23 See Rose's dispatch to Palmerston of 22 June 1841, no. 57 in FO 195/187.Google Scholar

24 Palmerston to Rose. Foreign Office, 9 August 1841, FO 195/187.Google Scholar

25 See his communication to Rose of 26 July 1841, FO 195/187.Google Scholar

26 Nicolayson was a member of the London Jewish Mission who with another member of the same had settled at Antuf [sic] north of Beirut in 1822, but did not remain long there. See Richter, History of Missions in the Near East, p. 186.Google Scholar

27 Thomson to Anderson, Secretary of the Board, Beirut, 8 September 1841, no. 212 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

28 Details in my forthcoming work, “The Lebanon in the Eastern Question”. Wood's recommendations went out on September 19, 1841. See also Anderson to the mission, Boston, 14 February 1842 in ABC-FM, Series ABC: 2.1.1, Vol. V.Google Scholar

29 One of the military officers under Rose's command in Syria.Google Scholar

30 See paper entitled The Druses, by Smith, Eli, no. 206 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

31 W. M. Thomson to Anderson, Beirut, 24 June 1841, ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

32 Ibid.

33 Moore to Viscount Palmerston, Beirut, 2 July 1841, no. 37 in FO 195/187.Google Scholar

34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.

36 Eli Smith to Rufus Anderson, Deir el-Kamar [Dayr al-Qamar], 28 August 1841, no. 140 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I. For documents supporting Wood's Ottoman ties see his dispatch to Palmerston, Ghazir, 6 September 1841, no. 84 in FO 78/456; also Wood to Rifaat, Pera, I July 1841, Kutu 696 in Hariciye Arsşaivi (Istanbul, Turkey); also Ponsonby to Wood of 8 August 1841, no. 211 in The Early Correspondence of Richard Wood, 1830–40 (Royal Historical Society [London], 1966) by Allan B. Cunningham, pp. 269270. Also the Sadrazam's communiqué to the vāli of Damascus (Necip Pasa), Let I in Basbakanlik Arsivi, Irādeler–Hariciye 526.Google Scholar

37 Wood went to Istanbul, ostensibly to vacation, but in reality to secure a berat through Foreign Minister Rifaat empowering him to break the deadlock created by the recalcitrant patriarch concerning the matter of future taxation in the Mountain. Indeed, in his report to Rifaat Pasa of I July 1841 Wood accused the French consular agents in Syria of spreading fasat (sedition). Kutu 696 in Hariciye Arsivi.Google Scholar

38 Smith to Anderson of 28 August 1841.Google Scholar

39 Supra, p. 324.Google Scholar

40 Supra, p. 326.Google Scholar

41 Report by Porter, David of 28 October 1841 in Kutu 696 of Hariciye Arsivi.Google Scholar

42 Smith to Anderson, Beirut, 7 October 1841, no. 141 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

43 Archive du Ministére des Affaires Étrangéres (Paris), Correspondence Consulaire, Beyrouth, Vol. 3, fol. 202, report dated I January 1841 (unsigned).Google Scholar

44 Most of the funds came from Jesuit sources, namely Society headquarters at Lyons. Cf. infra, p. 334.Google Scholar

45 Bourée to Guizot, Beirut, 8 September 1841, Direction Commercial et du Contentieux, no. 7 in Correspondence Consulaire, Beyrouth, 3, fols. 202–05.Google Scholar

46 Dispatch to Palmerston, Beirut, 22 March 1841. FO 195/187.Google Scholar

47 Smith to Anderson, 28 August 1841, no. 140 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

48 Extract of a letter from Smith to Anderson, Beirut, 7 January 1842, no. 148 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

49 The French government was likewise accused of a biased attitude, favoring the Lazarists, and because of that, of opposing the proposed Jesuit school at Beirut. Foreign Minister Guizot informed his ambassador in Rome that the intention of the French government “has been abused”, and whose disposition toward the Lazarists was not due to the pressures they mustered in Paris, but rather was in the “best interest of the faith (Catholicism) and its prosperity in Syria” (French Ambassador de Latour-Maubourg to Cardinal Fransoni of the Propaganda Fide, 21 January 1842, in Scritture Riferite, Vol. 14 [Siri]).Google Scholar

50 Moore's assessment of the situation several years later in a communiqué to Consul-General (formally since the summer of 1842) Rose of 4 December 1844, no. 7 in FO 226/18.Google Scholar

51 Entitled “Conditions of Peace” and signed by both ‘Awn and Ryllo who agreed: (I) Jesuits would not interfere in the bishop's spiritual administration of his Maronite flock in Beirut, (2) nor minister to their spiritual need, but rather (3) counsel Maronites to go to their own churches, particularly on feast days, and heed both the counsels and decrees of their own priests, and (4) if in emergencies Maronites insist on attending mass at the Jesuit establishment, then a representative of the Maronite church is to take up the collection, which was to go to his own church. For full text of the agreement dated I May 1841 see Jesuit Archives (Rome), Syria, 2, VI, 1–17.Google Scholar

52 Planchet to Roothan (no. I), Beirut, 15 January 1842 in Jesuit Archives, Syria, 2, VI, 3.Google Scholar

53 Basily was as determined to circumscribe Jesuit as he was Protestant activities since he had no illusion about the Orthodox falling target to their proselytism in the long run. Father Obrompaiski, like Ryllo, was of the Polish Jesuits chased out of Poland owing to czarist policies. Thus both were doubly unpleasing to the ex-Phanariot Greek turned Russian and now serving as the czar's consul general in Syria. Basily relentlessly pressured Selim Pasa to put down the Jesuit establishment altogether, both in Bikfayya, where they were headquartered upon their return, and in Beirut. Though it was the pope who received credit for Ryllo's departure, Basily did prevail on Mutafa when he arrived on his mission to Syria to issue an order for the Jesuits to stop building their establishment in Beirut. The bell of their church stopped ringing by decree from the serasker, but the ‘fathers dusted off a seventy-year-old firman authorizing the order to build schools. Intelligence from Obrompalski relayed by Rose to Canning, Beirut, 17 April 1842, no. 29 in FO 195/194.Google Scholar

54 Letter dated Beirut, 26 September 1841 in FO 226/24; see also Planchet to Roothan, Smyrne, 9 August 1840, in which Ryllo was accused of mishandling the issue of the college, in Jesuit Archives, Syria, 2, I, 28.Google Scholar

55 Extract from La Revue Nouvelle du Raisons du 13 et du 15 Mai (Paris: Plons Freres, 1846), in Turquie, Mémoires et Documents, Ministére des Affaires Étrangéres (Paris), Politique Extérieure (Affaires de Syrie, 1841–1845).Google Scholar

56 Planchet to Roothan, Beirut, 15 January 1842, no. 3 in Syria, 2, VI, 4.Google Scholar

57 Eugene Bourèe to Riccadonna, Apostolic Nuncio in Syria, Paris, 26 November 1842, in Syria, 2, IV, 5.Google Scholar

58 Such were the reflections of Thomson a year after the events; see his dispatch to Anderson, 'Aytāt, 5 October 1842, No. 220 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

59 The details of this complex development are treated in my forthcoming work entitled “The Lebanon in the Eastern Question” (manuscript, Chapter III).Google Scholar

60 See letter by the Greek Catholic bishop of Zahlah “to the inhabitants” (his communicants in the surrounding hamlets), n.d., included in Smith to Anderson, Beirut, 4 December 1841, no. 146 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

61 Letter to Anderson of 28 April 1842, no. 231 (Journal of Thomson [thought to be dated 28 November 1842]) in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

62 Jessup, Henry H., Fifty-Three Years in Syria (London: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1910), p. 352.Google Scholar

63 See Richter, A History of Missions in the Near East, pp. 237–242, for details.Google Scholar

64 Lopez de Cordoba to the 1er Secretario, Constantinople, 16 March 1842, no. 939 in Correspondencia y Legaciones: Turquia, 1771 (1841–1849), Archivo del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores (Madrid).Google Scholar

65 Boston, 16 December 1844, ABC-FM, Series ABC: 2:I.I, Vol. VII.Google Scholar

66 Rose to Bankhead, chargé of embassy in Istanbul, Jerusalem, 27 January 1842, no. 5 in FO 195/194.Google Scholar

67 The report was based on intelligence submitted by Captain Ommaney of “H.M. Versuvius” [sic] who derived it in turn from Johns, M., “proconsul at Jerusalem”. Rose to Bankhead, Beirut, 16 January 1842, no. 37 in FO 194/187.Google Scholar

68 By order of the serasker, Ömer Pasa was appointed ruler of the Mountain, the first Ottoman ever to assume this post, in spite of strong resistance from the clerical party; Greek Uniats and Greek Antiochans were feuding over the right of the former to wear “the cap” which had hitherto distinguished the Greek clergy from the rest, with the Antiochans insisting the Uniats forfeited such right when they broke off and joined Rome. Basily, the Russian consul, strongly endorsed their stance, as did Ottoman officials, while the Uniats with the backing of the French consul were resisting the decree forbidding them to do so; the deposed grand emir, Basίr III, was being shipped off to Istanbul in a state of humiliation to the anger of his protectors, the British consuls. See Rose to Bankhead of 27 January 1842.Google Scholar

69 Copy of the undated proclamation, signed by “secretary of the head of clergy” found itself into papal archives. See no. 465 in Scritture Riferite nei Congressi, Vol. 14 (Siri).Google Scholar

70 See letter from De Méloizes to Thiers, President of the Council of Ministers, 1 December 1840 in Direction Commercial et du Contentieux, no. 34 Étrangére, Correspondence Cornmerciale, Beyrouth, 3.Google Scholar

71 Hariciye Arsivi, Hariciye Irâ;deler 462 of 24 S 1257/19 April 1841; see also Let 5 for the basis of the original report: an article in the Frankfort Gazette by “an inhabitant of Palestine” who was then in Europe to raise money for the scheme.Google Scholar

72 Father John told Rose about the meeting. Rose to Canning, Beirut, 17 April 1842, no. 29 in FO 195/194.Google Scholar

73 In a coded message to the ministry Mustafa writes, “as concerns the Protestant bishop from England, in compliance with the imperial rescript (irâde seniye) a petition (mahdar) has been elicited by flattering means from the inhabitants of Mt. Lebanon and brought secretly, herein forwarded with covering letters; a similar one will be obtained from Jerusalem; and on the 13th I will journey there as ordered by the sultan to secure the petition requested as quickly as possible. The inhabitants of the Mountain are aroused by the bishop's appointment; maybe submission of the Mountain's petition will not yield fruitful results, but the one from the Jerusalem area and the Druzes should be more convincing’. The coded letter was dated 3 M 1258/14 February 1842 (Lef 6 of Dâhiliye Irâdeler, 2670 [dated 16 M 1258/27 February 1842] and its decipherment [Lef 7]).Google Scholar

74 See Let I of Dâhiliye Irâdeler, 2670: Mustafa Nûrî (serasker) to the Council of Ministers of 3 M 1258/14 February 1842.Google Scholar

75 Summary of serasker's dispatches of the same date (Lef 8 of Dâhiliye Irâdeler, 2670).Google Scholar

76 While at Jaffa on his way to Jerusalem, the bishop submitted papers for customs clearance which listed several hundred yûks (the equivalent of a hundred thousand purses in value) or 150 animal loads of furnishings. The governor, Tayyâr Pasa, suspected he might be bringing contraband and asked the serasker for permission to have his belongings searched on arrival. See Lefs 5 and 8 in 2670.Google Scholar

77 Communiqué from Mustafa to the Council of Ministers of 3 M 1258/14 February 1842, Lef 3 in 2670.Google Scholar

78 Mustafa to the Council, 3 M 1258/14 February 1842, Lef 4 in 2670.Google Scholar

79 One of the earlier ones, submitted by representatives of Christian Maronite and Druze feudal families was dated 19 Z 1257/I February 1842. For full Arabic text see Lef i in 2670.Google Scholar

80 Rose to Canning, Beirut, 17 April no. 29 in FO 195/194.Google Scholar

81 Letter by W. Goodell to Temple, Pera, 21 February 1842, ABC-FM, 16:8.I. Cf. supra, p. 328.Google Scholar

82 Goodell to Temple, Pera, 1 March 1842, ABC-FM, 16.5, Vol. 3 and 16:8.I, Vol. 118.Google Scholar

83 W. M. Thomson to R. Anderson, Beirut, 8 November 1841, ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

84 Some argued the Druzes hoped to avoid paying back what they had looted from their enemies in the civil war by professing Islam and that the Turks were duped by hopes of proselytism. See Rose's letter to Bankhead, Beirut, 6 February 1842, no. 7 in FO 195/194.Google Scholar

85 A halwa was the place of religious retreat by Druze 'uqqâl, the initiates and custodians of the faith's secret texts and rites.Google Scholar

86 The Druzes were told that since they had now professed Islam they could not have foreign schools. Besides, Rose when asked said he would not support the Americans in any attempt on their part to stay on by force. It was at this point, alleges Thomson, that he advised his friends among the Druze chiefs who had come to Beirut at the demand of the serasker “for counsel” to give in to his demands and accept Muslim teachers to educate them instead of Protestant ones. See his letter to Anderson, Beirut, 6 February 1842, no. 218 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I. The schools closed were at ‘Ayn 'Unûb and Bsâmûn, allegedly flourishing well with about “one hundred scholars”. See Rose to Bankhead of 6 February, no. 7 in FO 195/194. Mosques were to be built at Şwayfât and Dayr al-Qamar, two in each. In announcing the departure of the mollahs from Istanbul, Goodell wrote to the mission at Beirut: “The Turkish government has sent three mollahs to instruct the poor Druzes in the Mussulman faith: what a working up to missionary enterprize!” Letter dated 21 February 1842 (from Pera), in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

87 Rose to Bankhead, Beirut, 6 February 1842, no. 7 in FO 195/194.Google Scholar

88 Samuel Wolcott to R. Anderson, Beirut, Syria [sic], I June 1842 (Confidential), in ABC-FM, 16.5, Vol. 3.Google Scholar

89 Those arrested were among the ones who were in contact with the English: Nu'mân Janbalât, chiefs of the Abû Nakads and Talhûqs. The 'Imâds and 'Abd al-Maliks who were on intimate bases with the French party and Ottoman authorities were untouched. Yet with the exception of the al-Qâdί family, none of the arrested had talked about accepting Protestantism. See Wolcott to Anderson (Confidential), Beirut, I June 1842, ABC-FM, 16.5, Vol. 3, p. 6.Google Scholar

90 Ibid., p. 9.

91 Ibid., p. 2.

92 Ibid., pp. 4 and 8 respectively.

93 Ibid., p. 6.

94 Ibid., p. 3.

95 Letter to Anderson, Beirut, 6 February 1842, no. 218 in ABC-FM, 16:8.I.Google Scholar

96 Ibid.

97 Wolcott to Anderson, I June 1842, ABC-FM, 16.5, Vol. 3, p. 2.Google Scholar

98 Ibid., p. 7.