IBRAHIM’S FALL
On March 5th, 1536[184] Ibrahim Pasha betook himself to the imperial
palace in Stamboul to dine with the sultan and spend the night with his
Majesty, according to a long established custom. In the morning his
body was found with marks on it, showing that he had been strangled
after a fierce struggle.[185] A horse with black trappings carried the
dishonored body home,[186] and it was immediately buried in a dervish
monastery in Galata, with no monument to mark its resting place.[187]
His immense property fell to the crown,[188] and Ibrahim Pasha, the
mighty grand vizir, was dropped out of mind and conversation as though
he had not practically ruled the empire for thirteen years.
What caused this abrupt extinction of Suleiman’s love for his former
favorite? Ibrahim naturally had many enemies, among them the most
influential ones being the defterdar Iskender Chelebi, and Roxelana,
the favorite wife of Suleiman. These appear to have worked for years
to poison Suleiman’s mind against the grand vizir, but for a long time
without success.[189] What charges could they bring against him?
Ibrahim, we recall, was born a Christian, and probably accepted Islam
only formally and not from conviction. Now and then in his career
his Christian predilections appear and always injure his reputation.
One instance of this was the case of the infidel Cabyz, towards whom
Ibrahim was accused of being overlenient. Another illustration of
lack of consideration for Moslem prejudices was when he brought home
from Buda three statues taken from the royal palace and set them up
in the Hippodrome. This was in defiance of the Moslem rule, observed
literally, to permit the display of “no images of anything in the
heaven above, the earth beneath, or the water under the earth.”
Although Ibrahim was supported in this act by the tolerant sultan, it
brought down on his head a clamor of horror. He was spoken of as an
idolator, and the poet Fighani Chelebi composed a satire against him
which was never forgotten. It ran:
“Two Abrahams came into the world;
The one destroyed idols, the other set them up.”
The audacious poet paid for his wit with his life, but the satire
remained popular. Ibrahim became less and less careful in religious
matters as his power became more assured. A contemporary wrote:
The opinionated pasha at the beginning of his power was very
docile in every respect to the Holy Law, besides which it was
his custom to consult wise men in every affair of his desire;
and his faith in Islam was so strong that if some one brought
a Koran to him, he would gracefully rise to his feet and kiss
it and lay it on his forehead and hold it level with his
breast, not one inch below. But later when he went to Baghdad
as serasker and mixed with infamous or foolish people, his
character changed to such a degree that he did not regard the
lives of innocent men more highly than fine dust, and if some
one brought him as a gift a Koran or a beautifully‐written
manuscript, as he saw him approaching he would become angry
and refuse it, saying, “Why do you bring them to me? There is
no end to the good books that I possess,” and sometimes he
would revile the men.[190]
The Venetians seem to have regarded Ibrahim as favorable to them, and
needy Christians in the empire turned to him for help and sometimes
were freed by him from captivity and death.[191] His parents remained
Christians. It is doubtful whether these last facts would arouse
any feeling against the grand vizir; but the disregard of Moslem
sensibilities noted above was very unwise and would give his enemies a
point of attack although it was rather unlikely by itself to influence
greatly the confidence of the sultan, a monarch noted for his unusual
tolerance towards beliefs outside of Islam. But Ibrahim permitted
himself another imprudence that was far more dangerous.
As we have studied Ibrahim’s career, we have seen the vast power that
he gradually gathered into his hands, and we have noted the amazement
with which European legates listened to his own accounts of his
standing in the state. He was practically the ruler of the Ottoman
empire, but there was one fact that he forgot; he was absolutely at
the disposal of the sultan and could be disgraced or executed at the
latter’s caprice—he was but the shadow of the “Shadow of God” on
earth.[192]
On the Persian expedition he made the grave mistake of assuming the
title of _Serasker‐Sultan_. Although as von Hammer points out[193] the
title of _sultan_ was commonly borne by small Kurdish rulers in the
country in which Ibrahim then was, yet at Constantinople there was but
_one_ sultan, and to usurp his title was to lay one’s self open to the
charge of unlawful ambition.[194] Moreover as Ahmed Pasha had assumed
the title upon his revolt in Egypt, the association with disloyalty
must have been very strong to Suleiman. There were plenty of courtiers
ready to interpret his action thus in reporting to the sultan. Here
was a charge that Suleiman could hardly ignore even though he might
disbelieve it for a while.
The immediate cause of Ibrahim’s fall was his quarrel with Iskender
Chelebi.[195] A relationship between the two men had long existed and
for years had been unfriendly. When Ibrahim was sent to Egypt Iskender
was in his train. Ibrahim’s wealth and power were a source of envy to
the defterdar, while the latter’s personality seems to have become
disagreeable to the grand vizir. On the expedition to Persia the
smouldering hatred between the two men broke into flame. When Ibrahim
proposed to take the title of Serasker‐Sultan, the defterdar attempted
to dissuade him and thus aroused Ibrahim’s resentment. There was also
an ostentatious display of wealth, the defterdar and the grand vizir
each attempting to send to the army a larger number of more richly
equipped soldiers, and each considering the other’s contribution mean.
Insults were exchanged. At length Ibrahim accused the defterdar of
taking money from the royal treasury, and brought witnesses against
him who were probably in Ibrahim’s pay. It became a war to the death
between the two enemies. Ibrahim doubtless knew that if Iskender
lived he himself would be sacrificed. So he accomplished the disgrace
and execution of the treasurer but he did not thereby secure his own
safety. Iskender Chelebi, accused of intrigues against his master, as
well as mismanagement of the public funds, was hanged at Baghdad. As he
went to the gallows he sent a Parthian shot at his murderer. Calling
for pen and paper, he made a written statement that not only was he
guilty of conspiring with the Persians but that Ibrahim was equally
guilty, and that the latter had plotted to attempt Suleiman’s life,
lured by Persian gold.[196] However we may doubt Iskender’s honesty in
making a statement that would draw down on his enemy his own fate, the
Turkish sultan would be unlikely to question it, for among the Turks
the testimony of a dying man or one led to execution is of very great
weight. In law it outweighs that of forty ordinary witnesses.[197]
Suleiman’s conviction of his vizir’s guilt was further strengthened,
as the Turkish chronicles relate, by a vision in which the murdered
defterdar appeared surrounded by a celestial halo. He reproached
Suleiman for submitting to the usurpation of his grand vizir, and
finally threw himself on the sultan as though to strangle him.[198]
Suleiman, once convinced of Ibrahim’s guilt or of the menace he
was to his power, acted secretly and silently. He did not confront
his favorite with accusations nor give him a chance to exculpate
himself,[199] but disposed of him swiftly. As Lamartine says,[200]
“Ibrahim’s life ended without reverses and perhaps without other crimes
than greatness.” A brilliant career for thirteen years, even though
followed by sudden disgrace and death, is a fate that might be envied
by many. The abruptness of Ibrahim’s fall is paralleled many times
in Turkish history, which is full of sensational rises and falls. In
the history of his life alone, we have seen Ahmed Pasha of Egypt and
Iskender Chelebi rise to great heights and quickly descend to disgrace
and death. It was the almost limitless possibility of rising, and the
ever present danger of falling that constituted the fascination of
Turkish public life. One could hardly start with a handicap too severe
to prevent him from attaining greatness. On the other hand one was
never sure of retaining for twenty‐four hours the power, wealth and
rank that he had attained, for a momentary caprice of the monarch
might end it abruptly. Even the sultan himself might suddenly be
overthrown and fill a dungeon cell or a grave, while his successor
taken from a harem or a prison ascended the mighty throne. Nowhere have
life and its possibilities been more uncertain than on or near the
Ottoman throne.
Let us consider in conclusion the question of Ibrahim’s relations
to Suleiman. Was he a traitor or not? Baudier says that Suleiman
confronted Ibrahim with his own letters to Charles V and Ferdinand
and that he had secret intelligence with the Austrians. In the papers
collected by Gévay which seem complete as to the correspondence between
Ibrahim and the Austrian ruler, there are no such letters, nor are
they found in any other collection nor mentioned by the Austrians
themselves. On the contrary, we have despatches from Ferdinand to
Ibrahim written July 5th, 1535, March 23, 1535, and March 14, 1536,
after his death, urging Ibrahim’s continued offices and expressing
gratitude for his efforts to keep peace between the two countries.[201]
The charge of collusion with the Austrians which we have examined and
discussed in connection with the siege of Vienna we here dismiss as
being supported by very insufficient data. What had Ibrahim to gain by
accepting money or position from Charles? Could the latter give him
the half of what Suleiman lavished on him? The similar charge made by
Iskender Chelebi when at the gallows, that Ibrahim had been induced
by Persian gold to plan the assassination of the sultan falls to the
ground for the following reasons; lack of any other witness than
Iskender[202] and the discredit that attaches to a witness who was the
vizir’s fiercest and most desperate enemy, together with the fact that
the Persians could offer Ibrahim nothing commensurate with his wealth
and power as grand vizir.
I think then we may definitely put aside the charges of his being
bought with either Persian or Austrian gold. But the most serious
charge remains. Did he aspire to overthrow his master, and himself
become sultan? Again our sources are silent or ambiguous. Let us
inquire of the Turkish historians. “He fell into the net of the
imagination of kingship and power,”[203] says Osmanzadeh, which might
mean no more than the megalomania of which he gave so many signs.
Sadullah Saïd Effendi expresses himself with an equal vagueness:
“Perhaps Ibrahim was caught in the net of the thought of partnership of
the empire.”[204] Petchevi makes no charge. Solakzadeh and Abdurrahman
Sheref consider Ibrahim’s death a just punishment for his treatment
of Iskender, but prefer no severe charge.[205] The Venetians make no
accusation beyond the very vague one that “he loved himself better than
he did his lord, and wished to be alone in the dominion of the world in
which he was much respected.”[206]
Guillaume Postel takes up some of the accusations against Ibrahim and
treats them as follows: The accusations were: 1st. Complicity with
the defterdar in looting. This Postel accepts, telling how Ibrahim
had looted wherever he had marched. 2nd. His being a Christian, which
we need not consider further here. 3rd. An understanding with the
Emperor. 4th. An understanding with the Shah of Persia. 5th. A desire
to be sultan. 6th. A desire to raise Mustafa, Suleiman’s son, to the
throne. Postel says that Ibrahim certainly had no understanding with
the emperor, as is proved by the fact that the latter did not use
the unexampled opportunity of the Persian war to invade Turkey, an
argument which seems to us strong. To this he adds the weak argument
that Ibrahim could not bear to hear the emperor spoken of. The charge
of an understanding with the shah was based on the early losses in the
Persian campaign which Postel disposes of as not being the fault of
Ibrahim. The charge of wishing Mustafa on the throne is baseless and
unreasonable, as the grand vizir could certainly not gain by a change
of masters. As to the charge of wishing to be sultan, Postel dismisses
that with the single argument that it was a much too dangerous to
attempt.
In the absence of any data inculpating Ibrahim of desiring the throne,
we are confined to probabilities. That he loved power and became very
ambitious must be recognized. Whether he were mad enough to think he
could replace Suleiman on the throne which until this day has never
been held by any other than a member of the family of Othman, and
that he could hold such a position in the face of an enraged public,
Mohammedan to the core as to its army and priesthood; whether he could
have so far lost his judgment as to conceive that, Christian slave as
he was, he could possibly be in a more advantageous position than the
one he already held by the grace of Suleiman, we cannot answer except
by the fact that in public affairs his brain was still cool and clear.
How far, if at all, he was unfaithful to his master and friend is
buried with him in the convent at Galata.
Ibrahim Pasha’s brilliant career was closed. What were the achievements
of his thirteen years of power? He had carried the Turkish arms to
the gates of Vienna in the west and to Bagdad and Tebriz in the east,
and his almost uniformly successful generalship had added to the
great renown in which the Ottoman army was held. Sometimes alone, and
sometimes under the sultan, he had shown himself an able strategist,
and fearless soldier. He had established diplomatic relations with
Europe, one of his last acts being the first treaty with the French,
and in diplomacy he had shown himself intelligent, true to Suleiman’s
interests, and strong if not subtle. As an administrator, his brief
power in Egypt was used wisely, and his governorship of Roumelie was
able and strong, if not rising in a marked degree above the standards
of his day. He was possessed of dignity, impressiveness of manner, and
a magnificence in which he vied with his imperial master. He certainly
had cared for his own interests, obtaining enormous wealth and power,
but that he had ever neglected his master’s interests is unproved, and
many times he showed himself loyal rather than venal.
Ibrahim’s importance in Turkish history lies partly in the great
diplomatic changes and the conquests which he achieved together with
Suleiman, and partly in the fact that he was the first grand vizir
taken from the people who exercised much power, and that with him began
the rule of vizirs and favorites which became a very important fact in
later Turkish history. While we recognize the danger of such rule, yet
we also feel that Turkey had a better chance under such men of ability
as Mehmet Sokolli Pasha and the Kiuprelli vizirs than under the chance
sultans of the Ottoman family, which has produced few great rulers
since Suleiman the Magnificent.
To western students the interest in Ibrahim’s history lies not only
in his bringing Turkey into friendly contact with Europe, but perhaps
more in the very perfect and highly developed illustration he affords
of the curious anomalies, the romantic possibilities, the strangeness
of Turkish rule, as well as in the light that his career throws on
European rulers and armies of the same century.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I. OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE, TREATIES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS
Albèri. _Relatione degli Ambasciatori Veneti._ 3 series, 9
vols. Venice, 1839–63.
Ameer Ali, Syed. _Mohammedan Law._ Compiled from authorities
in original Arabic. Calcutta, 1893–4. 3 vols. Also _A Critical
Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed_, London,
1873.
Aristarchi Bey, G. _Législation Ottomane ou Recueil des lois,
règlements, ordonnances, traités, capitulations, etc. de
l’Empire Ottoman._ Constantinople, 1873.
Brown, H. _Calendar of State Papers in Venice._ London, 1898.
Bradford, W. _Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V and his
ambassadors of the courts of England and France._ London, 1850.
Charrière, E. _Correspondence, Mémoires, et Actes
Diplomatiques._ Paris, 1848–60. _Négociations de la France
dans le Levant, ou des Ambassadeurs de France à Constantinople
et à Venice._
Gévay, Anton von. _Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte
der Verhältnisse zwischen Oesterreich, Ungarn und der Pforte
im XVI und XVII Jahrhunderte._ 3 vols. Wien, 1840.
_Koran._ Sales’ translation. Palmer’s translation.
_Monumenta Hungariae Historica._ Pesth, 1847.
Noradunghian, G. _Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman._
Paris, 1897.
_Parliamentary Papers._ Slave Trade, 1860 (London).
Sanuto, M. _I Diarii di Marini Sanuto._ 50 vols. Venice,
1879–1903.
Suleiman I. _Letters of Victory. Mejmoua Menshaat el Selatin._
Testa, Baron I de. _Recueil de Traités de la Porte Ottomane._
10 vols. Paris, 1864–1901.
Tomasseo. _Relations des Ambassadeurs Vénétiens sur les
Affaires de France au XVI siècle._ Paris, 1846.
Van Dyck. Consular report on the Capitulations of the Porte.
Cairo, 1881.
Young, George. _Corps de Droit Ottoman._ 5 vols. Oxford, 1905.
II. TRAVELS AND ACCOUNTS OF TURKISH CUSTOMS
Albrecht, W. _Grundriss des Osmanischen Staatsrechts._ Berlin,
1905.
Baudier, M. _The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand
Seigneur._ Trans. by E. Grimeston. London, 1635.
Busbequius. _Travels in Turkey_, 1557. _Ambassades et Voyages_,
1557. Life and Letters of O. G. de Busbecq, by C. B. Forster
and F. H. S. Daniel. London, 1881.
D’Ohsson, Mouradjea. _Tableau Général de l’Empire Ottoman._
Paris, 1788–1824.
Fatma Alieh Hanum. _Les Musulmanes Contemporaines._ Trois
Conférences traduites de la langue turque par Nazimé Roukié.
Paris, 1894.
Marsigli. _Stato militare dell’ Imperio Ottomano._ 2 vols.
Hague, 1732.
Nicolai, Nicolo de. _Le Navigationi e Viaggi fatti nella
Turchia_, 1580.
Pouqueville. _Travels in Greece and Turkey_, 1798. Trans.
London, 1880.
Postel, G. _De la République des Turcs et des moeurs et loy de
tous Muhammedists._ Poictiers, 1560.
Roberts, Robert. _Familien, Sklaven und Erbenrecht im Koran._
Leipzig, 1907.
Tavernier, I. B. _Nouvelle Relation de l’Interieur du Serail
du Grand Seigneur._ Paris, 1675.
Tott, Baron de. _Memoirs of the Turks and the Tartars._ Trans.
from the French. London, 1785.
Snouck Hurgronje. _Mekka._ Haag, 1899.
Vambéry. _Das Türkenvolk._ Leipzig, 1885.
III. HISTORIES, GENERAL AND PARTICULAR
Abdurrahman Sheref. _Tarih Osmanieh_ (Ottoman History).
Stambul, 1895.
Armstrong, Edward, _The Emperor Charles V_. London, 1892.
Brosch, Moritz. _Geschichten aus dem Leben Dreier
Gross‐viziere._ Gotha, 1899.
Burg. _The Height of the Ottoman Power._ Cambridge Modern
Hist. vol. i, p. 700–705; also vol. ii, p. 782–785.
Brown, Horatio. _Venice. An Historical Sketch of the
Republic._ London, 1893.
Cambridge Modern History. Vol. II, _The Reformation_.
Cahun, Léon. _Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie Centrale.
Les Turcs et les Mongols._ Paris, 1898.
Cantimir, S. A. S. Demetrius. _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman._
Translated by Joncquières. Paris, 1743.
Coxe, William, _History of the House of Austria._ London, 1899.
Driault, E. _La Question d’Orient._ Paris, 1900.
Ellesmere, F. L. G. E. Earl of. _The Sieges of Vienna by the
Turks._ From the German of K. A. Schimmer, and other sources.
London, 1879.
Hammer, J. von. _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman._ Both in the
German, and in a French translation. 18 vols. Paris, 1837.
Hill, David J. _History of Diplomacy._ Vol. I. New York, 1905.
Janssen, J. _History of the German People to the Close of the
Middle Ages._ London, 1896.
Jorga. _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reichthums._ Gotha, 1908–10.
Karamsin. _Histoire de Russie._ Paris, 1819–25. Trans. by St.
Thomas and Jauffret.
Kemalpaschazadeh. _Histoire de la Campagne de Mohacz._ Trans.
by Pavet de Courteille. Paris, 1859.
Khalifeh, Haji. _History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks._
Translated by Mitchell. London, 1831.
Knolles. _History of the Ottoman Empire._ London, 1603.
Kretchmayr, H. _Gritti._ Wien, 1896.
Kupelwieser, Leopold von. _Die Kämpfe Oesterreichs mit den
Osmanen bis zur Schlacht bei Mohacz_, 1526. _Ibid._, _vom
Jahre_ 1526 _bis_ 1537. Wien and Leipzig, 1899.
Lamartine. _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman._ Paris, 1899.
Lane‐Poole, S. _The Story of Turkey._ New York, 1888.
Lavisse et Rambaud. _Histoire Générale du 4me siècle à nos
jours._ Paris, 1893–1901.
Menzies, Sutherland. _Turkey Old and New._ London, 1883.
Mignot. _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman._ Paris, 1771.
Muir, Sir William. _Life of Mohammet._ London, 1894.
Osmanzadeh. _Hedekatul Vuzara_ (_Garden of Vizirs_). Stambul,
1271 A. H.
Pastor, Ludwig. _Geschichte der Päpste._ Freiburg, 1889.
Petchevi. _Tarih (History). Stamboul_, 1570.
Rambaud. _Histoire de Russie._ Paris, 1873.
Ranke, Leopold. _The Turkish and Spanish Empires in the
Sixteenth Century._ Leipzig, 1877.
Ricaut, M. le Chevalier. _Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman._
Hague, 1709.
Robertson, Wm. _Charles the Fifth._ New York, 1829.
Sandys. _History of the Ottoman Empire._ London, 1610.
Solakzadeh. _Tarih Misr_ (_History of Egypt_). Constantinople,
1729.
Sadullah Säid. 1862. Constantinople.
_Soleymannameh_, Bulak, 1872. Anon.
Stratford de Redcliffe. _The Eastern Question._ London, 1881.
Urquhart, David. _The Military Strength of Turkey. Turkish
Question Pamphlets._ London, 1869.
Ursu, J. _Politique Orientale de François Premier._ Paris,
1908.
Zinkheisen, J. W. _Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches in
Europa_, Gotha, 1854.
Zeeller, J. _La Diplomatie Française vers le milieu du XVI
siècle._ Paris, 1880.
IV. SPECIAL ARTICLES
Columbia Law Review, vol. vii, 1907. _A Historical Sketch of
Mohammedan Jurisprudence._ Abdur Rahim.
Edinburg Review, vol. 203. _Venetian Diplomacy of the Sublime
Porte during the Sixteenth Century._ London, 1906.
Extrait du livre d’Abou‐l‐Hosain Ahmed el Kodouri sur le
Droit. _Sur la Guerre avec les Infidèles._ Trans. by Ch.
Solvent, Paris, 1829.
Hakluyt’s Voyages. Edition of 1812.
Introduction to Vol. XLIX, Sixteenth Century. Joseph Barbaro.
_Travels to Tana and Persia._ Joseph Barbaro.
_Travels of a merchant in Persia._
_Narrative of the most noble Vincente d’Allessander._
_Report of Master Anthony Jenkinson from Aleppo._
_Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant._ A brief relation of
the siege and taking of Rhodes, from the French to English by
Lord Thomas Dockway, 1624. _The Fardle of Facions._ William
Watreman, 1555, London.
Journal Asiatique. First Series, vol. iv. Paris, 1824 J. von
Hammer. _Sur l’Histoire Ottoman de Prince Cantimir._ Also vol.
x, series I. _Memoirs sur les Relations de François I avec la
Porte._
Journal Asiatique, vol. xvi, 1897. _Le Voyage du Levant de
Phillippe du Fresne‐Canaye_ 1573. H. Hansen.
Revue Historique, vol. lxxvi–lxxvii, 1901. _L’Ambassade de la
Forest et de Marillac à Constantinople_ 1535–1538. Bourilly.
Revue d’Histoire Diplomatique, vol. xv, 1901. _Le Voyage d’un
Ambassadeur de France en Turquie au 16me siècle._ Jean de la
Forest.
Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xv.
Kogabey’s _Abhandlung über den Verfall des osmanischen
Staatsgebaüdes seit Sultan Suleiman dem Grossen_.
Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xii, 1858.
_Geschichte Suleimans des Ersten._ Th. Noldecke.
Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xiv. _Das
Sklavenwesen in der Türkei._ Leipzig, 1860.
_Original Narrative of the Adventures of the Count Christopher
von Zedlitz in the Turkish camp._ Ed. by Ellesmere.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Léon Cahun. _L’Introduction de l’Histoire de l’Asie Centrale, Les
Turcs et les Mongols_ (Paris, 1896), chap. i.
[2] _Koudakou Bilik_, 1068. Trans. by Vambéry, quoted by Cahun.
[3] _Bey_ is a military title, corresponding approximately to colonel
or perhaps to a higher title in the eleventh century.
[4] This judgment is the result of personal observation, supported by
statements of M. Cahun and others.
[5] Othman or Osman, who gave his name to the Ottoman State.
[6] Th. Noldecke, “Geschichte Suleimans des Ersten,” in _Zeitschrift
der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, vol. xii, 1858, p. 220.
[7] _I Diarii di Marini Sanuto_, vol. xxxv, p. 258 (published Venice,
1879).
_Relazioni degli Ambasciatori Veneti_, _ed._ by Albèri, Series III,
vol. iii. Report of Pietro Zen, 1524, p. 95.
Solakzadeh, _Tarih Osmanieh_ (Constantinople, 1297, A. H.).
M. Baudier, _The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand Seigneurs_
(1635, _trans._ by Grimeston), p. 171.
Parga, a village on the coast of Greece, opposite Corfu, under Venetian
domination in the sixteenth century.
[8] He himself told the embassador Zara in 1532 that he was born the
same week as Suleiman. _Cf._ _Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte
der Verhältnisse zwischen Oesterreich, Ungarn, und der Pforte im XVI
und XVII Jahrhunderte_. Aus Archiven und Bibliotheken, Anton von Gévay
(Wien, 1840).
[9] _Ibid._, also Pietro Zen, _op. cit._
[10] “Suonava a perfezione il violino.” Albèri, III, 3, p. 95, Pietro
Zen.
[11] Baudier tells the latter story, Pietro Zen the former. Guillaume
Postel (Poitiers, 1560) gives a slightly different version. He says
that Ibrahim was captured for a soldier in Selim’s reign and sold to
Iskender Chelebi, the treasurer of Anatolia. This is interesting in
view of his later relations with Iskender, but is not sustained by
other witnesses.
[12] Albèri, _op. cit._, p. 116, Marco Minio.
[13] _Ibid._, p. 97. Also Sanuto, vol. xli, p. 527, Piero Bragadino.
[14] S. A. S. Demetrius Cantimir, Prince de Moldavie, _Histoire de
l’Empire Othoman_ (1743, tr. by de Joncquières), vol. ii, p. 289.
[15] Von Hammer, _Histoire de l’Empire Ottomane_, tr. by J. J. Hellert
(Paris, 1836), vol. v, note 23, p. 45.
[16] Baudier, _op. cit._, p. 172.
[17] _Cf._ M. de Mourajea D’Ohsson, _Tableau Général de l’Empire
Ottomane_ (1787), vol. iii, _passim_.
[18] Sanuto, _op. cit._, vol. xli, Pietro Bragadino.
[19] The word _Serai_ will be used in these pages in the Turkish sense
of palace and will refer to a royal palace.
[20] Sanuto, _op. cit._, vol. xli, p. 527, Pietro Bragadino.
[21] Albèri, III, I, p. 28.
[22] Petchevi, Chelebizadeh, Solakzadeh, Abdurrahman Sheref, etc.
[23] For instance, the vials of water blessed by the immersion of one
end of the mantle of the Prophet, which the sultan ordered distributed
to the nobles of the state on the 15th of the month of Ramazan.
[24] _Caftan_, a long, loose‐sleeved cloak or robe.
[25] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 303
[26] Albèri, III, ii, p. 31.
[27] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 315.
[28] George Young, _Corps de Droit Ottoman_ (1905), vol. ii, p. 166;
also D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 133.
[29] “Nach muslimischem Gesetz ist Sklave derjenige welche im Kriege
gefangen genommen oder mit Gewalt aus feindlichem Lande fortgeführt
worden ist, wenn er zur Zeit seiner Gefangennahme ein Ungläubiger war.”
Robert Roberts, _Familien, Sklaven, und Erbenrecht im Koran_, p. 42.
(Leipzig, 1908.)
[30] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 35.
[31] “And when ye meet those who misbelieve, then strike off their
heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds.” “Then
either a free agent (liberty) or a ransom until the war shall have laid
down its burdens.” _Koran_ (Palmer’s translation, vol. ix, of _Sacred
Books of the East_), Surah, XLVII, vs. 4–5.
“The reward of those who make war against God and His Apostle, and
strive after violence in the earth, is only that they shall be
slaughtered and crucified, or their hands cut off, or their feet on
alternate sides, or that they shall be banished from the land, a
disgrace for them in this world, and for them in the next a mighty woe,
save for those who repent before ye have them in your power.” _Ibid._,
Surah V, vs. 37.
“The spoils are God’s and the Apostles’; fear God and settle it among
yourselves.... Fight them then, that there should be no sedition,
and that the religion should be wholly God’s; but if they desist (to
disbelieve) then God on what they do doth look. But if they turn their
backs, then know that God is your Lord ... and know that whenever ye
seize anything as a spoil, to God belongs a fifth thereof, and to his
Apostle and to kindred and orphans and the poor the wayfarer.” _Ibid._,
Surah VIII, vs. 1, 40–42.
[32] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 35.
[33] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 142.
[34] Ameer Ali, _op. cit._, p. 256.
[35] “And unto such of your slaves as desire a written instrument
allowing them to redeem themselves, or paying a certain sum, write one,
if ye know good in them, and give them of the riches of God which he
hath given you.” _Koran_ (Sale’s Trans.), Surah XXIV.
Mohammed accepted the institution of slavery, but urged gentleness in
dealing with the slave. Muir thus quotes a speech made by Mohammed in
his last year at Mina: “And your slaves! See that ye feed them with
such food as ye yourselves eat, and clothe them with the stuffs ye
wear. And if they commit a fault which ye are not inclined to forgive,
then sell them, for they are the servants of the Lord, and not to be
tormented.” Muir, _Life of Mahomet_, p. 458.
_Cf._ also Syed Ameer Ali, _A Critical Examination of the Life and
Teaching of Mohammed_ (London, 1873), chap, xv, p. 257. “The masters
were forbidden to exact more work than was just and proper. They were
ordered never to address their male and female slaves by that degrading
appellation, but by the more affectionate name of ‘my young man’ or ‘my
young maid’.”
[36] _Parliamentary Papers, Slave Trade_, 1860, B. P., 130. Quoted by
Young, _op. cit._, vol. ii, note, p. 167.
[37] Fatma Alieh Hanum, _Les Musulmanes Contemporaines_ (1894, Paris).
[38] Young, _op. cit._, vol. i, note, p. 167.
[39] “There are few Turkish beggars, for they which beg among
Christians are set to do servile offices among the Turks. If a slave
become lame, his master is bound to support him, yet the veriest
cripple among them brings his master some profit.”
We may omit Busbequius’ advocacy of slavery. He continues later:
“The Turks in their way do make a huge advantage of slaves; for if
an ordinary Turk bring home one or two slaves, whom he has taken as
prisoners of war, he accounts he hath made a good campaign of it, and
his prize is worth his labor. An ordinary slave is sold among them for
40 to 50 crowns, but if he be young and beautiful and have some skill
in some trade also, then they rate him as twice as much. By this you
may know how advantageous the Turkish depredations are to them, when
many times from one expedition they bring home five or six thousand
prisoners.” Ogier Ghiselin de Busbequius, _Travels in Turkey_, trans.
into English, 1774.
[40] Snouck Hurgronje makes practically the same statement in his
_Mekka_, vol. ii, p. 19 (Haag, 1889). “Alles in Allem ist der
Zustand des muslimischen Sklaven nur formell verschieden von dem der
europäischen Diener und Arbeiter.”
[41] Memoirs of the Baron de Tott on _The Turk and the Tartars_,
(trans. from the French, London, 1785), vol. ii, pp. 379–380.
[42] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 38.
[43] M. le Chevalier Ricaut, _Tableau de l’empire Ottomane_ (1709), vol.
ii, chap. ii, p. 5.
[44] Albèri, III, 3, p. 95, note, Pietro Zen.
[45] The formula of enfranchisement. D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p.
143.
[46] Albèri, III, 3, p. 95, note, Pietro Zen.
[47] Marsigli, _Stato Militare dell’ Imperio Ottomano_ (1732), vol. i.
[48] Albèri III, i, p. 11. Danielo di Ludovisi.
[49] _Roum_ means Roman, from the Roman or Byzantine empire whose
territory had largely passed to Turkey.
[50] _Sandjak_ is literally _banner_.
[51] Juchereau de Saint Denis, quoted by Ludovisi.
[52] Albrecht, _Grundriss des osmanischen Staatsrechts_, p. 68. Also
von Hammer, p. 166.
[53] Petchevi, _Tarih Osmanieh_, vol. i, p. 79.
[54] A piastre was about 89 cents in that century.
[55] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 337.
[56] _Harem_ means _set apart_, _sacred_, or _accursed‐taboo_, and is a
term applied to the women of a Moslem household.
[57] _Cf._ also Cantimir, “Suleiman gave Ibrahim his sister in
marriage.” Jorga on the other hand says that Ibrahim married a daughter
of Iskender Chelebi, but I have seen no such statement elsewhere,
except the following ambiguous statement in Solakzadeh: “Between
Iskender and Ibrahim Pasha the relation of father and son existed.”
P. 478. Abdurrahman Sheref writes in his _Tarih Osmanieh_, “Some
historians say that Ibrahim was brother‐in‐law to the Sultan.” Petchevi
and the Venetian Baillies Bragadino and Pietro Zen, while giving
detailed accounts of the wedding feast say nothing of the bride.
[58] For accounts see Petchevi, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 79 _et seq._;
Solakzadeh, _op. cit._; Marini Sanuto, _op. cit._, vol. 36, pp. 505 _et
seq._, with references _passim_. Also von Hammer, _op. cit._, vol. v,
pp. 52 _et seq._, and Cantimir, _op. cit._
[59] “Ed in quella ne sono distesi molti pavioni, tra li qual quello
del Gran signor, uno che fo de Uson Cassan, che fu quello quando l’ebbe
la rotta da sultan Machmet, l’altro del signor Sophi, che fu aquistado
da sultan Selim, l’altro del sultan Elgauri, conquistado pur per el
ditto sultan Selim. Quanto siano di richezza e di magnificentia et
bellezza bisogneria con el penello in longo tempo farla, et si haveria
fatica per la gran superbia et valuta è in quelli.” Marini Sanuto, _op.
cit._, vol. xxxvi, p. 505.
[60] _Tutta la terra._ Marino Sanuto, _op. cit._, vol. xxxvi, p. 505.
[61] Marino Sanuto, vol. xli, p. 526.
[62] Until the introduction of tables from the West, and to this day
in certain houses, Turkish meals are served on large trays placed on
stools.
[63] Von Hammer says that Ali also tells this story, but that the other
Turkish historians omit it. _Op. cit._, vol. v, note, p. 145.
[64] Petchevi, _Tarih Osmanieh_, p. 93.
[65] Souheila, in his _History of Egypt (Misr)_, says that Suleiman
originally planned to go himself to Egypt, but that the grand vizir
said, “If it be the glorious command of the just king, we are
sufficient for the service,” whereupon he was appointed chief of the
expedition.
[66] Petchevi, Sadullah Säid, and Solakzadeh who was present on the
expedition, and following them, Djelalzadeh and Abdurrahman Sheref. As
I have been unable to obtain a copy of Djelalzadeh, I am obliged to
depend on Von Hammer’s quotations from his history.
[67] “In Aleppo and Damascus, with justice and equity he destroyed the
standards of revolt raised by villains.” Soleyman Nameh, by Sadullah
Säid Effendi.
“In the province of Aleppo were some who wished redress, from whom he
removed oppression and tyranny.” Solakzadeh, _op. cit._ _Cf._ also von
Hammer, _op. cit._, vol. v, p. 57.
[68] Sadullah Säid, _op. cit._
[69] Sadullah Säid.
[70] Sadullah Säid, Solakzadeh.
[71] Solakzadeh.
[72] Solakzadeh.
[73] Solakzadeh, Petchevi.
[74] “By letters from Constantinople we are informed that within a
fortnight the Magnifico Ibrahim Pasha was expected from Cairo with
a large sum of gold. The Grand Turk has ordered him an honorable
reception in a new and unusual form.” The Doge and College to Lorenzo
Orio in England, Sept. 18, 1525. Brown’s _Calendar of State Papers in
Venice, 1520–1526_, 1114.
[75] Djelalzadeh, translated and quoted by von Hammer.
[76] Of course, since July, 1908, the whole idea of the Ottoman state
has changed, although the military titles remain; indeed since the
reforms of 1836 the above description has only in part held true. These
general statements may be understood to refer to Turkey from 1453 to
1836.
[77] The ulema were the doctors of sacred law and jurisprudence.
[78] This account taken from Solakzadeh, _op. cit._
[79] Albrecht, _W. Grundriss des Osmanischen Staatsrechts_ (Berlin,
1905), p. 68.
[80] Guillaume Postel, _La République des Turcs_, p. 49.
[81] Daru, _Histoire de Venise_, quoted by Zeller, _op. cit._, note p.
204.
[82] Charrière, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 486.
[83] Pietro Zen said Ibrahim had been a Venetian subject. Albèri, III,
also Bragadino, Marini Sanuto, vol. 41, p. 527, wrote: “Questo bassa è
molto amico di la Signoria nostra, homo iusto et savio; ha cassà zoie
portade dal Cayro oltra il bel presente fece al Signore, come scrisse.”
[84] Marini Sanuto, _op. cit. passim_.
[85] Albèri, III, i, p. 28.
[86] Kogabey, “_Abhandlung über den Verfall des osmanischen
Staatsgebäudes seit Sultan Suleiman dem Grossen_.” Trans, by Behrman,
_Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft_, vol. 15, p. 319.
[87] On a peine à representer devant un état descendu à un rang
inférieur et devenu le jouet de la politique des autres puissances
cette action illimitée qu’il exerçait dans les affaires de l’Europe,
et qui, à chaque mouvement de cet empire semblait mettre en question
l’existence de Christianisme et celle de la société européene tout
entière.” E. Charrière, _Négociations de la France dans le Levant_
(Paris, 1848), vol. iii, Introduction.
[88] Noradunghian (_Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman_), in
his _Repertoire Chronologique_, records treaties with Ragusa before
Suleiman’s accession, and two in 1520, all offering Turkish protection
in exchange for tribute.
[89] Von Hammer, _op. cit._, vol. v, p. 20.
[90] Quoted by Horatio Brown, _Venice_, 1893.
[91] Turkish proverb.
[92] Karamsin, _Histoire de Russie_, _tr._ by St. Thomas and Jauffret,
1819–1826, vol. vii, p. 142.
[93] D. J. Hill, _Hist. of European Diplomacy_, ii, p. 346.
[94] Hill, _op. cit._, quotes Contarini to this effect.
[95] _Cf._ Pastor’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. iii, _passim_.
[96] In a circular to his electors, quoted by J. Janssen, _History of
Germany_, vol. ii, p. 276.
[97] Noradunghian, _op. cit._, records two commercial treaties
in 1508–1517. _Cf._ also Marini Sanuto, vol. iii, pp. 79, 117, 132,
180, 286, 453.
[98] Gévay, _op. cit._, _Gesandschaft Königs Ferdinand I am Sultan
Suleiman_, i, p. 21.
[99] _Cf._ Zinkheisen, _op. cit._, p. 640; also von Hammer, _Mémoire
sur les premières relations diplomatiques entre la France et la Porte_,
in _Journal Asiatique_, vol. x, series i, p. 19 _et seq._
[100] _Cf._ Report of Lambert and Juritschitz to Ferdinand, 1531, Gévay
_op. cit._, iii, p. 144.
[101] In the report of Lambert and von Zara (Gévay, vol. iii, p. 44),
Ibrahim said: “Darauf sein Kaiser (Suleiman) bewegt worden in Francis
nit zu verlassen, und hat alsomit im und den Venedigern ean verstand
und puntnus (Bündniss) gemacht, also das sy ein treffleche ermada
auf dem mer aufgericht damit sy gegen yspania arbeiten habenwellen
und Erder kaiser solte mit einem trefflichen hoer (Heer) durch E. M.
(Ferdinand) Lande in fryaul und forter auf Mayland zogen sein.”
_Cf._ Solakzadeh, _op. cit._, trans. by H. D. J. “The king of France
had fallen into the desire for possessions and planned to strike the
crown of Hungary from the hands of the king of Hungary, and finally
there was much fighting among them. After this, with the aid of the
king of Spain, Francis was conquered and several forts being captured,
he fled. Being reduced to an extremity, he was shut up in a solid
fortress. Wishing to have revenge on his enemy, he found no other means
than to betake himself to the Padisha of Islam. He sent an ambassador
to the most blessed Porte with a most humble letter in which was thus
written: ‘If the king of Hungary receives punishment from the blessed
Sultan, we will oppose ourselves to the King of Spain to take revenge.
We beg and pray that the Sultan of the world will repulse that proud
one. After that day we shall be obliged slaves of his Excellency the
Padisha, who is master of time and place and mighty emperor.’ To
this humble prayer and supplication the Sultan, pitying them, in his
merciful glory resolved to make war on this king filled with cruel
dispositions, as we shall see.”
[102] Zapolya was crowned November, 1526, and Ferdinand was crowned
November 3, 1527.
[103] Confirmed by a letter from Ferdinand to Cyriacus Freiheer von
Polheim and Markus Trautsauerwein, Kanzler of Lower Austria, Prag, Feb.
14, 1527. “Instructio ad Bassam Balibeg,” Gévay, _op. cit._, vol. i,
pp. 36–7.
[104] Gévay, vol. i, p. 14. _Bericht Hobordanacz an Koenig Ferdinand
I_, Inspruch, 19 Feb’y, 1529.
[105] Letters of safe conduct for such envoys by Suleiman and Ibrahim
are found in Gévay, vol. i, pp. 62–64.
[106] Charrière, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 155–171.
[107] _Cf._ De Testa, _Recueil des Traités de la Porte Ottomane avec les
Puissances Etrangères de 1526 et jusqu’à nos jours_ (Paris, 1864), vol.
i, _France_, pp. 23–26; for the text of the treaty of Hatti‐Sherif,
1528.
[108] “Wolte er (Francis) noch so pald sein sach pesser wurd Zu
Jerusalem alda er das hailig grab besuchen wollte Zur Ime khomen mit
merem anzeigen.” Thus the envoy of Ferdinand in 1531 reports Ibrahim as
saying. Gévay, _op. cit._, iii, p. 44.
[109] Francis’ letter is lost, so we do not know to which church he
referred. Suleiman’s answer is found in Charrière, _op. cit._, iii, pp.
129–131. _Cf._ also Marini Sanuto, vol. xlviii, p. 50.
[110] Charrière, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 129. Ursu, _op. cit._, pp.
51–2.
[111] It is in these letters that may be found the reference that Mr.
Duggan, in his _Eastern Question_, says he failed to discover in the
Capitulations of 1535 and 1528, and which he concludes did not exist,
hence ascribing an error to D’Ohsson. _Cf._ the _Eastern Question_,
note p. 25.
[112] Gévay, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 49. “Je vous supplie nous tres
humblement considere la grande necessité et pauvreté ou je suis quil
vous plaise ne me habandonner dargent ain men assister comme ien ay
entière confidence.”
[113] “Instruction auff unseres getrieuen lieben Joseph von Lamberg und
Nichola Juritschitz,” etc. Gévay, iii, 3 _et seq._
[114] Charrière, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 207. _Cf._ Von Hammer,
_Mémoire, etc._
[115] Menzies, _Turkey New and Old_, p. 136.
[116] _Bekanntmachung des Friedens in Krain._ Gévay, _op. cit._, vol.
iii.
[117] Ursu, _op. cit._, p. 86. _Relations des Ambassadeurs Venetiens sur
les affaires de France au XVI siècle_. Recueillies et traduites par M.
N. Tomasseo (Paris, 1836), Marino Giustiniano, vol. i, p. 55.
[118] For text, see de Testa, _op. cit._, p. 15, _et seq._; also
Noradunghian, _op. cit._, vol. i, pp. 83–87; also Charrière, _op.
cit._, vol. i, pp. 283–294.
[119] Ursu, _op. cit._, p. 97.
[120] “Tous les princes chretians qui sustenoit le parti de l’Empereur
fasoient grand cas de ce que le Roy, notre maistre, avoit employe le
Turc a son secours; mais contre son ennemy on peult de toute fois
fere fleches. Quant a moi, si je pouvois appeler tous les esprits des
enfers pour rompre le teste a mon ennemy qui me veult rompre la mienne,
je le ferois de bon coeur, dieu me pardoint.” Quoted by Zeller, _La
Diplomatie Française vers le milieu du XVI siècle_ (1880), _Introd._,
p. 20 (Monluc. edit., _de la Société de l’histoire de France_).
[121] “Sopra bassa fenestrella quedam cancellata conspiciebatur in qua
Imperator occulte adens audiebat. Legatorum petita, putans se neutiquam
videri.” _Berichte Hobordanacz_, Gévay.
[122] Daniello de’ Ludovisi. Albèri, III, i, p. 30, 1435. Ludovisi
further explains that the hold Gritti obtained over Ibrahim was due
to the latter’s inexperience of diplomacy. He says that Ibrahim went
directly from the serai to the offices of Pasha and Beylerbey of
Roumelie without experience of the world or of the government of a
state, and being unwilling to learn from the Turk, he turned to an
outsider to show him the modes of procedure.
[123] Quoted by von Hammer, _op. cit._, v, p. 106, and Zinkheisen, _op.
cit._, p. 662.
[124] _Bericht Johann Hobordanacz an Koenig Ferdinand I_, Innspruch,
19th February, 1529, Gévay, i, pp. 1–28.
[125] In a letter to Ferdinand of April 9, 1528, Hobordanacz wrote:
“Hodierna die intravi in Turciam, ubi adhuc in porte Zawe obviam
venerunt mihi Turci plus quam trecenti optimo cum appareru, et maximo
cum honare susceperunt me, spero autem in Deum omnipotentem quod omnia
negocia bonum finem hebebunt.” Gévay, i, p. 36.
[126] “In the palmy days of the Ottoman Empire,” says Menzies, writing
of this period, “each of these seven towers of the ancient Byzantium
castle had its appropriate use; one contained the gold, another the
silver money, a third the gold and silver plate and jewels; valuable
remains of antiquity were deposited in the fourth; in the fifth were
preserved ancient coins and other objects, chiefly collected by Selim
I during his expeditions into Persia and Egypt; the sixth was a sort
of arsenal; and the seventh was appropriated to the archives. After
the time of Selim II, the Seven Towers were used as a prison for
distinguished persons and as an arsenal.” Menzies, _op. cit._, p. 191.
[127] Zinkheisen, ii, p. 54.
[128] Busbequius, _op. cit._, p. 175.
[129] Gévay, _Bericht Josephs von Lamberg und Nicholaus Juritschitz an
Koenig Ferdinand I, Linz, 23 Feb. 1531_.
[130] _Bericht Lamberg_, Gévay, i, p. 27.
[131] “Ein lange Red mitt vil schpotlichen worten volpracht.” _Ibid._
[132] Gévay, ii, p. 348.
[133] “Er durchaus in allen Reden K. M. nit anders dan Ferdinandum und
dye Khay M^t Khunig zu Yspanie ganent.” _Bericht_, p. 27. Ferdinand
in his letters usually addressed Ibrahim as “Magnifice et praesterne
Vir,” and closed “Ita est gratitudinis nostre effectum digne quandoque
sentire valeatis.” _Cf._ Gévay.
Ibrahim, in a letter to Ferdinand, calls himself: “Cuius ego sum
Gubernator supremus regnorum omnium et Imperiorum Exercitum que sue
felicissime ac potentessime Caesare Maiestatis magnus consiliatius
super omnes dominos Ibraim bassa.” July 4, 1533. Gévay, ii, p. 139.
[134] To the ambassador von Zara he said: “My master has many
sandjakbeys who are far more powerful than Ferdinand and have more land
and power and subjects than he.” Gévay, _op. cit._
[135] “Se istud magnum Imperium regere. Quicquid ipse fecerit id factum
est, omnem enim se potestatem habere. Omnia officia, omnia regna
hebere. Quod ego inquit do hac est datum et manet datum. Quod ego
nondo, id non est datum,” _etc._ Gévay, iii.
[136] Von Zara reports concerning a visit that Suleiman and Ibrahim
made to Gritti: “Tuo insius adventu postea plurima mala Thurci
dicebant, appelantur Caesarem insensatum stultum maleficiatum ab
Ibrahim et Gryti.” Gévay, _op. cit._, iii, p. 26.
[137] Presents to men in power were usual. In connection with the
payment to Mehmet Sokolli, a later vizir, of ten thousand sequins and
the promise of thirty thousand more if he succeeded in making peace
for Venice, Moritz Brosch writes: “Solche Geschenke waren eine uralte
orientalische Sitte, und denzeit auch an den Hoefen des Abendlandes
etwas Gewoehnliches ja Unausweichliches. Waehrend des 16 Jahrhunderts
bildeten sie eine stehende Rubrik in Soll und Haben der Diplomatie; in
London war bei Wolsey, in Spanien der Reihe nach bei Chièvres, Covas,
dem jungeren Granvella und Lerma, in Frankreich bei den Hoeflingen und
Staatsmaennern Ludwig XII und Franzens und der zwei Heinriche, nichts
ohne Geld zu richten. Foermlich beneidet wurde die Pforte weil sie es
nicht noetig hatte fur die Korruption Christlicher Regierung Summen
auszusetzen.” Brosch, _Aus dem Leben Dreier Grossvisere_ (Gotha, 1899),
p. 48.
[138] _Bericht de Schepper 1533._ Gévay, _op. cit._, i, p. 27.
[139] A Hungarian ducat was worth about $2.34, with doubtless much
greater purchasing power in the sixteenth century.
[140] Die forigen potschaften hattenime von E. M. auch hunderttausend
Gulden verheissen er solle helfen das sein Keiser E. M. die Flecken
gab: ich hab innen gesagt aber gesagt und sage e eus solches auch das
wir nit gedenkhen sollen dass er von Gelz wegen seines herrn Nachtheil
raten wolle Er sey in obgemelten seines Herrn Schatz zu greifen
gewellig wann er will er welt lieber seinem Keyser helfen alle Welt
unterzusprinen, nit das er land und leut welchgeben soll. Er sey auch
pey innen nit der Gebrauch das man Gelt und Miet neme und dem hern
sein Nachtheil rate, oder seinem Schaden verhelfe, wie wir begert
darum schweigt diesen Reden stil.” Gévay, i, _Bericht Lamberg und
Juritschitz_.
[141] Zeller, _op. cit._, _Introd._, p. 23.
[142] Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe, _The Eastern Question_ (London,
1881), p. 99.
[143] Zeller, _op. cit._, _Introd._, p. 23.
[144] Von Hammer quotes from Suleiman’s Journal a remark of Suleiman’s
to Ibrahim on the occasion of the appearance of the grand vizir before
the sultan, _op. cit._, vol. v, p. 41.
[145] _Op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 418 _et seq._
[146] Imams are Moslem priests, combining with their religious
functions those of notary publics.
[147] David Urquhart, _The Military Strength of Turkey_, London, 1869,
p. 76.
[148] _Op. cit._, p. 87.
[149] _Op. cit._, p. 93.
[150] Urquhart, _op. cit._, p. 88.
[151] William Watreman, _The Fardle of Facions, containing the Anciente
Manners Customs and Laws of the Peoples Enhabiting the two Partes of
the Earth called Africa and Asia_. London, 1555. Hakluyt’s Voyages,
vol. v, p. 126.
[152] _Stato Militaire dell’ Imperio Ottomano_, Marsigli, 1732.
[153] Petchevi and Kemalpashazadeh are the contemporary Turkish
narrators of the campaign. Petchevi takes his account from his
grandfather, who was an eye witness of Mohacz. Kemalpashazadeh was
sheik‐ul‐Islam under Suleiman and writes an account that is at once
that of poet and courtier, but should be fairly accurate as to the
movements of the army. The _Monumenta Hungariae Historica_ (Pest,
1857), vol. i, gives some Hungarian comment on the events. Solakzadeh
and Abdurrahman Sheref give second‐hand reports, while Leopold von
Kupelwieser has excellent volumes on the subject entitled “_Die Kämpfe
Oesterreichs mit den Osmanen_.” (Wien and Leipzig, 1899).
[154] Kemalpashazadeh, _Histoire de la Campagne de Mohacz_. Trans. by
Pavet de Courteille, Paris, 1869.
[155] Kupelwieser, _op. cit._, p. 227.
[156] Letter from Ferdinand of Austria to his sister. “Comme les
turcz ayans donne plusieurs assaulx au chasteau de Peterwardein quils
tienquient assiege y ont perdus beaucop de leuers gens comme de X ou
XII in hommes.” _Monumenta Hungariae Historica_, vol. i, p. 37.
[157] Kemalpashazadeh, _op. cit._, p. 95.
[158] Kemalpashazadeh, _op. cit._, p. 104.
[159] Ferdinand of Austria naturally did not feel so strongly. _Cf._
letter to Margaret in 1526. _Mon. Hung. Hist._, vol. i, p. 41.
[160] Even the Sheik‐ul‐Islam acknowledges this, gloating over the fall
of the enemies of God. Kemalpashazadeh, _op. cit._, p. 107.
[161] “The spoils are Gods of the Apostles: fear God and settle it
among yourselves.” _Koran_, Surah VIII.
[162] “Ego inquit vici Hungaros. Magnus Caesar non interfuit prelio sad
tantum audito clamore, conscendit equum et volebat succurere. Sed ego
confestim misi nuncium, victoriam iam partam este.” Gévay, _op. cit._,
vol. ii, p. 22.
[163] Asaf was Solomon’s traditional vizir. Ardeshir was a famous
Sassanian king.
[164] Kemalpashazadeh, _op. cit._
[165] The letter is given at the end of the translation of
Kemalpashazadeh, p. 145 _et seq._
[166] Cf. Sadullah Saïd in Solymannameh, who speaks of Ibrahim Pasha as
conqueror of Roumelie, p. 81.
[167] _Mejmoua Menshaat el Selatin_, ed. by Feridoun Bey, Stambul.
[168] _Ser_ means head, and _asker_ army in Turkish.
[169] Petchevi, _op. cit._, p. 128.
[170] D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. iii, p. 422.
[171] _Cf._ Von Hammer, _Wiens erste aufgehobene türkische Belagerung_
(Pesth, 1829): also Schimmer, and after him Ellesmere, _The Sieges of
Vienna by the Turks_, (London, 1879).
[172] Schimmer, _op. cit._, p. 16.
[173] “Le dict turc a perdu grand nombre de gens sans toutefois grande
perte de ceulx estans au dicte Vienne.” _Letter of Ferdinand to Charles
V_, Gévay, _op. cit._, vol. i, p. 49. Kupelwieser gives the following
figures: 1700 Viennese killed and 100 inhabitants of the suburbs, 4000
Turks killed, _op. cit._, chap. ii.
[174] Gévay, ii, 28; also Ellesmere, _op. cit._, chap. 2.
[175] For the original narrative of the Count von Zedlitz in the
Turkish camp, see Ellesmere’s book where it is quoted in full.
[176] Kupelwieser, _op. cit._, p. 145.
[177] A purse contained 500 piastres.
[178] Juritschitz wrote a report of this siege to his master Ferdinand,
a French translation which is found in Charrière, vol. i, p. 215 _etc._
Also in _Monumenta Hungariae Historica_, vol. i, p. 169, _cf._ also
Petchevi.
[179] “Jay bien apercu quil prenoit de bonne parte que je fasoie
difficulte d’aller devers le Turc (Suleiman) et que je le tenoie en
telle estimacion.” Charrière, vol. i, p. 219.
[180] An account of the splendid entrance into Aleppo is given by
Master Anthony Jenkinson in Hakluyt’s _Voyages_, vol. ii, pp. 225 _et
seq._
[181] Abdurrahman Sheref says that the difficulties of this march make
this campaign rank highest among Suleiman’s expeditions, p. 239.
[182] Postel, _op. cit._, speaks of Ibrahim’s looting of Hungary, and
also says: “Arabistan, Serestan and Anatolia condemned him for the
great pillage and exactions which he made, so much that the people were
left (even the richest of them) with no carpet to sleep on, and the
trees were taxed impossibly,” p. 49.
[183] Original narrative of the _Adventures of Count Christopher
von Zedlitz in the Turkish Camps_. From the collection of Baron von
Errenkel in the State Archives at Vienna. Tr. by Ellesmere, p. 47.
[184] 21 Ramazan, 942, A. H.
[185] Domenico Trevisano, Albèri, III, vol. i, p. 115.
[186] Jorga, p. 349.
[187] Solakzadeh, Osmanzadeh.
[188] At the death of the grand vizir, his property was always
confiscated. D’Ohsson, _op. cit._, vol. ii, p. 369.
[189] Baudier, p. 172, Djelalzadek quoted by Solakzadeh, Abdurrahman
Sheref, _etc._ Also Trevisano, “Rossane gelos a forre della potenza del
gran‐vizir,” _etc._
[190] Mustafa Chelebi, quoted by Abdurrahman Sheref and Petchevi, P.
195.
[191] Postel however, in his volume published in 1569, _De la
république des Turcs_, claims that Ibrahim did not favor Christians but
was a despot over them, accusing him of taking large amount of Venetian
and other Christian property. “It is true” he acknowledges “that to
deliver one or another Christian from prison or calumny, he saved him
when the Christian could pay well,” p. 61.
[192] A common title applied to the sultan.
[193] Von Hammer quotes the use of this title by Ibrahim, from
_Suleiman’s Journal_, vol. v, p. 231. _Cf._ also Petchevi, p. 65.
[194] _Cf._ Osmanzadeh, Solakzadeh, and Abdurrahman Sheref.
[195] This story is told by all the Turkish historians, generally with
sympathy for Iskender. _Cf._ Abdurrahman, Petchevi, Solakzadeh.
[196] Cantimir, vol. ii, p. 313. Also Trevisano, _op. cit._
[197] The testimony of the Venetian bailli here seems to us to outweigh
the probably legendary tale told by Baudier, which however I will
give. “The Sultanas (Suleiman’s mother and his wife Roxelana) observe
the murmuring of the people against the favorite, and what the great
men speak of him, and tell Suleiman. Moreover as they were busy to
destroy his greatness, they discover that the pasha favored the house
of Austria, and had secret intelligence with the Emperor Charles V.
This treachery being told to Suleiman, he decided upon Ibrahim’s death,
but required a dispensation from his oath never to disgrace Ibrahim
while he lived. One of his learned men gave him a pleasant Expedit
to free himself of the pasha and yet keep his word. ‘You have sworn,
Sire, not to put him to death while you are living; cause him to be
strangled while you are asleep. Life consists in vigilant action, and
he that sleeps doth not truly live; so you may punish his disloyalty
and not violate your oath.’ Suleiman sends for Ibrahim, and after they
have supped he shows him his crimes by his own letters to Charles V and
Ferdinand, reproaches him for his ingratitude, and commands his mutes
to strangle him while he himself is asleep. He then goes to bed.”
The story of the evasion of the oath through the ingenuity of a “wise
man” is plausible, being in entire keeping with Turkish custom, but
Baudier gives no sources, and I have found none of the facts above
stated, in any other record.
[198] Solakzadeh, Petchevi.
[199] Trevisano, III, i, p. 115.
[200] _Histoire de l’Empire Ottomane_, vol. ii, p. 338.
[201] One private note was as follows, and surely was not written
to a traitor: “Pro ea tamen confidentia et existimatione in qua vos
apud Dominum vestrum merito esse scimus, omittere non potuimus qum
vobis tamquam rerum omnium directori secreto et optimo atque etiam
scientissimo ea super literis vestris significaremus que pro nunc
requiruntur.” Gévay II, 23.
[202] Iskender’s testimony is reported by Cantimir and Trevisano.
[203] Hadikatul Vuzera, p. 26.
[204] Soleymannameh, p. 123.–
[205] Solakzadeh. “Ibrahim caused the death of a dear old man
(Iskender) who was innocent and unjustly treated. So his own end
was according to the verse: ‘Verily all‐glorious Allah is master of
revenge’”.
[206] Albèri, III, vol. i, p. 12.
ERRATA
Page 12, line 1: for “Leon” read “Léon.”
” ” note 1, line 1: for “Leon” read “Léon.”
” ” note 2: for “Vambêry” read “Vambéry.”
” 15, line 22: for “Busbeq” read “Busbequius.”
” ” line 24: for “Charrier’s” read “Charrière’s.”
” ” line 25: for “Négocêations” read “Négociations.”
” ” line 25: for “Actenstücken” read “Actenstücke.”
” ” three lines from bottom: for “Abdurrahman” read
“Abdurrahman.”
” 16, note 1, line 2: for “Morgenländichen” read
“Morgenländischen.”
” 18, note 2, line 2: for “Actenstücken” read “Actenstücke.”
” 19, note 4, line 1: for “Moldavi” read “Moldavie.”
” 23, note 1: for “Abdurrahman” read “Abdurrahman.”
” 25, line 4: for “the sister of Suleiman” read “a sultana.”
” ” line 14: for “sister” read “relative.”
” 29, note 2, line 1: for “Muselmanes” read “Musulmanes.”
” 31, note 1, line 3: for “Muslimisches” read “muslimischen.”
” 34, note 1: for “dell” read “dell’.”
” 38, note 1, line 6: for “Abdurrahman” read “Abdurrahman.”
” 39, line 18: omit comma at end of line.
” 54, note 1, line 2: for “la jouet” read “le jouet.”
” ” note 1, line 4: for “cette” read “cet.”
” 55, line 19: for “was” read “had been.”
” ” line 20: omit the words “after the Peace of Cambrai.”
” 57, line 8: for “steadily‐encroaching” read without hyphen.
” ” line 21: for “Europe,” read “Europe;”
” ” line 22: for “the West” read “Europe.”
” ” line 20: for “Bayezid” read “Bayazid.”
” 58, line 2: after “fifteenth century” omit the rest of the sentence
up to “the Turks.”
” ” line 9: omit the words “heresy and.”
” ” line 14: for “King Louis” read “King Lewis.”
” ” line 2 from bottom: for “Reformation” read “Protestant
Revolt.”
” ” note 2, line 1: for “gives notice of” read “records.”
” 59, note 2, line 1: for “Memoire” read “Mémoire.”
” 60, note 1, line 4: for “(Buntniss)” read “(Bündniss).”
” 62, line 23: for “Hieronymous” read “Hieronymus.”
” ” line 5 from bottom: for “Siebenbergen” read “Transylvania.”
” ” note 3, line 1: for “Hoberdanacz” read “Hobordanacz.”
” 64, note 1: for “Ottoman” read “Ottomane.”
” ” note 4: for “Charrières” read “Charrière.”
” 68, line 2: for “Krain” read “Carniola.”
” ” line 15: for “Barbarosa” read “Barbarosa.”
” ” line 24: for ” ” ”
” 69, line 2: for “Barbarosa” read “Barbarosa.”
” ” line 4: for ” ” ”
” ” line 8: for “forms” read “formed.”
” ” note 1: for “Ambassadors” read “Ambassadeurs.”
” ” note 1: for “Memoire” read “Mémoire.”
” ” note 2: for “Charrières” read “Charrière.”
” 72, line 6: for “Urkunde” read “Urkunden.”
” 85, note 1, line 2: for “zechinen” read “sequins.”
” ” note 1, line 9: after “Covas” insert a comma.
” ” note 1, line 10: for “Hoefflingen” read “Hoeflingen,”
and for “Ludwig” read “Ludwigs.”
” ” note 1, line 13: for “auszuselzen” read “auszusetzen.”
” ” note 1, line 14: for “Grossvizere” read “Grossviziere.”
” ” note 1, last line from bottom: for “den” read “dem.”
” 88, line 9: for “Francois” read “François.”
” ” line 10: for “preventions” read “préventions,” and for
“contemporaries” read “contemporains.”
” ” line 11: for “veritable” read “véritable.”
” 94, note 2, line 9: for “Kupelwieser” read “von Kupelwieser.”
” ” note 2, line 10: for “Oesterreichen” read “Oesterreichs.”
” 98, line 6: for “shiek” read “sheik.”
” 104, lines 4 and 10: for “Jurischitz” read “Juritschitz.”
” ” note 1, line 1: for “Jurischitz” read “Juritschitz.”
” 105, line 3: for “Barbarosa” read “Barbarosa.”
” 109, note 6, line 1: omit “Grimeston,” and before “quoted” insert
“Djelalzadek.”
” 110, line 5: for “over‐lenient” read same words without hyphen.
” 111, note 1: for “Abdurrahman” read “Abdurrahman.”
” ” note 2: for “Republique” read “république.”
” 112, note 3, line 2: for “Abdurrahman” read “Abdurrahman.”
” 116, line 16: for “Abdurrahman” read “Abdurrahman.”
” 118, fifth line from bottom: for “Sokolly” read “Sokolli.”
” 120, line 3: for “Ambasciatore” read “Ambasciatori.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Aristarchi”: for “Legislation” read
“Législation.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Gévay”: for “Actenstücken” read
“Actenstücke.”
” ” line 8: for “reglements” read “règlements.”
” ” line 14: for “Correspondence” read “Correspondance,”
and for “Memoires” read “Mémoires.”
” ” line 16: for “Ambasadeurs” read “Ambassadeurs.”
” ” line 28: for “Venétiens” read “Vénétiens.”
” 121, _sub verbo_ “Busbecq” read “Busbequius.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Hakluyt”: omit the whole line.
” ” line 17: for “Sclaven” read “Sklaven.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Vambery” read “Vambéry.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Abdurrahman” read “Abdurrahman.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Abdurrahman”: insert a new title as follows:
Armstrong, Edward, _The Emperor Charles V_. London,
1892.
” ” _sub verbo_ “Cahun”: for “Leon” read “Léon.”
” ” _sub verbo_ “Cantimir”: insert a new title as follows: Coxe,
William, _History of the House of Austria_. London, 1899.
” 122, line 17, and line 31: for “Leipsig” read “Leipzig.”
” 123, _sub verbo_ “Hakluyt’s Voyages”: insert “Edition of 1812.”
” ” line 21: for “Memoires” read “Mémoires.”
* * * * * *
Transcriber’s note:
Errors in ERRATA pages have been corrected and the pages moved to the
end of the book.
At least two instances of unpaired double quotation marks could not
be corrected with confidence and were transcribed without change.