General Considerations on the Abduction of the Armenian Patriarch
Avedick--Despatch of the Marquis de Ferriol to Constantinople as
Ambassador--Difficulties peculiar to this Post--Incautious Conduct
of some of Ferriol’s Predecessors--Quiclet’s Adventures--Portrait
of Ferriol--His Pretensions at Constantinople--His Eccentricity of
Manner--His Behaviour in Religious Matters--The Armenian Church--Short
Account of its History--Ardent Desire of the Catholic Missionaries to
make Converts--Their Imprudence--Ferriol at first attempts to repair
it--Obstinate Resistance of Father Braconnier, a Jesuit--Encroachments
and Requirements of the Jesuits.
We now come to the story of a most audacious violation of the law of
nations, conceived by the fanaticism of an ambassador, ventured upon in
a friendly country, with a singular boldness and energy, accomplished
by stratagem and imposture, and thus kept from the knowledge of an
entire people. The high rank of the victim, the character of the
means employed, the ardour of the passions then excited, give an
especial importance to this act of violence, which was crowned by a
_dénoûment_ as startling as up to the present it was little known.
People were aware that an Armenian Patriarch, who combined with his
civil power enormous religious authority, had been carried off from
Constantinople towards the end of Louis XIV.’s reign. But what became
of him afterwards, and what adventures terminated the existence of
this personage who had been rudely snatched away from his country and
precipitated from the pinnacle of honour and the highest dignity? Must
we see in him the mysterious prisoner of the Isles Sainte-Marguerite,
as Taulès and the grave German historian Hammer have affirmed?[218]
Or, as others believe, did he rather end his days in the _bagne_ of
Marseilles, or in the obscurity of a prison of Messina, or, more
likely still, in one of the dungeons of the Inquisition?[219] What
were the real causes of this extraordinary crime, which almost made
the Sultan link himself with the numerous enemies of Louis XIV., and
how did this monarch, vanquished and crushed by a coalition which was
already formidable, contrive to appease the resentment of the Ottoman
Porte? Such are the points which documents, entirely unpublished and
of indisputable authenticity, will enable us to make clear. And this
we shall do with the sole desire for truth, and without seeking to
exaggerate or to extenuate the responsibility attaching to the authors
of the crime. The more profound the mystery with which it has been
surrounded, the more necessary it is to entirely penetrate it, and,
after so many deeds which justly entitle Louis XIV. to admiration and
gratitude, the more necessary also is it not to leave in obscurity, the
only one perhaps where he has made use of the worst of violences, that
which is aided by lying and hypocrisy.
In 1699, Louis XIV. appointed the Marquis de Ferriol his ambassador at
Constantinople. This post was beset with difficulties. To represent
among Mussulmen a highly Catholic nation; and in a country divided
among several dissenting Churches, to be the natural and appointed
protector of a very small Latin minority, unceasingly aspiring to
increase in number, and encouraged in proselytism by ardent and
active missionaries; to restrain the often thoughtless zeal of these
missionaries, and, moreover, to prevent this Latin minority from ceding
to the offers of the German Empire and placing themselves under its
protection;[220] to defend the interests of merchants, more and more
exacting in their demands, often unjust in their complaints,[221] and
whose encroachments met with opposition not only from the Turks, but
especially from the English, the Genoese, and the Venetians; to act in
the name of an extremely haughty monarch near a very touchy Government,
and one still too much isolated and too much aloof from the great
enterprises of Europe for it to give Louis XIV. credit for the as
yet continued success of his arms and the brilliancy of his reign; to
maintain the misunderstanding between the Germans and the Turks, by
inducing the former to send assistance to the rebellious Hungarians,
and to keep up the resentment of the Porte against the Venetians, but
nevertheless without going to the extremity of causing it to break
out in war; to live in the midst of manners altogether peculiar and
in certain respects always barbarous, to imitate Asiatic luxury, and
to submit to customs[222] which were sometimes extremely onerous; to
assist at frequent and unexpected _révolutions de palais_, which would
in a day upset the policy of the Divan and baffle every project: such
was then the delicate task of the French ambassadors at Constantinople.
The constant assistance which Louis XIV. had as yet lent to the
enemies of the Turks made the position of his representatives more
difficult still. One day, when one of them recalled to the Grand
Vizier, Kiuproli-Ogli, the old alliance of France and Turkey, and
evoked the recollections of the time of Francis I., “I do not know,”
answered Kiuproli, “if the French are our allies; but it is certain
they are invariably to be found among our enemies. There were six
thousand of them at the passage of the Raab. Your Admiral, Beaufort,
attacked Gigery, and made a cruel war on the Moors placed under our
protection, and you have assisted the Venetians in Candia.” Far
from having appeased these very legitimate feelings of resentment,
Ferriol’s predecessors had excited them still more by most imprudent
acts. Sometimes, even, they had resorted to violence in order to get
rid of a difficult situation, and had had recourse to those arbitrary
acts of authority, of which the Sultan, it is true, often set them an
example in his seraglio, but which should have been impossible to the
representatives of a civilized nation.
It was thus that La Haye, ambassador at Constantinople in 1659, did
not scruple to free himself by a crime from an extreme peril in which
his very equivocal conduct had placed him.[223] France was succouring
Candia, besieged by the Turks. It was an assistance quite natural
and assuredly very praiseworthy; but what was less honourable, the
French ambassador carried on with the Venetians a continued secret
intercourse, and, in a cypher correspondence, kept them informed of
all the designs of the Turks. One day the person charged to carry his
mysterious news to the Venetians betrayed him, and, seduced by the bait
of a reward, presented himself to the Caïmacan[224] of Constantinople
and announced that he wished to embrace the Mahometan faith, and to
deliver to the Grand Vizier himself a packet of letters of great
importance. The Ottoman Minister, who already had suspicions of this
intercourse, eagerly received the proofs brought to him, but it was
in vain that he tried to decipher them, and neither the interpreters
nor the renegades who swarmed at the Sultan’s court, could penetrate
the secret of the intercepted letters. In the meanwhile there arrived
at Constantinople a Frenchman, named Quiclet, an adventurer without
resources, who boasted of having acquired by long practice the science
of deciphering letters without a key. Badly received by La Haye, to
whom he had applied for pecuniary assistance, he had the imprudence to
menace him with his vengeance, and his wife said to the people of the
embassy, “His Excellency refuses money to my husband, but we know very
well how to obtain it from the Grand Vizier.” La Haye became alarmed
when informed of this speech. He feared lest this wretched intriguer
might really be able to decipher the despatches, or failing this,
might, by aid of his imagination, render them more compromising still.
He grew agitated. He saw his life in danger, and his character as Louis
XIV.’s ambassador at stake. He sends for Quiclet to the embassy, giving
him hopes of assistance. The latter, as imprudent in his confidence
as he had been thoughtless in his threats, hastens to the palace. La
Haye leads him, while talking, on to a terrace overlooking the embassy
garden; some servants throw themselves upon him, and others, posted at
the spot where he falls, kill him and inter him there.[225]
This characteristic deed serves as a fitting prologue to the story of
the not less revolting abuse of force which marked the embassy of
Ferriol, who was as unscrupulous as La Haye upon the choice of means,
and whose implacable animosity knew how to strike the most eminent
personages as well as intriguers of low degree. In truth, every
expedient appeared to him suitable to be adopted, provided that it was
of a nature to aid him in the accomplishment of his designs; and his
adventurous and agitated past already announced the new ambassador’s
line of conduct.
It was by intrigue rather than by his talents that the obscure
gentleman of Dauphiné managed to rise by degrees, and from simple
King’s musketeer to become ambassador at Constantinople. Compelled to
quit France, in consequence of a love-affair, and Poland, where he had
taken refuge, because of a violent dispute at a gaming-party,[226]
compromising the friends who had given him hospitality, but succeeding,
nevertheless, in preserving them as active architects of his fortune,
Ferriol went first to Candia to fight against the Turks, and then
on their side in Hungary against the Imperialists.[227] Instead of
confining himself to his military duties, he interfered in matters
of diplomacy, gave an account of them to Louis XIV., gained himself
supporters in the Turkish camp, and brought his services under the
notice of the Marquis de Torcy by means of Madame de Ferriol, his
sister-in-law,[228] who possessed great influence over the Minister.
This was not all. Not content with increasing the number of his
supporters, he made himself the unjust, passionate, and tenacious
adversary of the Abbé de Châteauneuf, ambassador at Constantinople. As
eager to injure him as he was industrious to give himself importance,
he calumniated the man whose post he coveted, and knew, which appeared
difficult, how to interest the piety of Louis XIV. in the recall of
an ambassador who was a priest, and whom his enemy accused of an
inclination for the Turkish religion.[229] To gain his ends by means
of an imputation so utterly improbable and so strange was a proof of
extreme cleverness, and was doubtless the reason why he was recompensed
by Louis XIV. sending him to replace the Abbé de Châteauneuf at
Constantinople.
But Ferriol showed less ability in the performance of his functions
than he had displayed in obtaining his post. At a time when the most
prudent moderation was indispensable, he exhibited, from the day of his
arrival, the signs of the most fervid impetuosity, which was already
a kind of disease in him, and which, becoming more and more exuberant
and excessive, was to degenerate, ten years later, into a species
of insanity. In all countries there are certain distinctions which
Princes reserve for themselves, and which, for this reason and out of
the commonest politeness, ambassadors take care not to appropriate. In
Spain, formerly, the Sovereign alone could drive through Madrid in a
coach drawn by six mules. At Constantinople, the Sultan and the Grand
Vizier exclusively enjoyed the privilege of sailing on the waters of
the Bosphorus in a boat covered by an awning lined with purple.[230]
Neither the Mufti, the other grandees of the Porte, nor any foreign
representative would have dared to have usurped to himself what was
considered in Turkey as a peculiar honour. Ferriol refused to submit
himself to this custom, up to that time respected by every one. But
on his first appearance in a caïque similar to the Grand Seignior’s,
the Bostanji-Bachi[231] ordered a hundred blows with the stick to be
given to the _caichis_ who had manned the boat of the vain-glorious
ambassador, and caused the latter to be informed that on the occasion
of a second infraction he should fire upon and sink it. Although aware
that ambassadors ought to present themselves unarmed before the Sultan,
and that, as a matter of favour, a court-sword[232] was sometimes
allowed, Ferriol completely estranged the Turks by attending the
Imperial audience armed with a long rapier. He not only had contentions
with the officers of the Divan, but also with the other ambassadors.
Some French deserters from the German army had aggravated their
offence by going to brave, even in his palace, Count d’Ortinghem, the
representative of the Empire, who had them arrested, less for their
desertion than to punish their arrogance. Ferriol immediately ordered
two officers of the German embassy to be carried off by force. Justly
irritated, D’Ortinghem demanded their release. The two sides armed
themselves. The subjects of each country were called together. A fight
was about to stain with blood the streets of Constantinople, and it was
only the energetic interference of the representative of Holland that
prevented it.[233]
For this inflexibility of character, this haughtiness of conduct,
and eccentricity of manners, the pomp and brilliancy of Ferriol’s
receptions, and his profound knowledge of the country in which he
resided, were not sufficient compensation. Well informed of all
the affairs of the Levant, he thoughtlessly compromised a precious
experience by his impetuous decisions and utter absence of all
propriety and decorum. The boldness of certain means attracted more
than their illegality restrained him. Being entirely ignorant of the
art of gradually smoothing down a difficulty, and, by using time as an
auxiliary, of carefully managing obstacles, he blindly threw himself
upon them, believing himself able to overcome them by a prompt and
hazardous recourse to violence. There still remained in him much of the
adventurous Candia volunteer.
Nevertheless, in religious matters, Ferriol did not at first show
himself so audaciously arbitrary as he was afterwards to become. This
man, who subsequently allowed himself to be enticed by the missionaries
into the most tyrannical and violent resolutions, endeavoured at the
commencement of his embassy to restrain their imprudent and immoderate
zeal. Everything, moreover, engaged him to it. Everything should have
determined him to persevere in this policy of circumspection which the
instructions received from Louis XIV., the character of the schismatic
Armenians, and the blamable excesses of the Jesuits equally made a
duty to him. “His Majesty orders you,” it had been written to Ferriol,
“to accord to the Jesuit fathers a protection conformable to the zeal
which they show for religion, to their disinterestedness, and to the
regularity of their manners.... Nevertheless, you must beware of the
inconsiderate zeal which the missionaries sometimes carry too far;
religion often suffers more prejudice from imprudent undertakings or
untimely demands than it acquires real advantages of success.”[234]
Wise words, too soon disregarded both by him to whom they were
addressed, and by the Prince in whose name they had been written, and
which, singularly prophetic, announced seven years in advance the
misfortunes which the forgetfulness of this judicious warning was to
bring upon the Catholics.
No church deserved more than that of the schismatic Armenians the
employment of that moderation and prudence so opportunely recommended
by Louis XIV. to his ambassador. Naturally good and peaceable, and of
a sociable and kind temper, the Armenians readily became intimate with
strangers, and had no quarrels with them, except in instances when
their own interests were wronged.[235] Long since driven from their
ancient kingdom by conquest, or having voluntarily emigrated through
the necessities of their commerce, they were dispersed over a very
extensive territory, and were encountered in large numbers, not only
in the Turkish Empire and in Persia, but also in Tartary, and even in
Poland. Everywhere they had acquired the reputation of being alike
industrious and persevering. Eager in pursuit of gain, they excelled
in commerce. Although losing more and more the recollection of their
old country, they carefully preserved the unity of their church, and
remained resolutely attached to their faith. They had adopted the
language of the Turks, their costume,[236] everything in short save
what concerned the Armenian religion, to which they showed themselves
scrupulously faithful, and which they respected in every one of its
practices as well as in its doctrines and its spirit. The severities
which it imposed upon them did not dishearten them, neither did they
consider themselves absolved, even by painful journeys, from long and
austere fasts. Their churches were the most decorated and most crowded
of all the East.[237] Their traditions seemed to them so much the
more deserving of veneration because they were more ancient. Having
preserved their nationality by means of their religion, tenacious and
fertile of resources, they were interesting from their misfortunes, the
firmness with which they endured them, and their industrious activity.
For a century past storms had at distant intervals disturbed their
ordinarily peaceable state. These troubles, coming from without, were
not due, as one might imagine, to the persecutions of the conqueror.
The Turks, tolerant by nature as well as out of obedience to their
religion, looked upon all the Christian churches with equal scorn. If
they interfered in the internal divisions of these churches, it was
because they were engaged to do so by complaints, or else to profit
by the voluntary gifts of one of the parties to the controversy.
The punctual payment of the legal tribute sufficed to assure to a
conquered people not only the free exercise of their religion, but
also a material and efficacious support for their patriarchs and
bishops.[238] Far from endeavouring to convert its Christian subjects
to Mahometanism, the Divan received with extreme reserve and even
discouraged those whom the greed of a reward excited to abandon the
religion of Christ. Often rigorously exacting in maintaining their
political rights, the Mahometans were disdainfully and absolutely
indifferent with respect to the religion of the Christians.[239]
Although persuaded of the excellence of Islamism, the Mussulman is
altogether devoid of the spirit of propagandism. In his eyes the
infidels are not necessarily rejected; since, according to the Koran,
“He who hath said there is only one God, he shall enter into Paradise.”
Moreover, _the number of the elect is fixed from all eternity_, and to
endeavour to increase the number is useless as well as contrary to the
commands of the sacred book. So they were ignorant of and could not
understand that charity, admirable in principle although often carried
to excess, which animated the Catholic missionary, inspiring in him a
sublime abnegation, and determining him to leave his country, to cross
deserts, to suffer and to die, in order to save a single soul and make
it share in the consolations and hopes of his faith.
This ardour of propagandism, so highly beneficial to humanity when it
serves to spread the beautiful morality of the Gospel among nations
where it has not yet penetrated, was early made use of by the Holy
See to cause not only idolaters, but also Christians whom very slight
differences in doctrine separated from the Roman communion, to submit
to its spiritual authority. In 1587, Sixtus V., desirous of removing
these differences, sent the Bishop of Sidon to all the Armenian
churches; he failed, however, in his attempt.[240] In 1622, there was
founded at Rome, by Gregory XV., the congregation “for the propagation
of the faith,” to which Urban VIII., his successor, added the College
of the Propaganda, where young men from every part of the world were
instructed and prepared for their missions. At first they had the
wisdom to pursue in the East methods of kindness and of persuasion,
and by these means succeeded in gaining over a rather large number
of dissenters. But success soon rendered the missionaries bolder, and
too confident in the exclusive excellence of their own doctrines, they
substituted for the clever circumspection they had hitherto shown,
and the slow but certain influence of a persuasive impressiveness, a
proselytism, ardent, impassioned, and too hasty in arriving at its
ends. Instead of assisting dissenters to clear the narrow space which
separated them from the Roman Church, by showing them how near they
were to it,[241] instead of rendering prominent all the points which
united them, they proceeded to attack with ill-timed perseverance
the questions of liturgy to which the Armenian Church was especially
attached. They forbade the Catholics, under the severest penalties, to
enter other churches, and when they ought, by judicious indulgence, to
have recognized in the majority of the Armenians brothers separated
by their observances, but in a very slight degree by their doctrines,
they treated them as enemies and barbarians. Justly irritated by this
violent conduct, finding themselves subjected to scorn, and menaced in
their dearest and most venerated traditions, the schismatics complained
to the Divan, and represented the Jesuits not as envoys of peace, but
as fomenters of discord and as conspirators, so much more dangerous,
because they were in the pay of foreign courts.[242]
Ferriol comprehended the imprudent behaviour of the Jesuits, and
attempted to repair it. In 1701 he arranged a reconciliation between
the principal dissenters and the chiefs of the Catholics, and
succeeded in moderating the demands of the latter, and in appeasing
the legitimate resentment of the former. A kind of treaty of union was
drawn up, which, approved by the Grand Patriarch of Armenia, and by the
Catholic archbishop, was to be submitted afterwards to the ratification
of the Court of Rome, and was to regulate the future relations of the
two churches. But the happy effects which would have resulted from
this transaction were sacrificed by the implacable resistance which
Father Braconnier, superior of the Jesuit mission in the East, opposed
to it.[243] In vain Ferriol observed to him “that they were threatened
with a general persecution of the Catholics throughout the Turkish
empire; that the Sultan could issue severe orders, which would give a
mortal blow to the religion by reason of the little firmness which the
Catholics possessed, and that a persecution ought to be avoided when
this could be done without injuring religion and without offending it.”
To these pressing reasons, inspired by humanity and foresight, Father
Braconnier replied, “that the Church had formerly suffered persecutions
much more cruel; that the Armenians ought to know how to suffer; that
he could not permit the Catholics to have the least communication
with their schismatic brethren, and that they ought rather to expose
themselves to the harshest treatment.”[244]
Unfortunately Ferriol had neither sufficient firmness to make his
opinion prevail, nor even perseverance to resolutely maintain it. All
at once abandoning his attempt at reconciliation, he desperately threw
himself into the party of action much more suitable to his vehement
character, and to his strong liking for contest, and also, we must
admit, to the delicate position in which the encroachments of Rome
and the requirements of the Jesuits placed him. The ambassador of the
King of France at Constantinople was then indeed the representative
of the Holy See quite as much as of the court of Versailles, and he
submitted to the custom of corresponding regularly either with the
Pope or with the principal cardinals. Whilst he rendered account to
Louis XIV. of matters of commerce and of the political situation, the
great religious interests formed the subject of periodical despatches
addressed directly to Rome. Very jealous of his authority, Louis XIV.
had pointed out the inconvenience of this correspondence,[245] then
he had tolerated it, and, as often happens, the custom had grown
into an obligation. On the other hand, the Jesuits had more and more
exaggerated the importance of their part, and to the direct influence
which the court of Rome exercised upon the French ambassador by its
pressing despatches,[246] they added the effects of their constant
recriminations, of their feverish and turbulent activity, of their
audacious encroachments. Instructing the Holy See according to their
own fancy and inspiring its orders; ruling Ferriol through Versailles
quite as much as through Rome; ready to calumniate him if he ceased
to be their tool, and even powerful enough to overthrow him; present
and influential everywhere, they were in reality the masters of the
situation, and their responsibility before history is as incontestable
as their power.
While submitting to their yoke, Ferriol sometimes could not prevent
himself from complaining of it. “All here wish to pass for ministers,”
he wrote to Torcy. “They believe themselves more enlightened than the
ambassadors, and the order of each is reversed. These good fathers, who
ought only to go to the convict-prison and the houses of Christians
established in the country, do not abstain from visiting persons of
power, and from imposing upon everybody in political affairs. When an
ambassador wishes to reduce them within the bounds which seem to be
prescribed for them, they treat him as a man devoid of religion who
sacrifices everything to his ambition.”[247] Assuredly this is the
language of truth, everything proves it. But although these complaints
were well founded, although the domination of the Jesuits was then real
enough, we cannot feel much concern for this voluntary victim of their
encroachments. Not only, indeed, did Ferriol refrain from endeavouring
to throw off their heavy yoke, although it sometimes weighed on his
self-esteem; but also, forgetting the character with which he was
invested, and passing from a brief and honourable independence to a
servile devotion, he became the executioner of the vengeance of a
few missionaries with so much implacability, that in fighting their
adversaries he seemed to be engaging his own personal enemies. His
hatred, revived and cleverly kept up by baleful excitements, is about
to docilely follow the direction indicated to it, and to strike without
pity, to pursue without respite, to cause to disappear and overwhelm, a
long time even after his own fall, a great Armenian personage whom it
is now time to introduce in his turn into this story, and to make known
to our readers.
FOOTNOTES:
[218] _L’Homme au Masque de Fer, Mémoire Historique, par le Chevalier
de Taulès, Ancien Consul-général en Syrie_, Paris, 1825. Hammer,
_Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine jusqu’à nos Jours_,
vol. xiii. p. 187. M. Ubicini, _Lettres sur la Turquie_, Paris,
Dumaine, 1854, part ii. p. 256.
[219] Aubry de la Motraye, _Voyage en Europe, Asie, et Afrique_, La
Haye, 1727, 2 vols. in folio, vol. i. p. 371. Didot’s _Biographie
Universelle_, article “Avedick.”
[220] Instructions given to M. de Ferriol on his departure for
Constantinople:--Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section
Turkey, 33.
[221] And often abusing the ignorance of the Turks. “It is very sad,”
writes Louis XIV. to Ferriol, February 15, 1707, “that the French
bring themselves into discredit by their failures, and that the Turks
set them the example of that good faith which they ought to observe
in commerce.”--Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section
Turkey, 44. “There are no people in the world so easily deceived
and who have been more deceived than the Turks. They are naturally
simple and dull, and ready in believing. Thus it is customary for the
Christians to impose upon them in a variety of ways and to play them
many scandalous tricks.”--Chardin, _Voyage en Perse et autres lieux de
l’Orient_, vol. i p. 17, Langlès’ edition.
[222] We may quote among these usages, the obligation imposed upon the
ambassadors of making a superb present to the Grand Vizier, not only
when they first arrived at Constantinople, but at every change of Grand
Vizier, which happened very frequently. Some of these presents cost as
much as nine thousand livres, a rather large sum at that period. They
consisted especially of clocks, watches, and mirrors:--Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, _Mémoires des Dépenses_.
“In one year,” writes Ferriol, “I have made four presents to four chief
viziers, Daltahan, Ramy, Achmet, and Assat-Pacha, and to the whole of
the households. It costs me more than 20,000 livres.” Despatch from
Ferriol to the Count de Pontchartrain, of December 4, 1703:--Archives
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey.
[223] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey I,
_Mémoires et Documents_.
[224] The Caïmacan is a lieutenant of the Grand Vizier who remains
at Constantinople and fills his place when he follows the Sultan to
Adrianople.
[225] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey I,
_Mémoires et Documents_.
[226] With a rich Pole, named Krazcinskí:--Archives of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, supplement I.
[227] _Correspondance de Ferriol._--_Ibid._
[228] The ambassador was never married. This Madame de Ferriol, his
brother’s wife, mixed in the best society of Paris, and enjoyed
considerable influence with the high personages of the State. She was
the sister of the famous Abbé de Tencin, Cardinal, Minister of State,
and Archbishop of Lyons, and also of the celebrated nun, notorious for
her debauchery, the mistress of Dubois and mother of d’Alembert, by
the Chevalier Destouches:--_Mémoires de Saint-Simon_, vol. xi. p. 182.
Chéruel’s edition. See also _Vézelay_, historical study by M. Aimé
Chérest, vol. iii. p. 83.
[229] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,
_Mémoires et Documents_, I.
[230] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence from
Turkey, I.
[231] Chief of the Bostanji, the Sultan’s Guards.
[232] This at least is what was permitted to De Castagnères, Abbé de
Châteauneuf, who informed Louis XIV. that he had been admitted into the
Seraglio with his sword. But it was very short, and did not attract
attention.
[233] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,
_Mémoires et Documents_, I.
[234] Instructions given to M. de Ferriol, ambassador:--Archives of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 33.
[235] This is the testimony which the Jesuits themselves have borne
in several accounts; Father Monnier, _Mémoires des Missionnaires de
la Compagnie de Jésus_, vol. iii. pp. 46-52; Father Fleuriau, _État
présent de l’Arménie_, Paris, 1694. 12mo.
[236] _Lettres sur la Turquie_, by M. A. Ubicini, part 2, p. 252,
Paris, Dumaine.
[237] Father Monnier, work already mentioned.
[238] Hammer, _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman_. Ubicini, _Lettres sur
la Turquie_. Archives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,
_Mémoires et Documents_, 37.
[239] One day a stranger presented himself before the Grand Vizier,
Raghib-Pasha, saying that Mahomet had appeared to him to invite him
to turn Mussulman, and that he had come on purpose from Dantzic to be
converted. “Here is a strange rascal,” said the Grand Vizier. “Mahomet
has appeared to an infidel, when for more than seventy years I have
been exact in the five prayers, and he has never done me such an
honour!” And the stranger did not become a Mussulman. “I have heard
it said several times by doctors of Mahometan law that, according to
their religion, it was not permitted to them to protect one party
against another in the dispute which sprang up between the Catholics
and the heretics, because, as they said, they were both equally bad.”
Manuscript _Mémoire_ of 1771 on matters of religion:--Archives of
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 37.
[240] _Relazione di quanto ha trattato il Vescovo di Sidonia nella
sua Missione in Oriente, data alla Santità di N.S. Sisto V., alli 19
Aprile, 1587._
[241] See M. Dulaurier’s excellent work: _Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions
et Liturgie de l’Église Arménienne Orientale_, Paris, Durand libraire,
1859. This book combats the generally received opinion that the
Armenians have embraced monophysism, such as has been taught by
Eutyches and his adherents, who recognized only the divine nature
in Christ. Not only, in truth, have the Armenians always condemned
Eutyches, whom their church excommunicates, but also they profess, like
the Greek and Latin churches, the dogma of the two natures, the two
wills, and the two operations in Jesus Christ.
[242] Borée, _l’Arménie_, p. 54; Serpos, _Compendio storico sulla
Nazione Armena_, p. 204, Venice, 1786; M. Ubicini, _Lettres sur la
Turquie_, part 2, p. 254.
[243] Unpublished letter from Ferriol to Father Fleuriau, of November
4, 1701:--Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,
37.
[244] Letter from Ferriol to Father Fleuriau, already referred to, in
which Father Braconnier’s own words are quoted.
[245] Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence of
Ferriol and Louis XIV., section Turkey.
[246] But only by its despatches. The court of Rome was very niggard of
its money. “I pray your Majesty to have this account paid me,” wrote
Ferriol to the King, October 17, 1705, “since I receive from the court
of Rome only briefs and indulgences.”
[247] Unpublished letter of Ferriol to the Marquis de Torcy, Minister
of Exterior Relations, April 5, 1704:--Archives of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 40. We read in another despatch from
Ferriol to the Cardinal de la Trémouille, Louis XIV.’s ambassador at
Rome: “Most of the missionaries complain directly they find the least
obstacle to their desires. Patience is a great virtue which they
rarely practise, although very necessary for the proper cultivation of
the Lord’s vineyard:”--Unpublished letter of Ferriol, March 5, 1709,
Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 46.