Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:07:54.307Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“FOR THE FATHERLAND AND THE STATE”: ARMENIANS NEGOTIATE THE TANZIMAT REFORMS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Masayuki Ueno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines Ottoman Armenian attitudes toward the Tanzimat reforms, particularly in relation to the situation of provincial Armenians. Even though implementation of the reforms was slow and marked by setbacks, the promises embedded in them raised expectations of change among Armenians in both Istanbul and the provinces. In response, individuals in these areas equipped themselves with knowledge of the language and principles of the Tanzimat. They interpreted and utilized these for their own purposes, sometimes not as the Ottoman government intended. In this sense, the Tanzimat was not merely a top-down state project; it was also pluralized through interactions between the government and its subjects. Exploring how non-Muslims negotiated the Tanzimat enables reconsiderations of the Muslim-elite-centered historiography on the reforms.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 93 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

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

NOTES

Author's note: Dates in the Hijri, Rumi, and Julian calendars have been converted to the Gregorian calendar. Eastern Armenian and Western Armenian were transliterated according to the Library of Congress transliteration system. For their help at various stages of the project, I am grateful to Tadashi Suzuki, Kayoko Hayashi, Cemal Kafadar, Mesrob Mutafian, Nobuyoshi Fujinami, Jun Akiba, Hiroyuki Ogasawara, Tuncay Bağla, Helda Aynayüz, and Manami Ueno. I also thank the anonymous referees and the editors of IJMES for their valuable comments and suggestions. This article was supported by the Fellowship of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

1 Hovannisian, Richard G., “The Armenian Question in the Ottoman Empire, 1876–1914,” in The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 2: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century, ed. Hovannisian, Richard G. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1997), 206–12.Google Scholar

2 Adenakrutʿiwn Azkayin Ěnthanur Zhoghovoy (22 November 1878), 214.

3 The most influential example of this “traditional” approach is Davison, Roderic H., Reform in the Ottoman Empire 1856–1876 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), esp. 406–408.Google Scholar For an analysis of this literature, see Petrov, Milen, “Everyday Forms of Compliance: Subaltern Commentaries on Ottoman Reform, 1864–1868,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 46 (2004): 730–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Aymes, Marc, Un grand progrès sur le papier: Histoire provinciale des réformes ottomanes à Chypre au XIXe siècle (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2010)Google Scholar; Petrov, “Everyday Forms of Compliance,” 730–59; idem, “Tanzimat for the Countryside: Midhat Paşa and the Vilayet of Danube, 1864–1868” (PhD diss., Princeton University, 2006); Köksal, Yonca, “Imperial Center and Local Groups: Tanzimat Reforms in the Provinces of Edirne and Ankara,” New Perspectives on Turkey 27 (2002): 107–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The germ of this recent approach can be found in İnalcık, Halil, Tanzimat ve Bulgar Meselesi: Le Tanzimat et la question bulgare (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1943)Google Scholar; and idem, “Tanzimat'ın Uygulanması ve Sosyal Tepkileri,” Belleten 112 (1964): 623–49.

5 Safrastjan, Ruben, “Ottomanism in Turkey in the Epoch of Reforms in XIX C.: Ideology and Policy. I,” Etudes balkaniques 24 (1988): 72–86Google Scholar; idem, “Ottomanism in Turkey in the Epoch of Reforms in XIX C.: Ideology and Policy. II,” Etudes balkaniques 25 (1989): 34–44; Akşin Somel, Selçuk, “Osmanlı Reform Çağında Osmanlıcılık Düşüncesi (1839–1913),” in Cumhuriyet'e Devreden Düşünce Mirası: Tanzimat ve Meşrutiyet'in Birikimi, ed. Alkan, Mehmet Ö. (Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları, 2001), 88–116Google Scholar; Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 407–408.

6 On Helleno-Ottomanism, see Anagnostopoulou, Sia, “The ‘Nation’ of the Rum Sings of Its Sultan: The Many Faces of Ottomanism,” in Economy and Society on Both Shores of the Aegean, ed. Tanatar Baruh, Lorans and Kechriotis, Vangelis (Athens: Alpha Bank Historical Archives, 2010), 79–105Google Scholar; and Anagnostopoulou, Sia and Kappler, Matthias, “Ζήτω Ζήτω ο Σουλτάνος/Bin Yaşa Padişahımız: The Millet-i Rum Singing the Praises of the Sultan in the Framework of Helleno-Ottomanism,” Archivum Ottomanicum 23 (2005/2006): 47–78.Google Scholar On Jewish responses to Hamidian-era “Islamic Ottomanism,” see Phillips Cohen, Julia, “Between Civic and Islamic Ottomanism: Jewish Imperial Citizenship in the Hamidian Era,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 44 (2012): 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7 Maxwell, Alexander, Choosing Slovakia: Slavic Hungary, the Czechoslovak Language and Accidental Nationalism (London: I. B. Tauris, 2009)Google Scholar; Hyman, Paula E., The Jews of Modern France (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1998)Google Scholar; Tsurumi, Taro, “The Russian Origins of Zionism: Interactions with the Empire as the Background of the Zionist World View,” Kyoto Bulletin of Islamic Area Studies 3 (2009): 261–71Google Scholar; idem, Roshia Shionizumu no Sozoryoku: Yudayajin, Teikoku, Paresuchina (Zion Imagined: Russian Jews at the End of Empire) (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 2012).

8 Hagop Levon Barsoumian, “The Armenian Amira Class of Istanbul” (PhD diss., Columbia University, 1980); Artinian, Vartan, The Armenian Constitutional System in the Ottoman Empire 1839–1863: A Study of Its Historical Development (Istanbul: n.p., 1988)Google Scholar; Etmekjian, Lillian, “Armenian Cultural and Political Contributions to Reform in Turkey,” Armenian Review 29 (1976): 167–91Google Scholar; Gerard Libaridian, “The Ideology of Armenian Liberation: The Development of Armenian Political Thought before the Revolutionary Movement (1639–1885)” (PhD diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1987).

9 Ghazaryan, H. M., Arevmtahayeri Sotsʿial-Tntesakan ev Kʿaghakʿakan Katsʿutʿyuně 1800–1870 tʿtʿ (Erevan, Armenia: Haykakan SSH Gitutʿyunneri Akademiayi Hratarakchʿutʿyun, 1967)Google Scholar; Nazikyan, G. A., Arevmtahay Mankavarzhakan Mitkʿn u Dprotsʿě: 19-rd Dari Skzbitsʿ Minchʿev 19-rd Dari 50–60akan Tʿvakannerě (Erevan, Armenia: Luys Hratarakchʿutʿyun, 1969)Google Scholar; Achemyan, V. L., Grakan Arevmtahayereni Dzevavorumě (Erevan, Armenia: Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakchʿutʿyun, 1971)Google Scholar; Ghukasyan, V. G., Polsahay Mamuli ev Hraparakakhosutʿyan Skzbnavorumě (1832–1853) (Erevan, Armenia: Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakchʿutʿyun, 1975)Google Scholar; Khaṛatyan, Albert, Arevmtahay Parberakan Mamulě ev Grakʿnnutʿyuně Ōsmanyan Tʿurkʿiayum (Erevan, Armenia: Haykakan SSH GA Hratarakchʿutʿyun, 1989)Google Scholar; Young, Pamela J., “Knowledge, Nation, and the Curriculum: Ottoman Armenian Education (1853–1915)” (PhD diss., University of Michigan, 2001); Selçuk Akşin Somel, “Osmanlı Ermenilerinde Kültür Modernleşmesi, Cemaat Okulları ve Abdülhamid Rejimi,” Tarih ve Toplum Yeni Yaklaşımlar 5 (2007): 71–92Google Scholar; Nalbandian, Louise, The Armenian Revolutionary Movement: The Development of Armenian Political Parties through the Nineteenth Century (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1963)Google Scholar; Kılıç, Davut, Osmanlı İdaresinde Ermeniler Arasındaki Dinî ve Siyasi Mücadeleler (Ankara: ASAM Yayınları, 2000).Google Scholar For other publications on Ottoman Armenians, especially after 1878, see Badem, Candan, Türk-Ermeni Sorunu Bibliyografyası (Istanbul: Aras, 2007).Google Scholar

10 Some researchers have dealt with the process whereby the situation of provincial Armenians surfaced as a “problem,” although they have not sufficiently addressed the Armenian responses to the Tanzimat. Sarkissian, Arshag O., History of the Armenian Question to 1885 (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1938)Google Scholar; Etmekjian, Lillian, “The Armenian National Assembly of Turkey and Reform,” Armenian Review 29 (1976): 38–52Google Scholar; Libaridian, “Ideology of Armenian Liberation”; Hagop Barsoumian, “The Eastern Question and the Tanzimat Era,” in Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, 2:175–201.

11 Karpat, Kemal H., Ottoman Population 1830–1914: Demographic and Social Characteristics (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 148–49.Google Scholar

12 Braude, Benjamin, “Foundation Myths of the Millet System,” in Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire: The Functioning of Plural Society, ed. Braude, Benjamin and Lewis, Bernard, vol. 1 (New York: Holmes & Meier Publishers, 1982), 69–88Google Scholar; Kevork B. Bardakjian, “The Rise of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople,” in ibid., 1:89–100.

13 Amnon Cohen, “On the Realities of the Millet System: Jerusalem in the Sixteenth Century,” in Braude and Lewis, Christians and Jews, 2:7–18; idem, “Communal Legal Entities in a Muslim Setting, Theory and Practice: The Jewish Community in Sixteenth-Century Jerusalem,” Islamic Law and Society 3 (1996): 75–90; Inalcık, Halil, “The Status of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch under the Ottomans,” Turcica 21–23 (1991): 407–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Masters, Bruce, Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Arab World: The Roots of Sectarianism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)Google Scholar; Kenanoğlu, Macit, Osmanlı Millet Sistemi: Mit ve Gerçek (Istanbul: Klasik, 2004).Google Scholar

14 Aral, Guillaume, “La Juridiction du Saint-Siege de Rome sur les Armeniens Catholiques (XVIIe–XIXe siècle)” (PhD diss., Université de Nice, 2001); Charles A. Frazee, Catholics and Sultans: The Church and the Ottoman Empire 1453–1923 (London: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Barsoumian, “Armenian Amira Class”; and Araks Şahiner, “The Sarrafs of İstanbul: Financiers of the Empire” (master's thesis, Boğaziçi University, 1995).

15 According to Libaridian, Istanbul Armenians in the middle of the 19th century considered Istanbul to be the center of the Ottoman Armenian community. Libaridian, “Ideology of Armenian Liberation,” 110–12.

16 Sahman Azkayin Zhoghovoyn (Istanbul, 1826), 7–9; Sahman Azkayin Zhoghovoy (Istanbul, 1830), 9–12; Salname-i Devlet (Istanbul, 1847–80). On the relationship between the Istanbul patriarchate and the other religious authorities during the Tanzimat period, see Ueno, Masayuki, “Tanzima-to Ki Arumenia Kyodotai no Saihen: Mirreto Kempo Go no Isutanburu Sosyukyoza o Chushin ni” (The Reorganization of the Armenian Community during the Tanzimat Period: Focusing on the Patriarchate of Istanbul after the Recognition of the Millet Constitution), Toyo Bunka 91 (2011): 263–87.Google Scholar

17 The Ottoman government permitted the separation of the Armenian Catholic community in 1830 and appointed its first bishop in 1831. Beydilli, Kemal, II. Mahmud Devri'nde Katolik Ermeni Cemâati ve Kilisesi'nin Tanınması (1830) (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1995), 26–33Google Scholar; Dwight, H. G. O., Christianity in Turkey: A Narrative of the Protestant Reformation in the Armenian Church (London: James Nisbet, 1854), 291–92, 307–308.Google Scholar

18 Takvim-i Vekayiʿ, no. 187 (22 November 1839).

19 Takvim-i Vekayiʿ, no. 539 (3 March 1856). On Armenians who were accepted into the state service, see Çark, Y. G., Türk Devleti Hizmetinde Ermeniler 1453–1953 (Istanbul: Yeni Matbaa, 1953).Google Scholar

20 Masis, nos. 70 (8 June 1853), 71 (15 June 1853), 72 (22 June 1853). These “religious privileges” would become the source of controversies in a later period. Sia Anagnostopulu, “Tanzimat ve Rum Milletinin Kurumsal Çerçevesi: Patrikhane, Cemaat Kurumları, Eğitim,” in 19 Yüzyıl İstanbul'unda Gayrimüslimler, ed. Pinelopi Stathis (Istanbul: Tarih Vakıf Yurt Yayınları, 1999), 10–11; Kechriotis, Vangelis, “The Modernization of the Empire and the Community ‘Privileges’: Greek Orthodox Responses to the Young Turk Policies,” in The State and the Subaltern: Modernization, Society and the State in Turkey and Iran, ed. Atabaki, Touraj (London: I. B. Tauris, 2007), 53–70Google Scholar; Fujinami, Nobuyoshi, Osuman Teikoku to Rikkensei: Seinen Toruko Kakumei ni okeru Seiji, Shukyo, Kyodotai (The Ottomans and Constitutionalism: Politics, Religion, and Communities in the Young Turk Revolution) (Nagoya, Japan: Nagoya Daigaku Shuppankai, 2011)Google Scholar, chap. 3.

21 See n. 9.

22 Takamatsu, Yoichi, “Ottoman Income Survey (1840–1846),” in The Ottoman State and Societies in Change: A Study of the Nineteenth Century Temettuat Registers, ed. Hayashi, Kayoko and Aydın, Mahir (London: Kegan Paul, 2004), 15–45.Google Scholar These tax reforms turned out to be a failure, but the principle of fair taxation raised expectations for change among people in the provinces. İnalcık, “Tanzimatʾın Uygulanması,” 645; Çadırcı, Musa, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu Kentleri'nin Sosyal ve Ekonomik Yapısı (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1997), 215.Google Scholar

23 Akiba, Jun, “The Local Councils as the Origin of the Parliamentary System in the Ottoman Empire,” in Development of Parliamentarism in the Modern Islamic World, ed. Sato, Tsugitaka (Tokyo: Toyo Bunko, 2009), 176–204Google Scholar; Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu, chap. 3.

24 Çadırcı, Tanzimat Döneminde Anadolu, 192–96; van Bruinessen, Martin, Agha, Shaikh and State: The Social and Political Structures of Kurdistan (London: Zed Books, 1992), 175–95Google Scholar; Atamian, Sarkis, The Armenian Community: The Historical Development of a Social and Ideological Conflict (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955), 47–59Google Scholar; Nalbandian, Armenian Revolutionary Movement, 78–79.

25 Kara, İsmail, “Müsâvat yahut Müslümanlara Eşitsizlik: Bir Kavramın Siyaseten/Dinen İnşası ve Dönüştürücü Gücü,” in Osmanlı Devleti'nde Din ve Vicdan Hürriyeti, ed. Özcan, Azmi (Istanbul: Ensar Neşriyat, 2000), 307–08Google Scholar; Masis, no. 1282 (13 September 1872).

26 Aghapēkian, Margos, Deghegakir Amenayn Hayotsʿ Gatʿoghigosutʿean Ayzhmean Vijagin vray (Istanbul: Dbakrutʿiwn Aramian, 1865), 16.Google Scholar The author claimed that Russia aimed to encourage Armenians in the eastern provinces to resist Ottoman rule.

27 For example, a Muslim in the Eğin district accused Armenians in the same district of communicating secretly with Russian subjects and obtaining weapons from them. Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (hereafter BOA), MVL 281/13 (25 May 1854). To damage the trustworthiness of the Istanbul patriarch, the Sis Catholicos told the Ottoman government that the patriarch had close relations with Russia. Sanjian, Avedis K., The Armenian Communities in Syria under Ottoman Dominion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965), 242–57.Google Scholar

28 While the languages of the petitions were Armenian, Ottoman Turkish, or Turkish written in Armenian scripts, the taḳrīrs were written in Ottoman Turkish.

29 Adenakrutʿiwn (20 October 1871): 475–78. This number does not include taḳrīrs written on matters such as the appointment of clergymen or the repair of religious facilities or to express gratitude for fair treatment from provincial officials.

30 In addition, forty-four were from Aleppo, nineteen from Adana, fourteen from Trabzon, thirteen from Damascus, one from Aydın, twenty-one from Ankara, thirty-eight from Bursa, three from Kastamonu, and nine from Rumeli.

31 Among these, sixty-five were based on petitions from the Erzurum province and seventy-nine from Diyarbakır.

32 In addition, thirty-two addressed forced conversion, thirty-eight addressed conflicts with Catholics and Protestants, twenty-six requested nonintervention in church construction and calls for prayer, and thirteen requested nonintervention in religious services.

33 BOA, MVL 55/54 (The date of the order responding to the taḳrīr was 30 November 1847).

34 Takamatsu, “Ottoman Income Survey,” 15–45.

35 BOA, HR.MKT 155/64 (30 July 1856); MVL 266/10 (1 December 1853).

36 İnalcık, “Tanzimat'ın Uygulanması,” 640.

37 BOA, A.}DVN.MHM 4/23 (27 November 1847). See also BOA, HR.SYS 80/29 (16 September 1851); A.}DVN 844/75 (12 November 1252).

38 BOA, MVL 286/16 (8 March 1855).

39 BOA, MVL 645/1 (24 February 1863). Also, BOA, MVL 657/63 (29 September 1863).

40 BOA, MVL 678/35 (17 June 1864).

41 BOA, MVL 686/5 (8 September 1864).

42 Manzumei Efkʿear, no. 3136 (5 June 1876).

43 Masis, no. 256 (31 December 1856), Masis Oratʿertʿ, nos. 186 (6 July 1868), 418 (21 September 1869).

44 BOA, HR.MKT 96/97 (7 December 1854).

45 For example, BOA, MVL 641/26 (5 November 1862); MVL 678/18 (13 May 1864).

46 BOA, MVL 702/8 (24 March 1864).

47 For example, BOA, MVL 285/19 (4 February 1855, Orthodox, Gümülcine/Komotini), MVL 294/60 (13 November 1855, Catholic, Erzurum). For the case of the Danube province, see Petrov, “Everyday Forms of Compliance,” 730–59.

48 Miwnadiyi Erjiyas, no. 213 (26 August 1862); Manzumei Efkʿear, no. 1753 (18 November 1871).

49 For example, Masis, nos. 559 (8 November 1862), 568 (10 January 1863), 655 (10 September 1864), and 684 (1 April 1865).

50 Aghapekian, Deghegakir Amenayn Hayotsʿ Gatʿoghigosutʿean, 16.

51 Armenians called this regulation, which was approved by the Ottoman government in 1863, the “Armenian National Constitution” (Azkayin Sahmanatrutʿiwn Hayotsʿ). On the drafting process, see Artinian, Armenian Constitutional System; Albōyajian, Arshag A., “Azkayin Sahmanatrutʿiwně: Ir Dzakumě ew Girarrutʿiwn,” in 1910 Ěntartsag Ōratsʿoytsʿ S. Pʿrgchean Hiwantanotsʿi Hayotsʿ (G. Bolis: Tpagrutʻiwn H. Mattʻēosean, 1910), 476–528Google Scholar; and Ueno, Masayuki, “The First Draft of the Armenian Millet Constitution,” Annals of Japan Association for Middle East Studies 23 (2007): 213–51.Google Scholar The 1863 version stipulated that the assembly consist of twenty clergymen, eighty laymen from Istanbul, and forty laymen elected by provincials. Azkayin Sahmanatrutʿiwn Hayotsʿ, art. 57–62. Assembly minutes, published after each meeting, were distributed to the representatives and sold to the public.

52 Kostandyan, Ēmma, “Mkrtichʿ A Vanetsʿi,” in Kʿristonya Hayastan Hanragitaran (Erevan, Armenia: Haykakan Hanragitarani Glkhavor Khmbagrutʿyun, 2002), 745–47.Google Scholar

53 Adenakrutʿiwn (3 December 1870): 161–62.

54 Makdisi, Ussama, The Culture of Sectarianism: Community, History, and Violence in Nineteenth-Century Ottoman Lebanon (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 2000), 160–61.Google Scholar

55 Manzumei Efkʿear, no. 988 (10 August 1869).

56 Adenakrutʿiwn (3 December 1870): 152–53, 165; (9 December 1870): 175–78; (3 November 1871): 497.

57 Adenakrutʿiwn (20 October 1871): 468–83.

58 Masis, nos. 1158–162 (9 November 1871–18 November 1871).

59 Adenakrutʿiwn (3 November 1871): 498–99.

60 Balcı, Sezai, “Bir Osmanlı-Ermeni Aydın ve Bürokratı: Sahak Abro (1825–1900),” in Osmanlı Siyasal ve Sosyal Hayatında Ermeniler, ed. Erdal, İbrahim and Karaçavuş, Ahmet (Istanbul: IQ Kültür Sanat, 2009), 115–19.Google Scholar

61 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, 105–108; Masis, nos. 617 (19 December 1863), 650 (6 August 1864), and 797 (1 June 1867).

62 Davison, Reform in the Ottoman Empire, chap. 5.

63 Masis, no. 666 (26 November 1864); Petrov, “Tanzimat for the Countryside,” 103.

64 Balcı, “Osmanlı-Ermeni Aydın,” 112–13; Artinian, Armenian Constitutional System, 69–71, 86.

65 Adenakrutʿiwn (20 October 1871): 469–70.

66 Ibid., 473–74.

67 Ibid., 472.

68 Ibid., 479.

69 Ibid., 480–81.

70 Gülsoy, Ufuk, Osmanlı’nın Gayrimüslim Askerleri (Istanbul: Timaş Yayınları, 2010)Google Scholar, chap. 2; Heinzelmann, Tobias, Cihaddan Vatan Savunmasına: Osmanlı İmparatorluğu'nda Genel Askerlik Yükümlülüğü 1826–1856, trans. Noyan, Türkis (Istanbul: Kitap Yayınevi, 2008), 244–50.Google Scholar

71 Adenakrutʿiwn (20 October 1871): 479.

72 For example, Manzumei Efkʿear, no. 1753 (18 November 1871).

73 Şemsettin Sami Frashëri, a Muslim Albanian intellectual and state official, employed a similar discourse. See Gawrych, George W., “Tolerant Dimensions of Cultural Pluralism in the Ottoman Empire: The Albanian Community, 1800–1912,” International Journal of Middle East Studies 15 (1983): 524.Google Scholar

74 Heinzelmann, Cihaddan Vatan Savunmasına, 155.

75 BOA, İ.HR 5001(6 October 1853); Takvim-i Vekayiʿ, no. 494 (27 October 1853).

76 Adenakrutʿiwn (3 November 1871): 502–503.

77 Adenakrutʿiwn (20 October 1871): 481.

78 Haykakan Sovetakan Hanragitaran, s.v. “Pʿapʿazyantsʿ.”

79 Masis, no. 1161 (16 November 1871).

80 Adenakrutʿiwn (3 November 1871): 500–505.

81 Ibid., 500, 504.

82 Adenakrutʿiwn (10 November 1871): 510–12; (1 March 1872): 593–98.

83 On Muslims’ negative attitudes toward equality with non-Muslims, see Arai, Masami, Osuman Teikoku wa Naze Hokaishita noka (Why Did the Ottoman Empire Fall?) (Tokyo: Seidosha, 2009), 79–83Google Scholar, 146–160.

84 Masis, nos. 1226 (27 April 1872), 1574 (8 September 1874).

85 Adenakrutʿiwn (22 September 1876): 174–76.

86 Stavrianos, Leften S., The Balkans since 1453 (New York: Rinehart & Company, 1958), 396–401.Google Scholar

87 Adenakrutʿiwn (19 May 1876): 6–7.

88 Manzumei Efkʿear, nos. 3180 (17 July 1876), 3183 (20 July 1876); Masis, no. 1852 (22 July 1876).

89 Masis, nos. 1847 (11 July 1876), 1848 (13 July 1876); Manzumei Efkʿear, no. 3175 (12 July 1876).

90 Hatt-ı Hümayun ve Kanun-ı Esasi (Istanbul: Matbaʿa-i ʿAmire, 1876), 4–5.

91 For example, Adenakrutʿiwn (7 June 1876): 38–42; (8 September 1876): 153; (22 September 1876): 174–86.

92 Adenakrutʿiwn (22 September 1876): 185–86.

93 Ibid., 180–84.

94 Adenakrutʿiwn (7 December 1877): 309–10, 317–18.