TURKEY AND EUROPE.
First Intercourse--Alliance between Francis I and Suleiman the
Magnificent--Intrigues between France and Austria--The First
Treaty--Nature of Capitulations--Peculiar Favors Granted to the
French--Their Recognition as the Protectors of Christians--Entrance
of Other Powers--Louis XIV and His Ambassador--Influence of De
Brèves--Peace of Carlowitz--Turkey No Longer Dreaded in Europe.
Intercourse between Turkey and the European powers commenced with
the first invasion of the Balkan Peninsula, but there were no formal
relations until a Russian ambassador entered Constantinople in 1495.
That, however, was not followed by important consequences, and Turkey
did not commence its career of European influence until the time of
Francis I, of France, about 1525. The French monarch found himself
in a very difficult situation. The house of Austria had surrounded
him, excluding him from the Mediterranean; not only that, allied
with Venice, she thus controlled the Adriatic, possessed Oran and
theoretically the whole northern coast of Africa; while her relations
with Spain made her mistress of Barcelona, Naples and Sicily. France
seemed to be shut out entirely from Mediterranean power. It was
absolutely necessary for her at any price to find some counterpoise;
to oppose to Austria some other power, which should perhaps by its
own force, perhaps in alliance, enable her to regain her legitimate
influence in the Mediterranean and her commercial relations to the
countries of the Levant. It is scarcely surprising that France
looked with longing eyes to the Turks. Suleiman the Magnificent was
at the height of his power and the foundation of his kingdom seemed
impregnable. His armies were attacking Hungary, his ships held the
Adriatic and the Black Seas; he could by no possibility come into
rivalry with France; each had the same enemies; both were united by the
same needs of commerce, and both had a warlike reputation to sustain.
True, Suleiman was a Moslem and Francis I a Christian, and when the
alliance between them became known there arose a general clamor against
the “impious union of the Lilies with the Crescent.” Whatever Francis
thought, it is scarcely probable that he looked upon the Turkish
power as likely to spread much farther west, and planned to use it
as a weapon, which, after a time, he might lay aside. For some time
messengers had been passing back and forth making full inquiry as to
the condition of the Ottoman rule, and secret negotiations had been
entered into with the Sultan for the protection of French commerce. It
was therefore no matter of surprise that he sent an ambassador, who
was, however, arrested and murdered on the way. A second was sent who
carried a letter purporting to request the furtherance of the attack
upon Hungary and proposing to use counter influence on the other side
of the continent. This second envoy was received with great honors,
and notwithstanding the fact that Francis was then in captivity, the
Sultan expressed his royal determination to enter into alliance with
the French king, the token of which was a letter written in 1526. This
was the commencement of those alliances which for the succeeding 300
years, with differing degrees of fidelity, were kept up, and proved
of great value to France and of no little support to Turkey. Five
years later came the reception of a special ambassador. Extraordinary
honors were accorded to him such as have been given, it is said, to no
Christian ambassador succeeding him. That these should be permitted by
the Sultan’s subjects is attributed by Turkish historians to a report
that made Mohammed II, the Conqueror of Constantinople, the child of
a princess of the royal family of France; intended to be the bride of
Emperor John IV, but who had been taken captive in 1428. Austria at the
same time sent an ambassador, but he could by no means secure the same
treatment as his French associate. He, however, succeeded in securing
the first peace concluded between the two governments, in 1533. The
check given by Charles V to the advance of the Ottoman power along the
African coast made him appear to the world as the liberator of the
Christians and the terror of the infidels, and gave him such prestige
that Francis felt obliged to get all the advantage possible out of his
alliance. Accordingly the official envoy met the Sultan and a treaty
was signed at Constantinople, in 1536. This was in the form of what
is known as a Hatti Sherif, or an order from the Sultan which was the
basis of all the treaties that have been concluded since that period
between Turkey and the European nations. While substantially a treaty,
it took the form of a concession, and from this has arisen the word
“Capitulation” which has become recognized in all Turkish history as
governing the relations between the Turks and Christians. It has always
been contrary to the idea of the Moslem that a treaty can be made with
Christians; concessions (capitulations) can be granted, and this is
what has repeatedly been done in the diplomatic relations between the
empires.
This first treaty is extremely interesting. In it Suleiman gives to
Francis I the title of _Padisha_, looked upon as sacred by the Turks,
and it is said only accredited to one other Christian monarch, the Czar
Paul, of Russia. The first articles were as follows:
1. That as there is peace and concord between the Grand Seignior and
the King of France, their respective subjects and tributaries may
freely navigate and go into their different ports for their commerce,
buy, sell, load, conduct, and transport, by water or by land, from one
country to another, all kinds of merchandise not prohibited, in paying
the ordinary dues, without being subjected to any imposition, tribute,
or other charge.
2. That when the king shall send to Constantinople, or to any other
part of the Ottoman Empire, a consul, in like manner as the one he
keeps at Alexandria, that consul shall be accepted and sustained in his
authority and shall judge according to his faith and law, without that
any judge or cadi shall hear, judge, and pronounce, as well civilly as
criminally, upon the causes, processes, or differences which may arise,
between the subjects of the king only; and that the officers of the
Grand Seignior shall lend assistance for the execution of the judgments
of the consuls, any sentence passed by the cadis between French
merchants to be necessarily null and void.
3. That in case of any civil contestation between the Turks and the
French, the plaint of the first named shall not be received by the
cadis unless they should bring proof in writing of the hand of the
adversary or that of the consul, and that in any case the subjects of
the king shall not be judged without their dragoman being present.
4. That in criminal matters the subjects of the king may not be brought
before the cadi or ordinary judge, nor be judged at once, but be
conducted before the Sublime Porte, and in the absence of the Grand
Vizier, before his substitute, in order that the testimony of the
Turkish subject against the king’s subject may be discussed.
5. That no use shall be made of the merchant ships belonging to the
king’s subjects, nor of their artillery, munitions and equipages
against their will, even for the service of the Grand Seignior.
6. That if any subject of the king quits the States of the Grand
Seignior without having satisfied his debts, neither the consul nor any
other Frenchman shall be responsible for them; but the king shall make
satisfaction to the plaintiff upon the goods or person of the debtor,
should it be in his kingdom.
7. That the French merchants and subjects of the king shall freely make
their wills, and that the goods of those who shall die intestate shall
be remitted to the heir by the care and authority of the consul.
The importance of these articles is very evident. Theoretically there
could be no cordial relations whatever between Christians and Moslems.
The more enlightened judgment, however, that had already recognized
the necessity of a _modus vivendi_ with the Christian subjects of the
Sultan, recognized now also a similar necessity in connection with the
great states to the west with which the Sultan must come into relation,
but which he could not hope to conquer, at least for some time to
come. Thus there was introduced the important innovation in the law of
nations, since developed into the principle of extraterritoriality,
and recognized in all treaties between Christian nations and Moslem
or pagan governments, where the habits of life, the national customs
and general laws are of necessity very different. This treaty gave to
the French the advantage of their national laws and customs even under
foreign rule; recognized that in certain respects they had more rights
and liberties even than the Sultan’s subjects had, by acknowledging the
protection of their national magistrates. As was inevitable, out of
this came the development of small French colonies centered about the
mercantile houses; consuls also lost largely their commercial character
and became civil magistrates and even political agents. It is probably
to this treaty that is due the fact that to-day all foreigners are
classed under the general term of “Franks,” which has also been applied
even to many of the Christian subjects of the Sultan.
But there were other articles of this famous treaty of great
importance. The French were guaranteed the absolutely free exercise
of worship. Their bishops and other priests of this “Frank” religion,
of whatever nation, were to be left undisturbed wherever they dwelt,
provided they kept within the bounds of their condition. Thus, by
an easy extension, France secured the right of protection over all
Catholics in the East, and thus over the holy places in Palestine, as
well as over all the edifices of the Church. More than this, the French
flag became the protection for European merchants of other governments
not allied to the Porte by treaties, and, as a matter of fact, every
Christian nation was obliged to seek the protection of the French king
in its trade with Turkey. A third condition was the liberation of
slaves, and the Sultan, on his side, agreed not to enslave the French,
while the King of France granted the same privilege with regard to
Ottomans. The signing of this treaty was in many respects the most
significant event in Turkish history. Probably without any realization
of its ultimate results, the greatest Sultan that Turkey ever had
voluntarily placed limits upon his relation with Christians, and laid
down the principles which have governed Turkey in her foreign treaties
ever since.
Previous to this time the only treaties between the Ottomans and
European powers had been certain commercial treaties with Venice. These
had dated from the first incursions of the Turks into Europe, and in
them Venice was placed upon the footing of a vassal and tributary of
the Sultan. This was done as early as 1408, and tribute varying from
1,600 to 10,000 ducats was paid at different times until the capture of
Constantinople, when peace was purchased by an annual tribute of 36,000
ducats and the sending of a representative to Constantinople, whom the
Turks regarded and treated as a hostage.
The alliance between Turkey and France went through various stages.
At first Francis I seemed not quite to realize the whole bearing of
his alliance with the Turk, and sought to come to terms with Charles
V. The conditions, however, were not acceptable, and the result was
a new alliance, notwithstanding the fact that the ambassador who was
charged with the duty of securing the alliance was assassinated on
the way. Undoubtedly at times the French king was very anxious, for
his new allies seemed to have as much desire for the French coast
as for that of Spain. Still, they were essential almost to his very
existence, and he maintained terms of harmony. After the middle of
the sixteenth century, however, the alliance was merely political. It
had been entered upon on the part of the French in order to limit the
house of Austria; on the part of Turkey for the purpose of attacking
more easily the countries of Europe. The end of the former was obtained
by a treaty, which suspended the struggle with Austria for nearly a
century; and the latter found itself barred by Hungary, Italy and
Spain. The next was a renewal, on the part of Suleiman’s successor, of
the capitulations already made, but with certain modifications rendered
necessary by the developing hostility of Turks for Christians. New
privileges were also added. Every Frenchman settled in the country
was perpetually exempted from the capitation tax; French officers
were allowed to search for French slaves seized by Mussulmans, and to
demand punishment for those who stole or captured them; the Sultan also
engaging to make restitution for such acts of piracy. French ships
were treated kindly, and given assistance in case of running aground
on the shores of Turkey, and the persons and effects of those who were
ship-wrecked were to be respected. The most important of all, perhaps,
was the fact that the French enjoyed to the full the privileges which
the Venetians secured only through payment of tribute. The result was
that France was mistress of the commerce of the Mediterranean, and
she improved the opportunity, so as to establish Catholic missions
with the consent of the Sultan, and convents were located even in
Constantinople. At about this time (1569) Turkey and Russia first
measured their military strength, and Turkey was driven back from the
Don, and a scheme for a ship canal, which should connect the Black Sea
and the Caspian by the Sea of Azof and the Don and Volga, was stopped.
A few years later, in 1577, these privileges were enlarged, so that
France was acknowledged the protector of very nearly all Europeans who
sought to reach the Levant. Her ambassadors had precedence of those
of other Christian lands, and especially of Spain, while Englishmen,
Portuguese and some others were dependant upon the French flag for
protection. England, however, was unwilling to rest in this situation,
and the first ambassador sent by Elizabeth to the Porte obtained
capitulations analogous to those of France, but limited to commerce. He
also sought Turkish aid against Spain, as France had against Austria,
but with less of success, the Sultan caring less about the Spaniards,
who were far away, than the Austrians, who were near at hand. Russia
also in 1786 sent ambassadors with rich presents, and it was scarcely
surprising that the Ottomans were greatly exalted by their victories.
Poland solicited the arrangement of treaties; Venice congratulated
the Sultan upon his success over the Germans; the English ambassador
accompanied him in person in his campaign, and France reconfirmed her
alliance. It was at the close of the sixteenth century that France
was represented at Constantinople by Savary de Brèves, who did for
France what Lord Stratford de Redcliffe did later for England. By the
shrewdest means he gained such influence that a Turkish historian says:
“It very nearly happened that in the house of Islam a veritable
enthusiasm was declared for France by the secret dealings of its
accursed ambassador.”
That influence was powerful in many ways. It prevented the conversion
of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre into a Mosque; turned aside the
Sultan’s anger from the island of Scio; protected the Christian
churches in Constantinople from the attack of the Janissaries, but
found even then that English influence was not easy to overcome. The
British ambassador had succeeded in persuading the Porte that other
nations, which had hitherto come under French auspices, might enjoy
the same privileges under the English flag. Other powers also gained
advantages: Poland secured capitulations, as also the Republic of
Venice; and the United Provinces of the Low Countries obtained for
the first time, in 1612, a treaty similar to those which France and
England enjoyed. The use they made of this was characteristic. The
Dutch introduced the use of tobacco into the empire. In vain did the
priesthood try to oppose the innovation; the soldiers and common people
rose against them and they were compelled to revoke their decision.
It is interesting to note the defense that De Brèves made of the
alliance between France and Turkey against the scruples of his own
countrymen, and the declamations of others, who made this the basis
of an accusation of treason against Christianity. Not only, he said,
were the commercial advantages very great, and the political prestige
most valuable, but Christianity itself was greatly advanced, inasmuch
as it appropriated every sort of merchandise to be gathered from the
East, and was enriched by the accruing wealth. He also dwelt upon the
preservation of the Christian name and of the “Catholic religion.” This
is stated somewhat more fully in another chapter.
French influence, however, suffered after the time of De Brèves
considerable change. This was due primarily to the fact that the
general policy of the Sublime Porte toward the European Governments was
no longer that of war, but of peace, so that this alliance was open to
all. The entrance of other ambassadors brought other influences, and
nations hostile to France used the ignorance of the Turks to further
their own ends. So also France found Turkey of less use than formerly,
finding surer and less dangerous allies in the Protestants of Germany.
Other reasons were the weakness of the Ottoman Sultans, and also the
weakness of the French ambassadors; the former paid no attention to the
capitulations, claiming that they were under no obligations to keep
their word with Christians; the latter, ignorant of the religion, laws
and customs of the Ottomans, had no knowledge of when to waive their
peculiar prejudices, and when to insist upon the preservation of their
rights. This was especially noticeable during the first half of the
seventeenth century, and had its results in serious losses to the Roman
Catholic Church, and the general cause of Christians in the empire.
The reign of Louis XIV was a continued series of intrigues, demands
for renewals of treaties, recriminations against the bad faith of the
Ottomans, support now of the Venetians and then of the Turks; until, in
1670, a more skilful ambassador than France had sent at any time since
De Brèves, secured special favors. The customs duty was reduced, the
King of France recognized as the unique protector of the Catholics of
the East, and above all, French merchandise coming from India given the
through passage by the Red Sea and across Egypt. The French ambassador
regarded Egypt as the true route to India, and after much negotiation
and many threats, in 1673 the new treaty was signed. True, the question
of through passage to India was not mentioned, but private arrangements
with the Pasha of Egypt secured that favor. The treaty, however, was
not destined to have great results. Henceforward the policy of France
was not to advance in cordial relations with her Turkish ally. She
laid down her arms when Turkey commenced war, and Turkey made peace as
soon as France entered upon a campaign. The result was evident in the
development of the house of Austria, and the establishment of the power
of Russia. In marked contrast to the course of France was that taken
by the Poles. Already reference has been made to the effort of Louis
XIV to secure the alliance of Sobieski and allow the Turkish Government
free course in its effort to overpower Austria, and to the Pole’s noble
defense of Austria as the greatest Christian barrier to the spread of
the Moslem power. One result of this action was the establishment of
the Holy Alliance, when Austria, Poland, and Venice commenced the war
against the Sultan, which ended only in the peace of Carlowitz, which
had this chief result--that Turkey was no longer an isolated power, but
closely bound to the interests of Europe.