Conclusion of the Affairs of Pruth.
It is necessary in this place to repeat an event already related in the
History of Charles XII. It happened during the suspension of arms which
preceded the treaty of Pruth, that two Tartarian soldiers surprised and
took prisoners two Italian officers belonging to the czar's army, and
sold them to an officer of the Turkish janissaries. The vizier being
informed of this breach of public faith, punished the two Tartars with
death. How are we to reconcile this severe delicacy with the violation
of the law of nations in the person of Tolstoy, the czar's ambassador,
whom this very vizier caused to be arrested in the streets of
Constantinople, and afterwards imprisoned in the castle of the Seven
Towers? There is always some reason for the contradictions we find in
the actions of mankind. Baltagi Mahomet was incensed against the khan of
Tartary, for having opposed the peace he had lately made, and was
resolved to shew that chieftain that he was his master.
The treaty was no sooner concluded, than the czar quitted the borders of
the Pruth, and returned towards his own dominions, followed by a body of
eight thousand Turks, whom the vizier had sent as an army of observation
to watch the motions of the Russian army during its march, and also to
serve as an escort or safeguard to them against the wandering Tartars
which infested those parts.
Peter instantly set about accomplishing the treaty, by demolishing the
fortresses of Samara and Kamienska; but the restoring of Azoph, and the
demolition of the port of Taganroc, met with some difficulties in the
execution. According to the terms of the treaty it was necessary to
distinguish the artillery and ammunition which belonged to the Turks in
Azoph before that place was taken by the czar, from those which had been
sent thither after it fell into his hands. The governor of the place
spun out this affair to a tedious length, at which the Porte was greatly
incensed, and not without reason: the sultan was impatient to receive
the keys of Azoph. The vizier promised they should be sent from time to
time, but the governor always found means to delay the delivery of them.
Baltagi Mahomet lost the good graces of his master, and with them his
place. The khan of Tartary and his other enemies made such good use of
their interest with the sultan, that the grand vizier was deposed,
several bashas were disgraced at the same time; but the grand seignior,
well convinced of this minister's fidelity, did not deprive him either
of his life or estate, but only sent him to Mytilene to take on him the
command of that island. This simple removal from the helm of affairs
(Nov. 1711,), and the continuing to him his fortunes, and above all the
giving him the command in Mytilene, sufficiently contradicts all that
Norberg has advanced, to induce us to believe that this vizier had been
corrupted with the czar's money.
Norberg asserts furthermore, that the Bostangi basha, who came to divest
him of his office, and to acquaint him of the grand seignior's sentence,
declared him at the same time, 'a traitor, one who had disobeyed the
orders of his sovereign lord, had sold himself to the enemy for money,
and was found guilty of not having taken proper care of the interests of
the king of Sweden.' In the first place, this kind of declarations are
not at all in use in Turkey: the orders of the grand seignior always
being issued privately, and executed with secresy. Secondly, if the
vizier had been declared a traitor, a rebel, and a corrupted person,
crimes of this nature would have been instantly punished with death in a
country where they are never forgiven. Lastly, if he was punishable for
not having sufficiently attended to the interests of the king of Sweden,
it is evident that this prince must have had such a degree of influence
at the Ottoman Porte, as to have made the other ministers to tremble,
who would consequently have endeavoured to gain his good graces;
whereas, on the contrary, the basha Jussuf, aga of the janissaries, who
succeeded Mahomet Baltagi as grand vizier, had the same sentiments as
his predecessor, in relation to Charles's conduct, and was so far from
doing him any service that he thought of nothing but how to get rid of
so dangerous a guest; and when count Poniatowsky, the companion and
confidant of that monarch, went to compliment the vizier on his new
dignity, the latter spoke to him thus. 'Pagan, I forewarn thee, that if
ever I find thee hatching any intrigues, I will, upon the first notice,
cause thee to be thrown into the sea with a stone about thy neck.'
This compliment count Poniatowsky himself relates in the memoirs which
he drew up at my request, and is a sufficient proof of the little
influence his master had in the Turkish court. All that Norberg has
related touching the affairs of that empire, appear to come from
a prejudiced person, and one who was very ill informed of the
circumstances he pretends to write about. And we may count among the
errors of a party-spirit and political falsehoods, every thing which
this writer advances unsupported by proofs, concerning the pretended
corruption of a grand vizier, that is, of a person who had the disposal
of upwards of sixty millions per annum, without being subject to the
least account.[89] I have now before me the letter which count
Poniatowsky wrote to King Stanislaus immediately after the signing the
treaty of Pruth, in which he upbraids Baltagi Mahomet with the slight he
shewed to the king of Sweden, his dislike to the war, and the
unsteadiness of his temper; but never once hints the least charge of
corruption: for he knew too well what the place of grand vizier was, to
entertain an idea, that the czar was capable of setting a price upon the
infidelity of the second person in the Ottoman empire.
Schaffirow and Sheremeto, who remained at Constantinople as hostages on
the part of the czar for his performance of the treaty, were not used in
the manner they would have been if known to have purchased this peace,
and to have joined with the vizier in deceiving his master. They were
left to go at liberty about the city, escorted by two companies of
janissaries.
The czar's ambassador Tolstoy having been released from his confinement
in the Seven Towers, immediately upon the signing of the treaty of
Pruth, the Dutch and English ministers interposed with the new vizier to
see the several articles of that treaty put into execution.
Azoph was at length restored to the Turks, and the fortresses mentioned
in the treaty were demolished according to stipulation. And now the
Ottoman Porte, though very little inclinable to interfere in the
differences between Christian princes, could not without vanity behold
himself made arbitrator between Russia, Poland, and the king of Sweden;
and insisted that the czar should withdraw his troops out of Poland, and
deliver the Turkish empire from so dangerous a neighbour; and, desirous
that the Christian princes might continually be at war with each other,
wished for nothing so much as to send Charles home to his own dominions,
but all this while had not the least intention of furnishing him with an
army. The Tartars were still for war, as an artificer is willing to
seize every opportunity to exercise his calling. The janissaries
likewise wished to be called into the field, but more out of hatred
against the Christians, their naturally restless disposition, and from a
fondness for rapine and licentiousness, than from any other motives.
Nevertheless, the English and Dutch ministers managed their negotiations
so well, that they prevailed over the opposite party: the treaty of
Pruth was confirmed, but with the addition of a new article, by which it
was stipulated that the czar should withdraw his forces from Poland
within three months, and that the sultan should immediately send Charles
XII. out of his dominions.
We may judge from this new treaty whether the king of Sweden had that
interest at the Porte which some writers would have us to believe. He
was evidently sacrificed on this occasion by the new vizier, basha
Jussuf, as he had been before by Baltagi Mahomet. The historians of his
party could find no other expedient to colour over this fresh affront,
but that of accusing Jussuf of having been bribed like his predecessor.
Such repeated imputations, unsupported by any proofs, are rather the
clamours of an impotent cabal, than the testimonies of history; but
faction, when driven to acknowledge facts, will ever be endeavouring to
alter circumstances and motives; and, unhappily, it is thus that all the
histories of our times will be handed down to posterity so altered, that
they will be unable to distinguish truth from falsehoods.