DIPLOMACY--HIGH AND OTHERWISE
Our Ambassador’s first interview with the Kehayah had for its
primary object a demand of the greatest delicacy, though no
way connected with English interests in the Levant: a sort of
“side-show” springing out of Charles II.’s secret diplomacy and
directed from the inmost recesses of the Cabal. Whether Finch knew
the dark inwardness of the policy he served can only be matter of
conjecture: his despatches are too guarded.[106] But certain it is
that he threw himself unflinchingly into measures which he knew to
be agreeable to his master and his patron, Lord Arlington.
The custody of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem had for ages
supplied an apple of discord between Greek and Latin monks, who
fought for the tomb of the Prince of Peace with more rancour than
monarchs ever displayed in their struggles for temporal gains. It
was not the ownership of the holy places, which belonged to the
Grand Signor; it was not even the exclusive occupation of them that
the unholy contest raged about. The whole feud was for certain
honorific privileges or tokens of pre-eminence, such as the right
to decorate a shrine, to light the lamps, or to keep the keys of
a church. For these trifles both sects were prepared to spend
thousands in corrupting the pashas of the Divan with whom the
decision lay, and, besides, the Latin friars in Palestine, though
being Spaniards, they had no ambassador of their own to assist
them, enjoyed the diplomatic support of France, of Germany, of
Venice, and of Poland. The Greeks would fain rely on their wits
and their dollars. So equipped, each sect had alternately turned
the other out. When M. de Nointel came to Turkey in 1670, he found
the dispute in progress: it was one of the aims of his mission to
have it settled in favour of the Latins, and on renewing the French
Capitulations, in the summer of 1673, he had, as he imagined,
carried his point.
The Greeks, however, had at that time a powerful champion in the
First Dragoman of the Porte, Panayoti Nicusi, commonly called by
the diminutive Panayotaki--an exceedingly clever and accomplished
Greek, who easily persuaded the Vizir of the impolicy of taking the
custody of the Holy Sepulchre from subjects of the Grand Signor
and giving it to the protégés of foreign Powers--Powers which
once owned the Holy Land and hoped to own it again: religious
penetration being but the first step to ultimate conquest. A
Hattisherif was, accordingly, handed to Panayoti, confirming the
Greek claim. But, as Germany and the other European Powers whom
Panayoti, before entering the service of the Porte, had served
in the capacity of interpreter, were patrons of the Latins, and
Panayoti did not wish to appear as his former employers’ opponent,
the grant remained dormant until after his death, which took
place in October 1673. Once the Dragoman safe in his grave, his
countrymen produced the document and asserted their rights. The
feud had reached its climax at Easter 1674, when M. de Nointel was
on the spot.
Greek and Latin friars were preparing to adorn their respective
portions of the marble shrine that covered the Tomb, when,
stimulated by the presence of the French Ambassador, they fell
out about the use of a ladder. The quarrel soon grew into a free
fight which ended in the murder of one or two--some said two or
three--Greek Caloyers. Result, in the French Ambassador’s own
words, “un enfer déchaîné”--hell let loose. The whole of the Greek
community, clergy and laity, men, women, and children, rushed to
the Cadi clamouring for help against the Latin assassins; the
Latins stoutly denied the deed, affirming that the Caloyer or
Caloyers had died of old age. M. de Nointel, in a paroxysm of
diplomatico-religious frenzy, wrote to his King, to the Pope, to
the Queen of Spain, to all the Catholic princes and potentates in
Europe, denouncing the Greeks as usurpers, calling for vengeance,
begging for money--much money wherewith to purchase the favour of
the pashas and foil the intrigues of the schismatics.
All this, however, had failed to undo the dead Panayoti’s work.
Ahmed Kuprili never was the man to be moved by any one, least of
all by the representative of a nation which, while calling itself
the ally of Turkey, openly aided Turkey’s enemies: the Vizir had
met thousands of Frenchmen fighting against him both in Hungary
and in Crete. Moreover, as Sir John remarks, the murder of the
Greek or Greeks had “highly displeasd’ the Gran Visir.” The Spanish
Cordeliers of Jerusalem, reduced to their own devices, sent to
Adrianople Padre Canizares, their Commissary at Constantinople,
armed with letters from the Bailo of Venice and good store of gold
of his own, to see what they could do at the Porte. The Greeks,
on their part, sent to Adrianople the Patriarch of Jerusalem,
Dositheos, armed with the Sultan’s Hattisherif and good store of
gold of his own, to see that the Spaniards did nothing at the
Porte. Thus things stood on the eve of Sir John Finch’s appearance
on the scene: Greek and Latin Christians wrangling for the
possession of Christ’s grave before a Moslem tribunal.[107]
Our Ambassador had followed the feud from Pera with profound
attention. England, looking upon the Greeks as natural allies
against the common enemy--Popery--had, since the time of Elizabeth,
consistently supported them in all their quarrels with the Latins.
That Queen’s representative, Edward Barton, lived on terms of
affectionate intimacy with the Patriarch Meletios. His successors,
Henry Lello and Sir Thomas Glover, likewise maintained the closest
friendship with the successors of Meletios. After enduring unabated
throughout the reign of James I., this Anglo-Greek alliance
had attained its height in the time of Charles I., during the
Patriarchate of the renowned and unfortunate Cyril Lucaris, when
the Catholic intrigues against the Greek Church reached their
depth. Sir Thomas Roe and Sir Peter Wych, all the years they were
at Constantinople, strove to save that prelate from the infamous
plots of the Jesuits and their patron the French Ambassador, who,
however, succeeded at length in compassing his strangulation
at the hands of the Turks.[108] The first departure from this
policy appears, strangely enough, to have occurred during the
Commonwealth. When Lord Winchilsea arrived at Constantinople, in
1661, the Latin President of the Holy Sepulchre appealed to him for
his favour on the ground that his antecessor, Sir Thomas Bendyshe,
was a great defender of the Catholics in Turkey against the
Greeks[109]--at a time when the Catholics in England were treated
as almost outside the Christian pale and all heretics scattered
over the Catholic world regarded Cromwell as their protector! Such
a paradox might give food for interesting speculation indeed.[110]
What concerns us here is Winchilsea’s response to the appeal: it
forms a tolerably good example of the edifying ways of diplomacy.
Among the King’s Instructions to Winchilsea there is a clause
bidding him “show all kindness and humanity to those of the Greek
Church,” and counteract, by all the means in his power, the
machinations of her antagonists, “especially such Jesuits and
Friars as under religious pretences compass other ends.”[111] This
looks as if at the beginning of his reign Charles II. meant to
revert to the ancient tradition. Very soon, however, his attitude
changed. As everybody now knows, though at the time the thing was
a secret known to very few, Charles, already a crypto-Catholic,
promised himself to establish papacy in England--to re-unite his
kingdom to the Church of Rome. After the displacement of Secretary
Nicholas (who, like Clarendon, always opposed the King’s favour for
the Catholics) by Arlington, in 1662, the Romanist tendencies of
the English Court became more pronounced, culminating in the Treaty
of Dover which, among other things, stipulated the subversion of
Protestantism in England. It was natural, therefore, for a king who
entertained such projects at home to foment similar designs abroad;
that his representatives at Constantinople should promote in the
East the cause which their master promoted in the West.
What verbal orders Winchilsea may have had it is impossible to
say; but it can be shown that, even while pretending to exert
himself on behalf of the Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople and
Jerusalem, he earned the gratitude of their Latin rivals. After
the supersession of Nicholas, he dropped all pretence, obtained
His Majesty’s authority to disregard the pro-Greek clause, and
thenceforward made the protection of the Roman Catholics an
integral part of his programme.[112] His successor, Harvey, went
out to Turkey with Instructions from which the awkward clause
was significantly omitted,[113] and this negative evidence is
supplemented by that Ambassador’s confidential relations with the
Marquis de Nointel who had on his eager mind the “re-union” of the
Greek and Roman Churches under the aegis of Louis. The Rev. John
Covel, who assisted at many after-dinner discussions between the
two diplomats about the doctrine of Transubstantiation and kindred
topics, makes it quite clear that in Harvey the Catholic cause had
found, at least, a benevolent neutral.[114] In the more zealous and
less discreet Finch it was to find an active ally.
From his arrival in Turkey Sir John had shown his bias. The Greek
Patriarch of Constantinople who had been deposed in 1674 would, in
pursuance of the old tradition, have fled to the English Embassy.
But Sir John refused him asylum.[115] In the quarrel over the Holy
Sepulchre, without hesitation or examination, he adopted the Latin
view and offered Padre Canizares his assistance--an offer which the
monk declined, to the Ambassador’s intense annoyance: “He thankes
me, but desird’ not so much as a letter from me. I keep this in
Petto.” It was not long before the Providence that watches over
aggrieved diplomats supplied Finch with a chance of unburdening
his “petto.” The Commissary of the Cordeliers, by means either of
the Bailo’s letter or of his own gold, had contrived to obtain
from the Porte a suspension of the sentence which assigned the
custody of the Holy Sepulchre to the Greeks, and a revision of the
case; but in this new hearing the Vizir upheld the Greek side,
acting, as the Latin Fathers said, rather the part of an advocate
for the Greeks than of a judge. The upshot was that the former
sentence was confirmed; and, though no order for its execution had
yet been issued, the Cordeliers were in such a fright that Padre
Canizares sent an express to Jerusalem requiring them to remove out
of the holy places all the costly plate which had been presented
by several Christian princes, so that, if the worst came to the
worst, their rivals might find the prize denuded. At the same time,
two of them came to Finch with an account of their parlous state.
This was Sir John’s opportunity: “I told them that I was sorry as
a Christian, that they had lost their just Possessions, But as a
Publick Minister I was not the least concernd’ in it. P. Canizares
having, though I offerd’ him my Assistance at a time when He found
himselfe in so great danger, wholely declind’ all application to
me, as if the King of Englands Ambassadour weighd’ nothing at this
Court: and thus much occasionally I causd’ to be signifyd’ to the
Bailo of Venice; and upon occasion shall doe the like to the French
Ambassadour.”[116]
The French Ambassador had already written to Finch from Rama[117]
on behalf of the Jerusalem Friars, and on his return to
Constantinople in February 1675, after adjusting his differences
with Sir John, he renewed his efforts to engage the Englishman’s
co-operation. With this object in view he paid Finch a visit a
little before the latter set out for Adrianople, and urged him
to befriend the Latin Fathers near the Grand Vizir and Grand
Signor, vehemently complaining of the Greeks, whom he described
as “a company of Traditori, treacherous false wretches.”[118] The
Venetian Bailo also approached our Ambassador on the same subject,
and our Ambassador was not a little flattered to find himself, all
of a sudden, the arbiter of Christendom.
It was, then, as a champion of Papacy that Sir John came to
Adrianople: an odd rôle for one who had taken such pains to
introduce himself to the Turks as the envoy from a “Defender of
the Christian Faith against all those that worship Idolls and
Images.” Whether the incongruity struck the Turks, we do not
know. It certainly did not strike Sir John. The Jerusalem Fathers
hastened to wait upon him, and “having excusd’ themselves and
askd’ Pardon,” they “beseechd’ the King of Englands Protection,”
declaring that they were prepared to spend for the purpose a sum
of 15,000 dollars. Sir John willingly acceded to their request and
promised to set about it straightway. What form was the protection
to take? Sir John tells us that the money placed at his disposal
was to be used “for the obtaining a Hattesheriffe for the clear
possession of the Rights that were in dispute.” Dudley North
asserts that the Fathers proposed and the Ambassador agreed to get
an Article in their favour inserted into our Capitulations, adding
that they showed Sir John the Article they desired ready-made both
in Italian and in Turkish; and North’s assertion is inherently
very probable. Lord Winchilsea in a letter to the Latin Procurator
of the Holy Land had long ago stated that he found himself much
hindered in his efforts to act as a patron of the Jerusalem Fathers
by the fact that their protection was not mentioned in the English
Capitulations.[119] However that may be, Sir John immediately
procured a private interview with the Kehayah, and asked him
“whether there was any hopes left for the Latin Fathers.” He was
told that the Grand Vizir had sent to Jerusalem to inquire into
the case, and “upon the sentence that was given no execution would
be issued forth till the messenger was returnd’.” Thereupon the
Ambassador prayed “that the execution might not be given out,
untill I was heard what I had to say,”--intimating that he was able
to bring forward 15,000 arguments. The Kehayah, in the kindest
possible manner, agreed that a case so well supported was entitled
to respectful consideration; and the Ambassador went away persuaded
that the difficulties of the question had been greatly exaggerated:
his only fear was lest some other diplomat should steal a march
upon him.[120]
Thus blithely did Sir John thrust his hand into that hornets’ nest.
As was to be expected, the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem very soon
got wind of this step. He had already made the English Ambassador’s
acquaintance at Constantinople through the Rev. John, who, being
intimate with both sides, knew of the Latin design to turn the
Greeks out of the holy places even before Sir John Finch’s arrival
in Turkey, and thought it in his heart an unjust design: they
should be kept in, for they were natives and in possession. To the
sympathetic Chaplain, therefore, Dositheos now had recourse and
through him obtained an audience of our Ambassador.[121]
Simmering with excitement, his Holiness reminded his Excellency of
the protection the Greeks had always had from the English nation,
and desired that his Excellency should continue it. Finch replied
in most courteous terms that his wish was to adjust the controversy
between them and the Latins: they should abide by what was right
and reasonable; and he argued at great length in favour of the
Latins. The Patriarch went away highly dissatisfied.
A few days later, he wrote that he was not well enough to wait on
his Excellency in person again, but asked that Mr. Covel might be
sent to him, as he had to say some things which could not be said
in a letter. When Covel went, Dositheos told him plainly that he
knew well the Ambassador had taken up the Latins’ part for a sum of
money, and that he meant to write to the King of England and to the
Archbishop of Canterbury about it.
Whether these threats would have had any effect upon Finch may
be doubted. But, as luck would have it, at this juncture letters
reached him from home, relating that the Catholic cause was in a
bad way. The Parliament which met on April 13th, 1675, had drawn
up a new Bill against Popery. In the circumstances, his Excellency
thought it expedient to modify his enthusiasm for the Cordeliers,
and began to declare that he would not put their Article into the
Capitulations, but would endeavour to procure a Hattisherif on
their behalf. At this change of tone the Friars were much troubled,
and pressed him to fulfil his original promise, offering more
money; but they had to be content with what Sir John now promised
them.[122] And even for that they would have to wait.
Sir John was meditating another descent upon the Kehayah, when the
latter sent for his Dragomans and told them that the Grand Signor
desired an English ship to convey to Tunis an Aga on important
business: the old story of requisitioning over again!
The situation was one of those that Sir John loved to deal with
and to describe in detail: they called for precisely the sort of
qualities he possessed: he felt that in such a situation he looked
at his best. Do not let us, then, withhold from him the pleasure of
telling how he acquitted himself:
“I make my Druggermen return with this answer, That there could not
be a thing more grievous to the King my Masters subjects then to
have their ships employd’ in this manner, for our ships were not
like the French ships and other Nations, but ships that carry’d
great wealth, besides that the Captains were bound by Charter Party
not to goe out of their way upon forfeiture of their estates, if
not their lives; That if I being at the Court could not be heard as
to the defence of this Right, what could I doe when I was absent
from the Court?”
The Kehayah replied that there were no ships in the port of Smyrna
ready to sail but the English, and the Grand Signor’s need was
urgent: he looked upon Finch as the greatest friend to the Empire
amongst all Ambassadors, so that a denial would be taken very
unkindly, especially when he came to the Court to ask favours and
would grant none. Sir John realised that it would never do to
disoblige the Turks at a moment when he needed their goodwill, by
refusing what they considered a very small thing--a thing to which
they had been used, and, for the rest, a thing which they could
take by force. But he thought to try a personal appeal first, “and
then, if I must, to doe it in as obliging a manner as I could.” So
he sent his Dragomans back to tell the Kehayah that he would wait
upon him and bring his own answer.
“When I came to him I gave him leave to use all his Arguments and
all his pressures, which he did with great earnestnesse, before I
spake one word; but thereby having a sense within my selfe that it
could not be avoided, before I answerd’ him one word, I plucked out
the letter of Command, which I had in my pockett, prepared in case
I found things irremediable, which I wrote to the Consul of Smyrna
for to land the Aga at Tunis, which I deliverd’ him, and told him,
Sir, There is the Command, of which you now being in possession you
may well give me leave to speak all the Arguments of prejudice that
wee lye under by this action, the end of which onely is to make you
sensible that you ought not to presse me in this point at any other
time. So I made him very apprehensive of the inconveniences he
brought us to, and he promisd’ me to be very tender allway’s in it,
and this way of treating with him seemd’ to please him very much.”
Did diplomat ever yield to pressure with a better grace? And what
shall we say of that dramatic plucking out of the letter from his
pocket: just when the Kehayah least expected such a thing? It was
a great gesture. Then, again, think of the originality of yielding
first and arguing afterwards! No wonder the Kehayah was delighted
at “this way of treating with him.”
But Sir John had not yet exhausted the possibilities of the
situation: “Being thus reducd’ to order a ship to land him at
Tunis, I bethought my selfe how to make use of a bad markett, and
so made it my request to him that, finding in my last Audience with
the Gran Vizir that he did utterly disapprove the actions of the
Tripolines, promised me to endeavour to remedy them, I offerd’ him
amongst other expedients this for one that the Gran Vizir would be
pleasd’ to write a letter of resentment to them at Tripoli, and
command them to make restitution of what depredations were made
upon His Majesty’s subjects ships, which if they gave obedience
to, I would write to His Majesty’s V: Admirall Sir John Narbrough,
to prepare him for it, and that if the Commission He had from His
Majesty would permitt Him to accept of it (which I had reason to
beleive) Peace would follow.”[123]
A promise was given that the Vizir would write in that sense.
Whether he did or not (nobody ever saw the letter),[124] Sir John,
taking much for granted, wrote on his own account to Narbrough, how
in consequence of his representations “the Gran Signor was this day
pleasd’ to give by the Visir Azem His severe Commands to the Dei of
Tripoli and that Goverment, to make you Restitution of whatsoever
was by the men of warr of that place taken out of the ships of His
Majesty’s subjects.” He added: “the Gran Visir desird’ me to write
to you,” (a bit of diplomatic licence--nothing to speak of!) “that
having Restitution made you, the warr might cease.” For such a
consummation Sir John devoutly prayed, not without good reason;
but, of course, he did not presume to dictate to the Admiral.
“Sir,” he goes on, “Persons in your command are under Instructions
from which you cannot deviate: I can onely tell you, that His
Majesty having Restitution, has a dore opend’ with Honour to goe
out of a warr that will be of a certain expense but of an uncertain
issue, for I am not so great a stranger to your worth, but that
I know t’ will be harder for you to find the Enemy then to beat
Him: In the Interim when Restitution is offerd, the Agreement
between the Crowns seems to enjoyn a Peace. If so, your Prudence
knows how to serve yourselfe of this advice, and to endear the
manner of doeing what His Majesty’s Interest requires to be done
howsoever. But if you have orders of a different nature, and of
later injunction, then I know of, I cannot who owe entire obedience
to the King our Masters Commands to the utmost Puntiglio, speake
any thing: Onely if your orders allow you to conclude Peace upon
Restitution, I think you will doe His Majesty’s Honour right, and
your owne Reputation no wrong to renew the Peace; which if you doe,
I pray send me early notice of; and if you doe not, the Reasons
why, that in this great Empire I may vindicate the friendship his
Majesty owns with the Gran Signor and secure the great estates of
his subjects the Levant Company.”[125]
These transactions illustrate sufficiently the graver side of Sir
John’s employment during the festive season; what follows exhibits
him in a lighter vein.
Our Ambassador knew that there is nothing people like better than
attentions: those little offices of civility which, by flattering
their pride, never fail to conciliate their friendship or at least
their good-will; and he carried his attentions from the highest
down to the lowest with an assiduity which would have done credit
to Dudley North himself.
For instance, he had a large English mastiff which had worsted
bears of the greatest size and savagery in single-fight. Aware
of the Imperial Hunter’s tastes, he hastened to send him this
ferocious dog as a present: “which,” the Rev. John tells us, “the
Grand Signor took mightily kindly.”[126] This courtesy, let us
hope, made the Avji more friendly towards us than a more important
service would have done. His subordinates had to be wooed according
to their own particular weaknesses.
Among these, sad to relate, none was more prevalent than a weakness
for wine and spirits. The Sultan, himself an habitual abstainer,
had twice (in 1661 and 1670) forbidden the use of intoxicants: the
second time by a most drastic edict most drastically enforced:
taverns pulled down, butts broken in pieces, wine spilt, and the
making and selling of it banned “upon no less penalty than hanging,
or being putt into the Gallies.”[127] Yet the cult of Bacchus
flourished more luxuriantly than ever. Legislation had overreached
itself. The abolition of the tax had lowered the price of the
article, so that those who before could afford to drink only one
bottle openly, now drank two in secret. During Sir John’s stay at
Adrianople intoxication was common among Turks of all classes, and
particularly rampant in Court circles. With the exception of the
Grand Signor and the Mufti, there was hardly a sober grandee. Our
Chaplain, whom nothing escaped, has much to say about this phase
of Turkish life also: “I have seen,” he declares, “the Vizier
himself _mamur_, that is, crop sick severall times.” Alas! it was
only too true. Ahmed Kuprili, up to the end of the siege of Candia
(1669), had never tasted a drop of anything stronger than sherbet.
But on his return from that campaign he stopped at the fair isle
of Chios to refresh himself from his toils. This holiday, the
first he had ever had, proved his undoing. For a whole fortnight
he refreshed himself among the mastic groves of Chios, allowing no
public affairs, however urgent, to interrupt his potations. Ahmed
was nothing if not thorough. From that date he seemed anxious to
atone for his past temperance, and at such a rate that, by 1675,
his stomach could no longer keep warm without the most fiery of
liqueurs.[128]
It was with wine, therefore, that Sir John wooed those whom his
Dragomans worried. He sent them, at short intervals, samples of
his cellar, and anxiously inquired how they were appreciated. “My
Florence wines,” he reports, “were not likd’ at the Court, the
wines I had out of the Pope’s State well approved; but the sack
that I brought with me mightily admird’, and none esteemd’ to come
near it; so that I gave Him [the Vizir] all I had, save onely one
double Bottle I kept to drink His Majesty’s Health for the day that
I should receive my Capitulations.”[129]
This way of dealing with the Turks was so novel that it excited
comment among Sir John’s colleagues; and one day Count Kindsberg,
as the two were “talking merrily together,” ventured to say “that
He understood I went on with this Court by fair and Courtly
mean’s, which was not others, nor His practise.” Sir John readily
answered, “that he did well, and very possibly I might doe so to,
he immitating his Master who hath had allway’s Warr with the Gran
Signor and I mine who had allwayes Peace.”[130]
In another matter, too, Sir John showed himself surprisingly
careless of his neighbours’ opinion. There was at Adrianople a
disreputable Italian renegade, Count Bocareschi. The Ambassador
shared this highly undesirable acquaintance with--the Rev. John
Covel. Our Chaplain had known the Count for years and cherished
no illusions about him: “this Bocareschi,” he told one of his
Cambridge correspondents, “was a very parasite as [ever] lived: an
excellent wit, and some little learning, the Latin toung perfectly;
but for his damned traiterous perfidious tricks, was kick’t out
of all publick ministers’ companyes.”[131] Yet, though he knew
the Italian well for “a damned rogue” and “a beast,” as he calls
him elsewhere, he cultivated him because the adventurer, being a
Muteferrika, or quartermaster, had access to many places which
the Rev. John itched to explore. From a like opportunism, his
Excellency now entertained the ignoble Count at dinner nearly ever
day. Diplomacy, like Providence, is not very particular in its
choice of instruments. The proud Lord Ambassadour must stoop to
caress a Muteferrika; the representative of a monarch who styled
himself Defender of the Faith must consort with a renegade.
Thus during the six weeks that the Festivities lasted Sir John
utilised every means he could think of for making himself popular
with everybody and anybody who might be of use to him in his
mission: bakshishing and flattering the Turks up to the scratch.
His methods, scandalous though they might seem to others, to him
appeared successful. The officials who received his fine wines gave
him in return fair words: the Capitulations, Sir John understood,
had been read over to the Grand Vizir several times: article
after article was considered and passed. Finally, one day, as his
Dragomans went by the house of Hussein Aga, Director of Customs,
or, as the English of that day styled him, Chief Customer, that
officer called them up and told them that all the demands his
Excellency had put forward were granted; but he wondered that they
should think such boons were to be had for nothing! Whereupon the
Dragomans went to the Rais Effendi, who corroborated the Customer’s
statement, adding that he had reason to believe that the Kehayah’s
sentiments were the same. When this was reported to Sir John, he
sent the Dragomans to the Kehayah, promising him 1000 sequins
(£500) for the Grand Vizir, 1000 dollars (£250) for himself, and a
similar sum for the Rais Effendi.[132]
That Sir John was overjoyed at the near prospect of his release
it would be superfluous to state. There is a satiety of all
things, even of rats, mice, fleas, bugs, Jew-stenches and Turkish
festivities. How ill-advised he had been to put off his journey
till this season! But now it is only a question of days--he will
soon have done now.
FOOTNOTES:
[106] Even in touching upon such an open secret as the Turkish
Ministers’ susceptibility to the charm of dollars, Finch dares not
speak out: “the greatest arguments I cannot write to you without a
Cipher, reflecting upon great Persons,” he tells Coventry: Sept. 9,
1675.
[107] Finch to Coventry, Feb. 24/March 6, 1674-75, Sept. 9, 1675;
Covel’s _Greek Church_, Pref. pp. lii, liv; Rycaut’s _Memoirs_, pp.
315-7; _Life of Dudley North_, pp. 104-5; Vandal’s _Nointel_, pp.
136, 141-2; Hammer, vol. xi. pp. 362, 425.
[108] See the despatches of all those ambassadors in _S.P. Turkey_.
A few of them are in print: Sir Thomas Roe’s _Negotiations_
(1621-28). The story may be read, however, in Rycaut’s _History_
and in Covel’s _Greek Church_.
[109] Father Bonaventura to Winchilsea, July 24, 1661, _Finch
Report_, p. 137.
[110] At the same time we find “the Eldest Son of the Church”
supporting in Germany and Hungary the Protestants he persecuted
in France; yet historians with a faculty for generalisation and
idealisation tell us that the struggle which rent Europe at that
period was essentially a religious struggle!
[111] _S.P. Turkey_, 17.
[112] Winchilsea to Nicholas, Dec. 19, 1662, _S.P. Turkey_, 17.
In contrast with this, see numerous letters, beginning so early
as April 1662, in the _Finch Report_. The same volume (p. 297)
contains the King’s permission to the Ambassador to ignore his
Instructions regarding the Greek Church; it is dated, Dec. 23, 1663.
[113] See “Instructions for Our Trusty and Wellbeloved Servant Sir
Daniell Harvey, Knt., at Whitehall, Aug. 3, 68,” _S.P. Turkey_,
19. The clause in question is also omitted from the Instructions
to Finch. It reappears in those to Lord Chandos, 1680--when the
anti-Catholic agitation in England was at its height.
[114] Covel’s _Greek Church_, Pref. p. xi.
[115] Finch to Arlington, July 27, S.N., 1674, _Coventry Papers_.
[116] Finch to Coventry, Feb. 24/March 6, 1674-75.
[117] Nointel’s letter from Rama seems to have been lost, but its
purport is preserved in his letter from Tripoli, July 12, 1674.
[118] Covel’s _Greek Church_, Pref. p. lii.
[119] Winchilsea to Fra Dominico del Arzival, Oct. 10, 1662, _Finch
Report_, p. 218.
[120] Finch to Coventry, Sept. 9, 1675; _Life of Dudley North_, p.
105.
[121] Covel’s _Greek Church_, Pref. p. vi.
[122] _Life of Dudley North_, pp. 106-7.
[123] Finch to Coventry, Sept. 9, 1675.
[124] _Life of Dudley North_, p. 106.
[125] Finch to Narbrough, Adrianople, May 24, S.V. 1675, _Coventry
Papers_.
[126] Covel’s _Diaries_, p. 238.
[127] Harvey to Williamson, Sept. 5, 1670, _S.P. Turkey_, 19. Cp.
Rycaut’s _Memoirs_, pp. 105, 285.
[128] Covel’s _Diaries_, p. 245; Rycaut’s _Memoirs_, pp. 282-3, 318.
[129] Finch to Coventry, Sept. 9, 1675.
[130] Finch to Coventry, Sept. 9, 1675. Rycaut, who always reflects
the conventional view, would have agreed with Kindsberg: “It is
certainly a good Maxime for an Ambassador in this Countrey, not to
be over-studious in procuring a familiar friendship with Turks,”
_Present State_, p. 170. This maxim arose from the belief that “a
Turk is not capable of real friendship towards a Christian.”
[131] Covel’s _Diaries_, p. 226.
[132] _Life of Dudley North_, p. 107.