Chapter V: 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.