CHAPTER XI.

General Considerations on the Abduction of the Armenian Patriarch Avedick—Despatch of the Marquis de Ferriol to Constantinople as Ambassador—Difficulties peculiar to this Post—Incautious Conduct of some of Ferriol’s Predecessors—Quiclet’s Adventures—Portrait of Ferriol—His Pretensions at Constantinople—His Eccentricity of Manner—His Behaviour in Religious Matters—The Armenian Church—Short Account of its History—Ardent Desire of the Catholic Missionaries to make Converts—Their Imprudence—Ferriol at first attempts to repair it—Obstinate Resistance of Father Braconnier, a Jesuit—Encroachments and Requirements of the Jesuits.

We now come to the story of a most audacious violation of the law of nations, conceived by the fanaticism of an ambassador, ventured upon in a friendly country, with a singular boldness and energy, accomplished by stratagem and imposture, and thus kept from the knowledge of an entire people. The high rank of the victim, the character of the means employed, the ardour of the passions then excited, give an especial importance to this act of violence, which was crowned by adénoûmentas startling as up to the present it was little known. People were aware that an Armenian Patriarch, who combined with his civil power enormous religious authority, had been carried off from Constantinople towards the end of Louis XIV.’s reign.But what became of him afterwards, and what adventures terminated the existence of this personage who had been rudely snatched away from his country and precipitated from the pinnacle of honour and the highest dignity? Must we see in him the mysterious prisoner of the Isles Sainte-Marguerite, as Taulès and the grave German historian Hammer have affirmed?[218]Or, as others believe, did he rather end his days in thebagneof Marseilles, or in the obscurity of a prison of Messina, or, more likely still, in one of the dungeons of the Inquisition?[219]What were the real causes of this extraordinary crime, which almost made the Sultan link himself with the numerous enemies of Louis XIV., and how did this monarch, vanquished and crushed by a coalition which was already formidable, contrive to appease the resentment of the Ottoman Porte? Such are the points which documents, entirely unpublished and of indisputable authenticity, will enable us to make clear. And this we shall do with the sole desire for truth, and without seeking to exaggerate or to extenuate the responsibility attaching to the authors of the crime. The more profound the mystery with which it has been surrounded, the more necessary it is to entirely penetrate it, and, after so many deeds which justly entitle Louis XIV. to admiration and gratitude, the more necessary also is it not to leave in obscurity, the onlyone perhaps where he has made use of the worst of violences, that which is aided by lying and hypocrisy.

In 1699, Louis XIV. appointed the Marquis de Ferriol his ambassador at Constantinople. This post was beset with difficulties. To represent among Mussulmen a highly Catholic nation; and in a country divided among several dissenting Churches, to be the natural and appointed protector of a very small Latin minority, unceasingly aspiring to increase in number, and encouraged in proselytism by ardent and active missionaries; to restrain the often thoughtless zeal of these missionaries, and, moreover, to prevent this Latin minority from ceding to the offers of the German Empire and placing themselves under its protection;[220]to defend the interests of merchants, more and more exacting in their demands, often unjust in their complaints,[221]and whose encroachments met with opposition not only from the Turks, but especially from the English, the Genoese, and the Venetians; to act in the name of an extremely haughty monarch near a very touchy Government, and one still too much isolated and too much aloof from the great enterprises of Europe for it to give Louis XIV.credit for the as yet continued success of his arms and the brilliancy of his reign; to maintain the misunderstanding between the Germans and the Turks, by inducing the former to send assistance to the rebellious Hungarians, and to keep up the resentment of the Porte against the Venetians, but nevertheless without going to the extremity of causing it to break out in war; to live in the midst of manners altogether peculiar and in certain respects always barbarous, to imitate Asiatic luxury, and to submit to customs[222]which were sometimes extremely onerous; to assist at frequent and unexpectedrévolutions de palais, which would in a day upset the policy of the Divan and baffle every project: such was then the delicate task of the French ambassadors at Constantinople.

The constant assistance which Louis XIV. had as yet lent to the enemies of the Turks made the position of his representatives more difficult still. One day, when one of them recalled to the Grand Vizier, Kiuproli-Ogli, the old alliance of France and Turkey, and evoked the recollections of the time of Francis I., “I do not know,” answered Kiuproli, “if the French are our allies; but it is certainthey are invariably to be found among our enemies. There were six thousand of them at the passage of the Raab. Your Admiral, Beaufort, attacked Gigery, and made a cruel war on the Moors placed under our protection, and you have assisted the Venetians in Candia.” Far from having appeased these very legitimate feelings of resentment, Ferriol’s predecessors had excited them still more by most imprudent acts. Sometimes, even, they had resorted to violence in order to get rid of a difficult situation, and had had recourse to those arbitrary acts of authority, of which the Sultan, it is true, often set them an example in his seraglio, but which should have been impossible to the representatives of a civilized nation.

It was thus that La Haye, ambassador at Constantinople in 1659, did not scruple to free himself by a crime from an extreme peril in which his very equivocal conduct had placed him.[223]France was succouring Candia, besieged by the Turks. It was an assistance quite natural and assuredly very praiseworthy; but what was less honourable, the French ambassador carried on with the Venetians a continued secret intercourse, and, in a cypher correspondence, kept them informed of all the designs of the Turks. One day the person charged to carry his mysterious news to the Venetians betrayed him, and, seduced by the bait of a reward, presented himself to the Caïmacan[224]of Constantinople and announced that he wished to embrace the Mahometan faith, and to deliver to the Grand Vizier himself a packet of lettersof great importance. The Ottoman Minister, who already had suspicions of this intercourse, eagerly received the proofs brought to him, but it was in vain that he tried to decipher them, and neither the interpreters nor the renegades who swarmed at the Sultan’s court, could penetrate the secret of the intercepted letters. In the meanwhile there arrived at Constantinople a Frenchman, named Quiclet, an adventurer without resources, who boasted of having acquired by long practice the science of deciphering letters without a key. Badly received by La Haye, to whom he had applied for pecuniary assistance, he had the imprudence to menace him with his vengeance, and his wife said to the people of the embassy, “His Excellency refuses money to my husband, but we know very well how to obtain it from the Grand Vizier.” La Haye became alarmed when informed of this speech. He feared lest this wretched intriguer might really be able to decipher the despatches, or failing this, might, by aid of his imagination, render them more compromising still. He grew agitated. He saw his life in danger, and his character as Louis XIV.’s ambassador at stake. He sends for Quiclet to the embassy, giving him hopes of assistance. The latter, as imprudent in his confidence as he had been thoughtless in his threats, hastens to the palace. La Haye leads him, while talking, on to a terrace overlooking the embassy garden; some servants throw themselves upon him, and others, posted at the spot where he falls, kill him and inter him there.[225]

This characteristic deed serves as a fitting prologue to the story of the not less revolting abuse of force whichmarked the embassy of Ferriol, who was as unscrupulous as La Haye upon the choice of means, and whose implacable animosity knew how to strike the most eminent personages as well as intriguers of low degree. In truth, every expedient appeared to him suitable to be adopted, provided that it was of a nature to aid him in the accomplishment of his designs; and his adventurous and agitated past already announced the new ambassador’s line of conduct.

It was by intrigue rather than by his talents that the obscure gentleman of Dauphiné managed to rise by degrees, and from simple King’s musketeer to become ambassador at Constantinople. Compelled to quit France, in consequence of a love-affair, and Poland, where he had taken refuge, because of a violent dispute at a gaming-party,[226]compromising the friends who had given him hospitality, but succeeding, nevertheless, in preserving them as active architects of his fortune, Ferriol went first to Candia to fight against the Turks, and then on their side in Hungary against the Imperialists.[227]Instead of confining himself to his military duties, he interfered in matters of diplomacy, gave an account of them to Louis XIV., gained himself supporters in the Turkish camp, and brought his services under the notice of the Marquis de Torcy by means of Madame de Ferriol, his sister-in-law,[228]who possessed great influenceover the Minister. This was not all. Not content with increasing the number of his supporters, he made himself the unjust, passionate, and tenacious adversary of the Abbé de Châteauneuf, ambassador at Constantinople. As eager to injure him as he was industrious to give himself importance, he calumniated the man whose post he coveted, and knew, which appeared difficult, how to interest the piety of Louis XIV. in the recall of an ambassador who was a priest, and whom his enemy accused of an inclination for the Turkish religion.[229]To gain his ends by means of an imputation so utterly improbable and so strange was a proof of extreme cleverness, and was doubtless the reason why he was recompensed by Louis XIV. sending him to replace the Abbé de Châteauneuf at Constantinople.

But Ferriol showed less ability in the performance of his functions than he had displayed in obtaining his post. At a time when the most prudent moderation was indispensable, he exhibited, from the day of his arrival, the signs of the most fervid impetuosity, which was already a kind of disease in him, and which, becoming more and more exuberant and excessive, was to degenerate, ten years later, into a species of insanity. In all countries there are certain distinctions which Princes reserve for themselves, and which, for this reason and out of the commonest politeness, ambassadors take care not to appropriate. In Spain, formerly, the Sovereign alone could drive through Madrid ina coach drawn by six mules. At Constantinople, the Sultan and the Grand Vizier exclusively enjoyed the privilege of sailing on the waters of the Bosphorus in a boat covered by an awning lined with purple.[230]Neither the Mufti, the other grandees of the Porte, nor any foreign representative would have dared to have usurped to himself what was considered in Turkey as a peculiar honour. Ferriol refused to submit himself to this custom, up to that time respected by every one. But on his first appearance in a caïque similar to the Grand Seignior’s, the Bostanji-Bachi[231]ordered a hundred blows with the stick to be given to thecaichiswho had manned the boat of the vain-glorious ambassador, and caused the latter to be informed that on the occasion of a second infraction he should fire upon and sink it. Although aware that ambassadors ought to present themselves unarmed before the Sultan, and that, as a matter of favour, a court-sword[232]was sometimes allowed, Ferriol completely estranged the Turks by attending the Imperial audience armed with a long rapier. He not only had contentions with the officers of the Divan, but also with the other ambassadors. Some French deserters from the German army had aggravated their offence by going to brave, even in his palace, Count d’Ortinghem, the representative of the Empire, who had them arrested, less for their desertion than to punish their arrogance. Ferriol immediately orderedtwo officers of the German embassy to be carried off by force. Justly irritated, D’Ortinghem demanded their release. The two sides armed themselves. The subjects of each country were called together. A fight was about to stain with blood the streets of Constantinople, and it was only the energetic interference of the representative of Holland that prevented it.[233]

For this inflexibility of character, this haughtiness of conduct, and eccentricity of manners, the pomp and brilliancy of Ferriol’s receptions, and his profound knowledge of the country in which he resided, were not sufficient compensation. Well informed of all the affairs of the Levant, he thoughtlessly compromised a precious experience by his impetuous decisions and utter absence of all propriety and decorum. The boldness of certain means attracted more than their illegality restrained him. Being entirely ignorant of the art of gradually smoothing down a difficulty, and, by using time as an auxiliary, of carefully managing obstacles, he blindly threw himself upon them, believing himself able to overcome them by a prompt and hazardous recourse to violence. There still remained in him much of the adventurous Candia volunteer.

Nevertheless, in religious matters, Ferriol did not at first show himself so audaciously arbitrary as he was afterwards to become. This man, who subsequently allowed himself to be enticed by the missionaries into the most tyrannical and violent resolutions, endeavoured at the commencement of his embassy to restrain their imprudent and immoderate zeal. Everything, moreover, engaged him to it. Everythingshould have determined him to persevere in this policy of circumspection which the instructions received from Louis XIV., the character of the schismatic Armenians, and the blamable excesses of the Jesuits equally made a duty to him. “His Majesty orders you,” it had been written to Ferriol, “to accord to the Jesuit fathers a protection conformable to the zeal which they show for religion, to their disinterestedness, and to the regularity of their manners.... Nevertheless, you must beware of the inconsiderate zeal which the missionaries sometimes carry too far; religion often suffers more prejudice from imprudent undertakings or untimely demands than it acquires real advantages of success.”[234]Wise words, too soon disregarded both by him to whom they were addressed, and by the Prince in whose name they had been written, and which, singularly prophetic, announced seven years in advance the misfortunes which the forgetfulness of this judicious warning was to bring upon the Catholics.

No church deserved more than that of the schismatic Armenians the employment of that moderation and prudence so opportunely recommended by Louis XIV. to his ambassador. Naturally good and peaceable, and of a sociable and kind temper, the Armenians readily became intimate with strangers, and had no quarrels with them, except in instances when their own interests were wronged.[235]Long since driven from their ancient kingdom by conquest, orhaving voluntarily emigrated through the necessities of their commerce, they were dispersed over a very extensive territory, and were encountered in large numbers, not only in the Turkish Empire and in Persia, but also in Tartary, and even in Poland. Everywhere they had acquired the reputation of being alike industrious and persevering. Eager in pursuit of gain, they excelled in commerce. Although losing more and more the recollection of their old country, they carefully preserved the unity of their church, and remained resolutely attached to their faith. They had adopted the language of the Turks, their costume,[236]everything in short save what concerned the Armenian religion, to which they showed themselves scrupulously faithful, and which they respected in every one of its practices as well as in its doctrines and its spirit. The severities which it imposed upon them did not dishearten them, neither did they consider themselves absolved, even by painful journeys, from long and austere fasts. Their churches were the most decorated and most crowded of all the East.[237]Their traditions seemed to them so much the more deserving of veneration because they were more ancient. Having preserved their nationality by means of their religion, tenacious and fertile of resources, they were interesting from their misfortunes, the firmness with which they endured them, and their industrious activity.

For a century past storms had at distant intervals disturbed their ordinarily peaceable state. These troubles, coming from without, were not due, as one might imagine,to the persecutions of the conqueror. The Turks, tolerant by nature as well as out of obedience to their religion, looked upon all the Christian churches with equal scorn. If they interfered in the internal divisions of these churches, it was because they were engaged to do so by complaints, or else to profit by the voluntary gifts of one of the parties to the controversy. The punctual payment of the legal tribute sufficed to assure to a conquered people not only the free exercise of their religion, but also a material and efficacious support for their patriarchs and bishops.[238]Far from endeavouring to convert its Christian subjects to Mahometanism, the Divan received with extreme reserve and even discouraged those whom the greed of a reward excited to abandon the religion of Christ. Often rigorously exacting in maintaining their political rights, the Mahometans were disdainfully and absolutely indifferent with respect to the religion of the Christians.[239]Although persuaded of the excellence of Islamism, the Mussulman is altogether devoid of the spirit of propagandism. In his eyes the infidels arenot necessarily rejected; since, according to the Koran, “He who hath said there is only one God, he shall enter into Paradise.” Moreover,the number of the elect is fixed from all eternity, and to endeavour to increase the number is useless as well as contrary to the commands of the sacred book. So they were ignorant of and could not understand that charity, admirable in principle although often carried to excess, which animated the Catholic missionary, inspiring in him a sublime abnegation, and determining him to leave his country, to cross deserts, to suffer and to die, in order to save a single soul and make it share in the consolations and hopes of his faith.

This ardour of propagandism, so highly beneficial to humanity when it serves to spread the beautiful morality of the Gospel among nations where it has not yet penetrated, was early made use of by the Holy See to cause not only idolaters, but also Christians whom very slight differences in doctrine separated from the Roman communion, to submit to its spiritual authority. In 1587, Sixtus V., desirous of removing these differences, sent the Bishop of Sidon to all the Armenian churches; he failed, however, in his attempt.[240]In 1622, there was founded at Rome, by Gregory XV., the congregation “for the propagation of the faith,” to which Urban VIII., his successor, added the College of the Propaganda, where young men from every part of the world were instructed and prepared for their missions. At first they had the wisdom to pursue in the East methods of kindness and of persuasion, and by these means succeededin gaining over a rather large number of dissenters. But success soon rendered the missionaries bolder, and too confident in the exclusive excellence of their own doctrines, they substituted for the clever circumspection they had hitherto shown, and the slow but certain influence of a persuasive impressiveness, a proselytism, ardent, impassioned, and too hasty in arriving at its ends. Instead of assisting dissenters to clear the narrow space which separated them from the Roman Church, by showing them how near they were to it,[241]instead of rendering prominent all the points which united them, they proceeded to attack with ill-timed perseverance the questions of liturgy to which the Armenian Church was especially attached. They forbade the Catholics, under the severest penalties, to enter other churches, and when they ought, by judicious indulgence, to have recognized in the majority of the Armenians brothers separated by their observances, but in a very slight degree by their doctrines, they treated them as enemies and barbarians. Justly irritated by this violent conduct, finding themselves subjected to scorn, and menaced in their dearest and most venerated traditions, the schismatics complained to the Divan, and represented the Jesuits not as envoys of peace, but as fomenters of discord and as conspirators, so muchmore dangerous, because they were in the pay of foreign courts.[242]

Ferriol comprehended the imprudent behaviour of the Jesuits, and attempted to repair it. In 1701 he arranged a reconciliation between the principal dissenters and the chiefs of the Catholics, and succeeded in moderating the demands of the latter, and in appeasing the legitimate resentment of the former. A kind of treaty of union was drawn up, which, approved by the Grand Patriarch of Armenia, and by the Catholic archbishop, was to be submitted afterwards to the ratification of the Court of Rome, and was to regulate the future relations of the two churches. But the happy effects which would have resulted from this transaction were sacrificed by the implacable resistance which Father Braconnier, superior of the Jesuit mission in the East, opposed to it.[243]In vain Ferriol observed to him “that they were threatened with a general persecution of the Catholics throughout the Turkish empire; that the Sultan could issue severe orders, which would give a mortal blow to the religion by reason of the little firmness which the Catholics possessed, and that a persecution ought to be avoided when this could be done without injuring religion and without offending it.” To these pressing reasons, inspired by humanity and foresight, Father Braconnier replied, “that the Church had formerly suffered persecutions much more cruel; that the Armenians ought to know how tosuffer; that he could not permit the Catholics to have the least communication with their schismatic brethren, and that they ought rather to expose themselves to the harshest treatment.”[244]

Unfortunately Ferriol had neither sufficient firmness to make his opinion prevail, nor even perseverance to resolutely maintain it. All at once abandoning his attempt at reconciliation, he desperately threw himself into the party of action much more suitable to his vehement character, and to his strong liking for contest, and also, we must admit, to the delicate position in which the encroachments of Rome and the requirements of the Jesuits placed him. The ambassador of the King of France at Constantinople was then indeed the representative of the Holy See quite as much as of the court of Versailles, and he submitted to the custom of corresponding regularly either with the Pope or with the principal cardinals. Whilst he rendered account to Louis XIV. of matters of commerce and of the political situation, the great religious interests formed the subject of periodical despatches addressed directly to Rome. Very jealous of his authority, Louis XIV. had pointed out the inconvenience of this correspondence,[245]then he had tolerated it, and, as often happens, the custom had grown into an obligation. On the other hand, the Jesuits had more and more exaggerated the importance of their part, and to the direct influence which the court of Rome exercised upon the French ambassador by its pressingdespatches,[246]they added the effects of their constant recriminations, of their feverish and turbulent activity, of their audacious encroachments. Instructing the Holy See according to their own fancy and inspiring its orders; ruling Ferriol through Versailles quite as much as through Rome; ready to calumniate him if he ceased to be their tool, and even powerful enough to overthrow him; present and influential everywhere, they were in reality the masters of the situation, and their responsibility before history is as incontestable as their power.

While submitting to their yoke, Ferriol sometimes could not prevent himself from complaining of it. “All here wish to pass for ministers,” he wrote to Torcy. “They believe themselves more enlightened than the ambassadors, and the order of each is reversed. These good fathers, who ought only to go to the convict-prison and the houses of Christians established in the country, do not abstain from visiting persons of power, and from imposing upon everybody in political affairs. When an ambassador wishes to reduce them within the bounds which seem to be prescribed for them, they treat him as a man devoid of religion who sacrifices everything to his ambition.”[247]Assuredly this is the language of truth, everything proves it. Butalthough these complaints were well founded, although the domination of the Jesuits was then real enough, we cannot feel much concern for this voluntary victim of their encroachments. Not only, indeed, did Ferriol refrain from endeavouring to throw off their heavy yoke, although it sometimes weighed on his self-esteem; but also, forgetting the character with which he was invested, and passing from a brief and honourable independence to a servile devotion, he became the executioner of the vengeance of a few missionaries with so much implacability, that in fighting their adversaries he seemed to be engaging his own personal enemies. His hatred, revived and cleverly kept up by baleful excitements, is about to docilely follow the direction indicated to it, and to strike without pity, to pursue without respite, to cause to disappear and overwhelm, a long time even after his own fall, a great Armenian personage whom it is now time to introduce in his turn into this story, and to make known to our readers.

FOOTNOTES:[218]L’Homme au Masque de Fer, Mémoire Historique, par le Chevalier de Taulès, Ancien Consul-général en Syrie, Paris, 1825. Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine jusqu’à nos Jours, vol. xiii. p. 187. M. Ubicini,Lettres sur la Turquie, Paris, Dumaine, 1854, part ii. p. 256.[219]Aubry de la Motraye,Voyage en Europe, Asie, et Afrique, La Haye, 1727, 2 vols. in folio, vol. i. p. 371. Didot’sBiographie Universelle, article “Avedick.”[220]Instructions given to M. de Ferriol on his departure for Constantinople:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 33.[221]And often abusing the ignorance of the Turks. “It is very sad,” writes Louis XIV. to Ferriol, February 15, 1707, “that the French bring themselves into discredit by their failures, and that the Turks set them the example of that good faith which they ought to observe in commerce.”—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 44. “There are no people in the world so easily deceived and who have been more deceived than the Turks. They are naturally simple and dull, and ready in believing. Thus it is customary for the Christians to impose upon them in a variety of ways and to play them many scandalous tricks.”—Chardin,Voyage en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient, vol. i p. 17, Langlès’ edition.[222]We may quote among these usages, the obligation imposed upon the ambassadors of making a superb present to the Grand Vizier, not only when they first arrived at Constantinople, but at every change of Grand Vizier, which happened very frequently. Some of these presents cost as much as nine thousand livres, a rather large sum at that period. They consisted especially of clocks, watches, and mirrors:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires des Dépenses. “In one year,” writes Ferriol, “I have made four presents to four chief viziers, Daltahan, Ramy, Achmet, and Assat-Pacha, and to the whole of the households. It costs me more than 20,000 livres.” Despatch from Ferriol to the Count de Pontchartrain, of December 4, 1703:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey.[223]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section TurkeyI,Mémoires et Documents.[224]The Caïmacan is a lieutenant of the Grand Vizier who remains at Constantinople and fills his place when he follows the Sultan to Adrianople.[225]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section TurkeyI,Mémoires et Documents.[226]With a rich Pole, named Krazcinskí:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, supplementI.[227]Correspondance de Ferriol.—Ibid.[228]The ambassador was never married. This Madame de Ferriol, his brother’s wife, mixed in the best society of Paris, and enjoyed considerable influence with the high personages of the State. She was the sister of the famous Abbé de Tencin, Cardinal, Minister of State, and Archbishop of Lyons, and also of the celebrated nun, notorious for her debauchery, the mistress of Dubois and mother of d’Alembert, by the Chevalier Destouches:—Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xi. p. 182. Chéruel’s edition. See alsoVézelay, historical study by M. Aimé Chérest, vol. iii. p. 83.[229]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires et Documents,I.[230]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence from Turkey,I.[231]Chief of the Bostanji, the Sultan’s Guards.[232]This at least is what was permitted to De Castagnères, Abbé de Châteauneuf, who informed Louis XIV. that he had been admitted into the Seraglio with his sword. But it was very short, and did not attract attention.[233]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires et Documents,I.[234]Instructions given to M. de Ferriol, ambassador:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 33.[235]This is the testimony which the Jesuits themselves have borne in several accounts; Father Monnier,Mémoires des Missionnaires de la Compagnie de Jésus, vol. iii. pp. 46-52; Father Fleuriau,État présent de l’Arménie, Paris, 1694. 12mo.[236]Lettres sur la Turquie, by M. A. Ubicini, part 2, p. 252, Paris, Dumaine.[237]Father Monnier, work already mentioned.[238]Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Ubicini,Lettres sur la Turquie. Archives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires et Documents, 37.[239]One day a stranger presented himself before the Grand Vizier, Raghib-Pasha, saying that Mahomet had appeared to him to invite him to turn Mussulman, and that he had come on purpose from Dantzic to be converted. “Here is a strange rascal,” said the Grand Vizier. “Mahomet has appeared to an infidel, when for more than seventy years I have been exact in the five prayers, and he has never done me such an honour!” And the stranger did not become a Mussulman. “I have heard it said several times by doctors of Mahometan law that, according to their religion, it was not permitted to them to protect one party against another in the dispute which sprang up between the Catholics and the heretics, because, as they said, they were both equally bad.” ManuscriptMémoireof 1771 on matters of religion:—Archives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 37.[240]Relazione di quanto ha trattato il Vescovo di Sidonia nella sua Missione in Oriente, data alla Santità di N.S. Sisto V., alli 19 Aprile, 1587.[241]See M. Dulaurier’s excellent work:Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de l’Église Arménienne Orientale, Paris, Durand libraire, 1859. This book combats the generally received opinion that the Armenians have embraced monophysism, such as has been taught by Eutyches and his adherents, who recognized only the divine nature in Christ. Not only, in truth, have the Armenians always condemned Eutyches, whom their church excommunicates, but also they profess, like the Greek and Latin churches, the dogma of the two natures, the two wills, and the two operations in Jesus Christ.[242]Borée,l’Arménie, p. 54; Serpos,Compendio storico sulla Nazione Armena, p. 204, Venice, 1786; M. Ubicini,Lettres sur la Turquie, part 2, p. 254.[243]Unpublished letter from Ferriol to Father Fleuriau, of November 4, 1701:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 37.[244]Letter from Ferriol to Father Fleuriau, already referred to, in which Father Braconnier’s own words are quoted.[245]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence of Ferriol and Louis XIV., section Turkey.[246]But only by its despatches. The court of Rome was very niggard of its money. “I pray your Majesty to have this account paid me,” wrote Ferriol to the King, October 17, 1705, “since I receive from the court of Rome only briefs and indulgences.”[247]Unpublished letter of Ferriol to the Marquis de Torcy, Minister of Exterior Relations, April 5, 1704:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 40. We read in another despatch from Ferriol to the Cardinal de la Trémouille, Louis XIV.’s ambassador at Rome: “Most of the missionaries complain directly they find the least obstacle to their desires. Patience is a great virtue which they rarely practise, although very necessary for the proper cultivation of the Lord’s vineyard:”—Unpublished letter of Ferriol, March 5, 1709, Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 46.

[218]L’Homme au Masque de Fer, Mémoire Historique, par le Chevalier de Taulès, Ancien Consul-général en Syrie, Paris, 1825. Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman depuis son Origine jusqu’à nos Jours, vol. xiii. p. 187. M. Ubicini,Lettres sur la Turquie, Paris, Dumaine, 1854, part ii. p. 256.

[219]Aubry de la Motraye,Voyage en Europe, Asie, et Afrique, La Haye, 1727, 2 vols. in folio, vol. i. p. 371. Didot’sBiographie Universelle, article “Avedick.”

[220]Instructions given to M. de Ferriol on his departure for Constantinople:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 33.

[221]And often abusing the ignorance of the Turks. “It is very sad,” writes Louis XIV. to Ferriol, February 15, 1707, “that the French bring themselves into discredit by their failures, and that the Turks set them the example of that good faith which they ought to observe in commerce.”—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 44. “There are no people in the world so easily deceived and who have been more deceived than the Turks. They are naturally simple and dull, and ready in believing. Thus it is customary for the Christians to impose upon them in a variety of ways and to play them many scandalous tricks.”—Chardin,Voyage en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient, vol. i p. 17, Langlès’ edition.

[222]We may quote among these usages, the obligation imposed upon the ambassadors of making a superb present to the Grand Vizier, not only when they first arrived at Constantinople, but at every change of Grand Vizier, which happened very frequently. Some of these presents cost as much as nine thousand livres, a rather large sum at that period. They consisted especially of clocks, watches, and mirrors:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires des Dépenses. “In one year,” writes Ferriol, “I have made four presents to four chief viziers, Daltahan, Ramy, Achmet, and Assat-Pacha, and to the whole of the households. It costs me more than 20,000 livres.” Despatch from Ferriol to the Count de Pontchartrain, of December 4, 1703:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey.

[223]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section TurkeyI,Mémoires et Documents.

[224]The Caïmacan is a lieutenant of the Grand Vizier who remains at Constantinople and fills his place when he follows the Sultan to Adrianople.

[225]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section TurkeyI,Mémoires et Documents.

[226]With a rich Pole, named Krazcinskí:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, supplementI.

[227]Correspondance de Ferriol.—Ibid.

[228]The ambassador was never married. This Madame de Ferriol, his brother’s wife, mixed in the best society of Paris, and enjoyed considerable influence with the high personages of the State. She was the sister of the famous Abbé de Tencin, Cardinal, Minister of State, and Archbishop of Lyons, and also of the celebrated nun, notorious for her debauchery, the mistress of Dubois and mother of d’Alembert, by the Chevalier Destouches:—Mémoires de Saint-Simon, vol. xi. p. 182. Chéruel’s edition. See alsoVézelay, historical study by M. Aimé Chérest, vol. iii. p. 83.

[229]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires et Documents,I.

[230]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence from Turkey,I.

[231]Chief of the Bostanji, the Sultan’s Guards.

[232]This at least is what was permitted to De Castagnères, Abbé de Châteauneuf, who informed Louis XIV. that he had been admitted into the Seraglio with his sword. But it was very short, and did not attract attention.

[233]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires et Documents,I.

[234]Instructions given to M. de Ferriol, ambassador:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 33.

[235]This is the testimony which the Jesuits themselves have borne in several accounts; Father Monnier,Mémoires des Missionnaires de la Compagnie de Jésus, vol. iii. pp. 46-52; Father Fleuriau,État présent de l’Arménie, Paris, 1694. 12mo.

[236]Lettres sur la Turquie, by M. A. Ubicini, part 2, p. 252, Paris, Dumaine.

[237]Father Monnier, work already mentioned.

[238]Hammer,Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Ubicini,Lettres sur la Turquie. Archives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey,Mémoires et Documents, 37.

[239]One day a stranger presented himself before the Grand Vizier, Raghib-Pasha, saying that Mahomet had appeared to him to invite him to turn Mussulman, and that he had come on purpose from Dantzic to be converted. “Here is a strange rascal,” said the Grand Vizier. “Mahomet has appeared to an infidel, when for more than seventy years I have been exact in the five prayers, and he has never done me such an honour!” And the stranger did not become a Mussulman. “I have heard it said several times by doctors of Mahometan law that, according to their religion, it was not permitted to them to protect one party against another in the dispute which sprang up between the Catholics and the heretics, because, as they said, they were both equally bad.” ManuscriptMémoireof 1771 on matters of religion:—Archives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 37.

[240]Relazione di quanto ha trattato il Vescovo di Sidonia nella sua Missione in Oriente, data alla Santità di N.S. Sisto V., alli 19 Aprile, 1587.

[241]See M. Dulaurier’s excellent work:Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de l’Église Arménienne Orientale, Paris, Durand libraire, 1859. This book combats the generally received opinion that the Armenians have embraced monophysism, such as has been taught by Eutyches and his adherents, who recognized only the divine nature in Christ. Not only, in truth, have the Armenians always condemned Eutyches, whom their church excommunicates, but also they profess, like the Greek and Latin churches, the dogma of the two natures, the two wills, and the two operations in Jesus Christ.

[242]Borée,l’Arménie, p. 54; Serpos,Compendio storico sulla Nazione Armena, p. 204, Venice, 1786; M. Ubicini,Lettres sur la Turquie, part 2, p. 254.

[243]Unpublished letter from Ferriol to Father Fleuriau, of November 4, 1701:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 37.

[244]Letter from Ferriol to Father Fleuriau, already referred to, in which Father Braconnier’s own words are quoted.

[245]Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence of Ferriol and Louis XIV., section Turkey.

[246]But only by its despatches. The court of Rome was very niggard of its money. “I pray your Majesty to have this account paid me,” wrote Ferriol to the King, October 17, 1705, “since I receive from the court of Rome only briefs and indulgences.”

[247]Unpublished letter of Ferriol to the Marquis de Torcy, Minister of Exterior Relations, April 5, 1704:—Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 40. We read in another despatch from Ferriol to the Cardinal de la Trémouille, Louis XIV.’s ambassador at Rome: “Most of the missionaries complain directly they find the least obstacle to their desires. Patience is a great virtue which they rarely practise, although very necessary for the proper cultivation of the Lord’s vineyard:”—Unpublished letter of Ferriol, March 5, 1709, Archives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, section Turkey, 46.

Back to Index Next