An Ottoman Statesman in War & Peace: Ahmed Resmi Efendi, 1700-1783 9004101160, 9789004101166

Table of contents :
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
I. Ahmed Resmi's Early Career
II. Ahmed Resmi in Vienna and Berlin: A Glimpse of the Other
III. The Russo-Turkish War, 1768 to 1774: On the Battlefront
IV. Ahmed Resmi’s Post-War Career and Contribution toOttoman Political Discourse
Glossary
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

AN OTTOMAN STATESMAN IN WAR AND PEACE

TH E O T T O M A N EMPIRE A N D ITS HERITAGE

,

P o litics Society an d Econom y EDITED BY

SuRAIYA F a ROQHI AND HALIL I n ALCIK

Advisory Board Fikret Adanir • Idris Bostan • Amnon Cohen * Cornell Fleischer Barbara Flemming • Alexander de Groot * Klaus Kreiser Hans Georg Majer • Irène MélikoíT • Ahmed Yaçar Ocak Abdeljelil Temini • Gilles Veinstein • Elizabeth Zachariadou

VO LU M E 3

A.

S

' 68'

AN OTTOMAN STATESMAN IN WAR AND PEACE A hm ed R esm i E fen di

1700-1783

VIRGINIA H. AKSAN

E.J. BRILL LEIDEN • NEW YORK • KÖLN 1995

The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources.

Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publicatíon Data

Aksan, Virginia H. An Ottoman statesman in war and peace : Ahmed Resmi Efendi, 1700-1783 / by Virginia H. Aksan. p. cm. — (The Ottoman Empire and its heritage, ISSN 1380-6076 ; v. 3) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN 9004101160 (alk.) 1. Ahmet Resmî Efendi, Giridî, 1700-1783. 2. Statesmen—Turkey-Biography. 3. Turkey—History—Mustafa III, 1757-1773. 4. TurkeyHistory—Abdul Hamid I, 1774-1789. 5. Turkey— Foreign relations-Europe. 6. Europe— Foreign relations—Turkey. I. Scries. DR551.A44 1994 956.r015’092—dc20 [B] 94-37427 CIP

Die Deutsche Bibliothek - CIP-Einheitsaufhahme

Aksan, Virginia H.: An Ottoman statesman in war and peace : Ahmed Resmi Efendi (1700-1783) / by Virginia H. Aksan. - Leiden ; New York ; Köln : Brill, 1995 (The Ottoman Empire and its heritage ; Vol. 3) ISBN 90-04-10116-0 NE:GT

ISSN 1380-6076 ISBN 90 04 10116 0

© Copyright 1995 by E J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by E J. Brill provided that the appropriatefees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, Rosewood Drive 222, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments ......................................................................... Introduction ..................................................................................

vii ix

I. Ahmed Resmïs Early Career .................................................... The Making of an Ottoman Kâtib ...................................... The Ottoman Chancery Circa 1750 .................................. Patronage and the Development of Ahmed Resmi’s Career ........................................................ The Search for a New Patron ...........................................

1 1 12 23 28

II. Ahmed Resmi in Vienna and Berlin: A Glimpse of the Other ..... Ahmed Resmi’s Knowledge of Europe .............................. The Diplomatic Setting ....................................................... The Embassy to Vienna ...................................................... The Interim Period, 1758 to 1763 .................................... The Embassy to Berlin ........................................................ The Description of the Journey ......................................... Transmission of the Lessons ...............................................

34 34 42 46 62 67 73 97

III. The Russo-Turkish War, 1768 to 1774: On the Battlefront ..... Ahmed Resmi’s Career in the War Years ........................ The Road to War ................................................................. Ottoman Viewpoint ............................................................... Preparation for War .............................................................. The Course of War ............................................................... Ahmed Resmi and Küçük Kaynarca, 1773-1774 ............

100 102 115 117 123 144 163

IV. Ahmed Resmi’s Post-War Career and Contribution to Ottoman Political Discourse ......................................................... 170 Events in the Crimea, 1775 to 1783 ................................. 171 Ahmed Resmi’s Advice and Originality .............................. 184

VI

CONTENTS

Maps .............................................................................................. Glossary: Place Names ................................................................. Terms andPhrases ....................................................... Bibliography .................................................................................. Index .............................................................................................

206 209 210 220 241

A C KN O W LED GM EN TS

It has been my great good fortune to have had the opportunity to return to the study of the Ottoman Empire, after a hiatus of many years, and another career. I am particularly grateful to all those at the University of Toronto, especially Richard Blackburn and Eleazar Birnbaum, who encouraged me to persist in my folly. Support from the American Research Institute in Turkey helped me gain access to material vital to this study, while fellowships from the Social Sci­ ences and Humanities Research Council of Canada enabled me to finish it. I am particularly in debt to the staffs at the Baçbakanhk Archives, Siileymaniye Library and Istanbul University Library who have consistently worked on my behalf. When I began this study of Ahmed Resmi Efendi, I had no idea that I would grow so attached to him. Wandering in the empty halls of the Ottoman eighteenth century was an experience in itself, as, wherever I turned, there was little or no secondary work with which to construct a thesis, much less support it. In the decade since I joined the ranks of Ottomanists, much furniture has been added to the house, and I am bold enough to hope that my own contribution will help to furnish it. There were many moments when I felt akin to Ahmed Resmi, struggling with the profession, exploring the other, and warring at all times with the mis- or under-representation of Ottoman history in western annals. I have tenaciously clung to the twin notions of listening to the Ottoman voice, and attempting to universalize the Ottoman experience, notions at odds with one an­ other upon occasion, but necessary to broaden the historiographical presence of the Ottomans in our disciplines. None of this would have been possible without the wanderlust of my parents, Travis and Margaret Harris, who first took me to Tur­ key at an impressionable age, and the constant, vociferous support of cantm cigerim, Oktay Aksan.

Ahmed Resmi's arrival in Berlin, 9 November 1763. Berlin, Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin - Preußischer Kulturbesitz - Handschriftenabteilung

INTRODUCTION There is no doubt that the Ottoman Empire was in a state of crisis following the treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1774, the date often chosen by historians as the beginning of the modem age of the empire, when Ottoman intellectuals were suddenly faced with the combined fiscal and military bankruptcy of the state. The question of who these intellectuals were, and how they viewed the Ottoman state, which remains the subject of debate, is what initially interested me in the subject of this study, Ahmed Resmi Efendi, diplomat, historian and statesman, 1700-1783. While Ottoman historiography is strongest in the delineation of the structure and function of the Ottoman central administration, the nature of the relationship between the sultan and his subjects remains elusive, islamoglu-tnan argues for the existence of a consen­ sus of groups, or classes, independent of the state which, in a coer­ cive society, was the ideological cement for the legitimation of the ruler. It was the responsibility of the group in power “to reconcile its interests with those of other groups through the forging of ideologi­ cal unity between the different groups.” 1 While it would be unwise to exaggerate the extent of the independence of any one class, ap­ proaching Ottoman social and intellectual history in such a fashion allowed me to examine the various elites of Ottoman society as differ­ entiated groups which engaged in political discourse with the sultan, sometimes overthrowing him when he failed to live up to their ex­ pectations. It helps to account for the vigor of two such “classes” in eighteenth century Ottoman society: the bureaucracy of the central administration and the provincial grandees (ayan), the latter a group 1 Huri tslamoglu-lnan, “Introduction: ‘Oriental Despotism’ in World-System Per­ spective,” in The Ottoman Empire and the World Economy, cd. H. Islamoglu-tnan (Cam­ bridge, 1987), 19-20. Çerif Mardin, “Power, Civil Society and Culture in the Otto­ man Empire,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 11 (1969): 258-81, is very good in this context; Carter V. Findley, Bureaucratic Reform in the Ottoman Empire (Princeton, 1980), 11, puts it somewhat differently: “. .. the different cultural orientations of the various branches of the ruling class played a major role in determining the relative political prominence of each branch as the situation and needs of the state changed over time.”

X

INTRODUCTION

whose gradual assumption of economic power directly threatened the supremacy of the central power of the state by the last decades of the century. The approach is particularly attractive for interpreting the attitudes of the central bureaucracy to change. Defining the elites and their periods of power continues to be one of the puzzles of Ottoman social history, in part because of the nebulous nature of the self-definitions in the political literature which survives, in part because of the static nature of Ottoman institutional historiography, which established the position of the various compo­ nents of the Ottoman administration at the height of its greatness, under Süleyman I (1520-1566), and considered the centuries follow­ ing as one long period of decline of the vitality of those institutions.12 That methodological structure was reinforced by the cacophony of complaints about the decay of the empire, such as those of Koçi Bey and Kâtib Çelebi of the seventeenth century, who suggested reforms aimed at returning the Ottoman state to its “golden age.” An un­ warranted mistrust of such political literature, occasionally exagger­ ating the extent of the “decline,” has since developed in the field, giving rise to a needless debate about the validity of empirical data, derived from documentary sources, over the theoretical, emotional impressions, derived from political advice literature.3 There is simply no reason why Ottoman social “realities” and Ottoman perceptions of those “realities” cannot complement one another, the latter the ideological view of the former. After all, the earliest histories of the empire, those of A§ikpa§azade (fl. 15th c.) and Kemalpa§azade (d. 1536) were written to document the origins and legitimacy of the new empire, as much myth as “who did what to whom.” According to the classical Ottoman definition, society was divided into two large groups: the taxpayer (reaya: peasants, artisans and merchants), and the non-taxpayer (askeri: military) classes. The askeri

1 The work of H. A. R. Gibb and H. Bowen, Islamic Society and the West. 2 vols. (London, 1950-57), is highly instructive in this regard: see also Rhoads Murphey for further discussion of the problem: “The concept of multiple contexts, each of which operated under distinct conditions and remained essentially independent of the whole, is so far mostly absent from analysis of the Ottoman social dynamic,” in his “Re­ view Article: Mustafa Ali and the Politics of Cultural Despair,” IJMES 21 (1989): 252. 3 For an exchange between Murphey and Fleischer, see Murphey, “Review,” and Cornell H. Fleischer, “Response to Rhoads Murphey’s ‘Review Article’ of Bureaucrat and Intellectual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Àli> 154T 1600f IJMES 22 (1990): 127-8.

INTRODUCTION

XI

class was further differentiated into three administrative elites: sol­ diers, theologians (ulema) and bureaucrats. At the head of the asked stood the sultan, temporal and spiritual leader, whose moral obliga­ tion as a just and pious ruler, drawing his authority from Islamic law (shari‘a) and sultanic prerogative (kanun), was to secure the financial and political stability of the state. Deviation from that pattern led to disorder, and a disruption of the tranquility of the Muslim commu­ nity.4 The sultan was compelled, as a legitimation technique, to rec­ oncile the imperial, pre-Islamic heritage with Islamic ideals, what Findley calls “one of the most consistent and intriguing themes of Ottoman history.”5 The dichotomy is best exemplified perhaps by the term din-ii-devlet (religion and state) by which the political theo­ rists strove to represent the empire.6 Accepting the notion that even in a despotic environment consen­ sus was necessary, we must still look further for the ingredients of the ideology which served the empire for so long. Part of the answer lies in the two words asked and Osmanli (Ottoman), sometimes de­ scribed as the “Ottoman Way,”7 but preferred here as Ottoman imperial culture. Asked, on the one hand, comprehending all of the ruling elites, reflected the military origins of the empire, incorporat­ ing the commitment to a continual state of war (jihad) against the infidel. Osmanh, on the other hand, was a term which resonated on various levels. Contained in the word itself was the alliance to the house of Osman, the founder of the dynasty, as a slave (kul), a badly misunderstood term, which meant in this context that an Ottoman’s life and property were maintained at the discretion of the sultan. To 4 This subject is thoroughly explored by Douglas A. Howard, “Ottoman Histori­ ography and the Literature of ‘Decline’ of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centu­ ries,” Journal of Asian History 22 (1988): 52-77; sec also Cornell H. Fleischer, “Royal Authority, Dynastic Cyclism and ‘Ibn KhaJdunism’ in Sixteenth Century Ottoman Letters,” in Ibn Khaldun and Islamic Ideology, ed. Bruce B. Lawrence (Leiden, 1984), 49. * Findley, Bureaucratic, 8. Findley’s introduction deals in great detail with a num­ ber of the themes briefly touched upon here. 6 Hobsbawm touches very briefly on this phenomenon, which he describes as the allegiance to dynasty and faith (‘proto-nationalism’), in Eric J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780 (Cambridge, 1990): 50. I am arguing here for the Otto­ man variation of din-ii-devlet, see “Din” (Gardet) El2, 2:293-6, for the larger Muslim context. 7 This discussion owes a great deal to the pioneering work of Itzkowitz, who coined the term ‘Ottoman Way.’ For a recent discussion of the limitations of this approach to Ottoman history, see Lawrence Birken, “Review” of Bureaucrat and In­ tellectual in the Ottoman Empire. The Historian Mustafa Ali, by C. Fleischer, in Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 14 (1990): 84—8.

Xll

INTRODUCTION

be allied to the household of the sultan by marrying into his family was the highest honor that could be bestowed on an Ottoman elite. An Ottoman was also a member of a group which shared an impe­ rial culture, educated in a very precise tradition, one that combined all of the branches of Islamic learning and the particular blend of the Arabic, Persian and Turkish languages exemplified in the Otto­ man language of the court. The early sultans, especially Mehmed II (1451-1481) and Süleyman I, fostered the cultural amalgam, by building and refining the educational system, and tolerating and in­ stitutionalizing alternative circles of association: the mystical orders, the guilds, and the minority communities, all organized according to their own rules and laws. In theory, the Osmanh was a sincere Mus­ lim, educated in the Ottoman imperial culture, dedicated to the perpetuation of religion and state as embodied in the sultan, and a member of the select group which protected the revenue-generating classes and promulgated the official ideology. To challenge this care­ fully maintained organizational fiction meant to engender chaos.8 The most striking characteristic about this particular worldview was its longevity. Well into the nineteenth century, lip-service was still being paid to the formula,9 even though it had long outgrown its verisi­ militude. The other striking characteristic about the ideology was that it was simultaneously both rigid and lacking in definition, perhaps an attribute which made it attractive. The eighteenth century, then, can be seen as a battleground not just of the Ottomans and the Russians but also of the opposing vi sions of Ottoman elites, who gradually began to realize the inadequacy of the old ideology. How and why discussion of change and reform of the empire came to be the prerogative of the scribal bureaucracy is one of the major under­ lying questions of this study of the career and writings of Ahmed Resmi. , Exploring_the life of an individual, his associations and expecta­ tions, has proved one of the greatest hurdles in Ottoman social his1 tory, partly because an individual’s life before the nineteenth century remained undifferentiated in deference to the all encompassing house* For a discussion of models of social organization in the Ottoman Empire, see Findley, Bureaucratic, where he identifies the “autonomous confessional community” (20); the guilds (24) and “the patrimonial household.” (30) s Çerif Mardin, “The Mind of the Turkish Reformer, 1700-1900,” in Arab Social­ ism, ed. S. A. Hanna (Salt Lake City, 1969): 34—5, referring to the writings of Rejid Pa$a and Sadik Rifat Paja, reformers of the Tanzimat period.

INTRODUCTION

X lll

hold of the sultan, partly because of the inherent privacy of Muslim tamiiy lile, tocused on the community rather than the individual. Reconstruction of the life of an influential diplomat and statesman such as Ahmed Resmi, therefore, required innovative approaches to a variety of textual and documentary evidence to elicit a sense of his milieu, his educational level, his interest in worlds beyond the Ottoman, and his articulation of dismay about the state of his own society. Biographical compendiums such as Ahmed Resmi’s own Sefinet iilRiiesa (The Ship of Captains) on the reisülküttab and others such as that of Murädi proved unexpectedly rewarding.10 The numerous contem­ porary collections of poetry, consisting of brief biographies of poets accompanied by specimens of their work, also elicited some small bits of information on the nature of an Ottoman’s literary accom­ plishments. Descriptions in these sources generally conform to the idealized portrait of the Ottoman intellectual, versed in Ottoman imperial culture, making the construction of a biography from such materials largely a linguistic exercise, as it is the exceptional phrase, the deviation from the conventional, which individualizes the por­ trait. The details of Ahmed Resmi’s career were extracted from both historical chronicle and documentary evidence, both of which are far more voluminous for the eighteenth century than for previous centu­ ries, especially in the later decades. History writing became institu­ tionalized in the office of the official chronicler (vak‘aniivis), and even though restricted by the imperial imperative, it began to assume a modem tone and form, especially in the work of Ahmed Vâsif, but also in the voluminous and less well-crafted efforts of Sadullah Enveri.. Both works contributed vital and heretofore unutilized material on Ahmed Resmi’s career at the battlefront in the 1768 to 1774 war. Documentary sources such as those to be found in the Ba§bakanlik Archives’ Cevdet series, in particular the Cevdet Hariciye and the Cevdet Askeriye, proved useful for corroborating some of the textual evidence from the chronicles. A survey and analysis of the copies of the works penned by Ahmed Resmi also yielded some surprizing and gratifying results: the num­ ber of copies of Hulâsat iil-Vtibar (.A Synopsis of Admonitions) Prusya Sefaretnamesi (Prussian Embassy), and Layiha (Memorandum) written for 10 Muhammad Khalil ibn ‘Ali al-Murädi, Silk al-Durar f i A’yán al-Qam al-Thâni ‘Askar (Bulak, 1874-83; reprint, Baghdad, 1966).

XIV

INTRODUCTION

Grand Vizier Muhsinzade Mehmed Pa§a, was convincing proof that he was an author who was widely read; the dedicatory pages (pre­ sentation pages to sultans and/or high court officials) of the numer­ ous copies of Sefinet yielded evidence of Ahmed Resmi’s use of pa­ trons and patronage to enter the Ottoman bureaucracy (hacegân), common to aspiring candidates of the time, and a previously un­ known Layiha (Memorandum), which Ahmed Resmi presented to Grand Vizier Halil Pa§a on the batdefíeld in 1770, has been added to his bibliography. As Ahmed Resmi was a member of the central administration, this study begins by considering the position of the chancery in the eighteenth century, its composition, aspirations and influence. Profes­ sional degradation had set in, evinced in hereditary appointments, and the annual rotation of positions, central and provincial, to ac­ commodate population pressure in the ranks. The increasing size and elaboration of offices, however, demonstrates an emerging source of power which continued well into the nineteenth century. The military was probably the most disfranchised and alienated professional group of the eighteenth century, although in light of an almost complete dearth of research into eighteenth century military history, that statement may be premature. Several factors point to its veracity, in spite of the evidence of the privileges the Janissaries continued to demand and receive. The persistent myth that every­ one in the government was a soldier, applicable, if ever, to the empire of Selim I (1512-1520), was completely irrelevant to the eighteenth century. Yet, how else can we explain the continued practice of tak­ ing the entire government on campaign, and of appointing as com­ mander-in-chief grand viziers, many of whom, by the end of the century, had never left the palace? The empire, in fact, was relying in peace time on an army, salaried but ill-paid, ill-educated and illtrained, whose complicated relationship with Istanbul and provincial societies, as both state representatives and local grandees, made them an extremely unreliable force. In times of war, less frequent for a large part of the eighteenth century than for earlier periods, the sultan was forced to hire local soldiery on a cash basis, the provincial fief system having effectively disappeared from the equation. Maintenance of two armies proved extremely costly, both socially and financially. Comparison with the military history of Europe is instructive in this regard, as all the problems of the Ottoman army were equally those of eighteenth century Europe, especially Russia. The fact that the

INTRODUCTION

XV

Janissary was the essential icon of the Ottoman imperial ideology made for a very difficult reform agenda. The ulema enjoyed access to and control over the entire Islamic legal structure of the shari‘a, and remained very potent moral guard­ ians of the empire, “the linchpin of this complex ideological ma­ trix.”11 In spite of that theoretical authority, and the growing eco­ nomic autonomy of the ulema as a whole through the alienation of property to charitable uses, they increasingly lost ground to the central bureaucracy of the. period. At least part of the reason can be found in the educational system, so stratified and complex as to re­ quire years for completion. Much as with the military class, popula­ tion pressure on the career path of the ulema, combined with the rigidity of the schooling, had led to the creation of a sub-class of illeducated, perpetual students, a common feature of. Istanbul life ir the eighteenth century, as Zilfi has demonstrated. The upper ech­ elon of the ulema became restricted to a very small number of fami­ lies, amongst whose members the highest positions of the religious establishment circulated.12 The exigencies of the shrinking borders of the empire, and the collapse of the askeri ideals simultaneously un-] dermined the authority of the religious class and stiffened its resis­ tance. The ulema found support in the dissatisfied, impoverished lower ranks of the military and the bureaucracy, often the most vocal participants in rebellions of the period. The bureaucracy, and especially the offices involved with foreign affairs, notably the Chief Scribe/Foreign Affairs Officer, the ReisülküUab and his staff, grew in size and stature as the century progressed.13 My examination of Ahmed Resmi’s early career as a member of the upper strata of the hacegân highlights the factors which contributed to this growth, particularly the nature of the scribal education, and the importance of patronage and proficiency in Ottoman imperial cul­ ture. O f equal importance to the growth and influence of the bu­ reaucracy was the professionalization of foreign affairs and increased contact with Europe. Abou-El-Haj considers the Karlowitz treaty of 11 tslamoglu-lnan, “Introduction,” 21. 12 In Madeline C. Zilfi’s article “The tlmiye Registers and the Ottoman Medrcsse System Prior to the Tanzimat,” in Contributions à l ’histoire économique et sociale de l ’Empire ottoman,” eds. Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont and Paul Dumont (Leuven, 1983). 30927, she posits 5000-6000 medrese students as a conservative estimate of the student population of Istanbul. 11 I am indebted in this regard to the work of Halil lnalcik, especially his article “Rcis-ül-küttâb” 1A, 9:671-83. ✓

XVI

INTRODUCTION

1699 significant for two reasons: it was the first time that a member of the bureaucracy, rather than the military, negotiated the terms of the peace treaty, and, it was also the first time that there was a willingness on the part of the Ottomans to accommodate the diplo­ matic system of Europe, the beginning of what one scholar has called “The Europeanization of_Ouoman Diplomacy.” 14 Over the next_ hundred years, political theorists of the empire would consider in tentative ways the advantages of the European system, part of their reaction to the gradual contraction of the borders of the empire. The Ottomans persisted in the use of diplomatic initiatives with Europe in preference to war for an astonishing thirty years, from 1739 to 1768, the longest such period of peace on the western borders of the empire in its entire span. The second part of my study focuses on Ahmed Resmi’s two embassies to Europe, the first to Vienna in 1757/58 and the second to Berlin in 1763/64. The proliferation of such embassies contrib­ uted in no small measure to challenging the presumed superiority of the Ottoman worldview. Most of the ambassadors were from the central administrative bureaucracy, a fact which simply strengthens the theory of the gradual alienation of that particular elite’s tradi­ tional assumptions by exposure to different systems. The reports of the ambassadors were included in the official histories of the period, some of which were published by Ibrahim Müteferrika (d. 1745) on his new, Turkish, press.15 While admittedly small in terms of num­ bers produced, these glimpses of the other allowed for the dissemina­ tion of more information on the infidel, in the simple prose narrative of the embassy reports, as Valensi has persuasively argued about similar reports of the Venetian representatives to the Ottoman court.16 As the century progressed, the amount of information included, and the gradual critical analysis of that information increased. Thirty-four of the surviving Ottoman embassy reports are from the eighteenth cen14 Rifa'at ‘Ali Abou-EI-Haj, especially in “Ottoman Attitudes Towards Peace Making: the Karlowitz Case,” Der Islam 51 (1974): 131-7; alsoj. C. Hurewitz, “The Europeanization of Ottoman Diplomacy: the Conversion from Unilateralism to Reciprocity in the Nineteenth Century,” BelUten 25 (1961): 455-66. 1J The practice of including reports began with Ra$id Efendi; see Bernard Lewis, Muslim Discovery of Europe (New York, 1982), 166; see also Seçil Akgün, “European Influence on the Development of the Social and Cultural Life of the Ottoman Empire in the Eighteenth Century,” Revue des etudes sud-est européennes 21 (1983): 92. ,fc Lucette Valensi, “The Making of a Political Paradigm: The Ottoman State and Oriental Despotism,” in The Transmission of Culture in Early Modem Europe, eds. Anthony Grafton and Ann Blair (Philadelphia, 1990), 173-203.

INTRODUCTION

XVU

tury, of which only eight do not deal with Europe.17 Ahmed Resmi’s contribution to the genre, especially his report on Berlin, is large. The long period of inactivity against western foes helped to mask Ottoman military weakness until the battlefields of the 1768 to 1774 Russo-Turkish war. Ahmed Resmi was Second-in-Command to the grand vizier for most of the war and plenipotentiary to the peace negotiations which finally ended it. The war is considered here from the Russian as well as the Ottoman viewpoint, with particular em­ phasis on neglected Ottoman sources, texts and documents by Ahmed Resmi himself and two other eye-witnesses: Enveri and Vâsif, both as battlefield chroniclers. As part of the government at war, these individuals were essential to the process of informing their colleagues, and contributing to the creation of a climate for change. Their ob­ servations on the complete collapse of the traditional order helped to undermine further the adherence to the ideology which had sustained it. Ahmed Resmi’s Hulâsat was particularly iconoclastic, and to judge by the number of surviving copies, received wide circulation in .ad­ ministrative circles. The final part of this study on Ahmed Resmi considers his contri­ bution to Ottoman political discourse in a transitional age. The source of most our thinking about the Ottoman condition has come from the political literature discussed above. If one accepts that in Ottoman/Islamic society the aim of historical/didactical literature Was to point to the recreation of “a God-given ideal state which [one] can only imperfectly grasp,”18 in order to give “moral relevance t o . . . immediate history,” and that “the only legitimate change is change which results in the moral betterment of the Muslim community,”19 then, at least, some of the fog of misinterpretation surrounding the political advice literature evaporates, and expressions about a “just sultan” and “the circle of equity,” assume their legitimate places in the Ottoman ethos as ideals. Those ideals disappear for the most part in the political advice literature of the later eighteenth century, although appeals for the preservation of religion and state (din-ii-devlet) remain constant.20

17 Elena Ma$takova, “Türk Aydinlanmasirun Ön-Tarihi (XV11I. Yüzyil Edebiyati Üzerine),” in Sovyet Türkologlanmn Türk Edebiyati incelemeleri (Istanbul, 1980): 20. " Thomas Naff, “The Linkage of History and Reform in Islam: an Ottoman Model,” in In Quest of an Islamic Humanism, ed. A. H. Green (Cairo, 1983), 123-4. 19 Naff, “Linkage,” 127. . K See my “Ottoman Political Writing, 1768-1808,” IJMES 25 (1993): 53 -69. '

XV111

INTRODUCTION

Ahmed Resmi’s long service in the chancery, intimate knowledge of the ways of Europe, and significant involvement with military affairs during the 1768 to 1774 war, were recognized shortly before his death by an honorary appointment to the entourage of Grand Vi­ zier Halil Hamid (1782-1785), one of the new generation of reformminded Ottoman statesmen. Ahmed Resmi’s contribution to Otto­ man political discourse of the period has to do as much with tone and style as with subject. The integrity of the elderly statesman, who risked his career to sign the humiliating peace treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, and who did not hesitate to criticize the very foundations of the empire he served, is clear even in the few writings of his we possess. A true product of the Ottoman imperial system, he nonethe­ less anticipated the agenda of Selim_ Ill’s (1789-1807) advisors by a decade, calling for a complete reform of the military, as well as for peace within prescribed borders. Though he died in 1783, Ahmed Resmi’s pivotal contribution to this transitional period is evident in the discussions of the new generation of statesmen around Selim III, some of whom were relatives and friends of Ahmed Resmi. What seems clear is the commitment of the new cadre to change, not necessarily by denying the religious foundations of the state, but by considering the greatest good for the Muslim community and the survival of the state, simultaneously legitimizing their own position as the mediators between Ottoman society and western innovations, and alienating the other classes, whose reaction “seems to have been one of involution.”21 In the consensus between sultan and bureaucrat to reform the traditional structures of the state can be discerned the makings of the new absolutist hegemony more fully realized in the reigns of Mahmud II (1809-1839) and Abdulhamid II (1876-1909).

21

tslamoglu-inan, “Introduction,” 22.

CHAPTER ONE

AHMED RESMI’S EARLY CAREER The Making of an Ottoman Kâtib Ahmed Resmi Efendi was bom Ahmed ibn Ibrahim in the town of Resmo on the island of Crete in 1694 or 95. That statement, as is so often the case concerning Ottoman/Islamic biographical informa­ tion, is subject to dispute. Generally, details of biographies of eigh­ teenth century Ottoman administrative figures prior to their entrance into public life, do not appear in Ottoman sources. Once in the public, eye, they are still without the personal lives familiar to European historians in the memoirs and autobiographies which become a nor­ mal part of the historian’s tools from the eighteenth century onwards. The historian of the Ottoman Empire must glean the portrait of the figure he has chosen to study from other sources. Ahmed Resmi is no exception to this rule. Most of the scant biographical information on his early life and career comes from the historical chronicles and the few sentences concerning his background which he himself penned in his works, supplemented by whatever contemporary documents can be found to corroborate the literary evidence. One contempo­ rary Arabic source, Murädi’s Silk al-Durar fi A y an al-Qam al-Thànï ‘Ashar, is the basis for the following discussion concerning Ahmed Resmi’s early life. Muràdi’s father had been one of Ahmed Resmi’s teachers, and an intimate friend, and Murâdi himself knew him and was in Istanbul when he died in 1783. The account in Murädi has been checked against the other standard Ottoman biographical sources, when his account is incomplete, and archival and chronicle informa­ tion has been used to supplement the scanty information.1 Murâdi is the only source to give Ahmed Resmi’s birthdate as 1694/95. The others prefer 1700, though this date remains unsubstantiated.2 Most 1 The major biographical sources for Ahmed Resmi include SO, 2:380-1; OM, 3:58-9; O T 4:2, 616-9; Muridi, 1:73-80; Ahmed Cevdet, Tarih-i Cadet. 6 vols. (Istanbul, 1858-83), 2:150. 2 O T 4:2, 616. The source appears to have been SO and OM.

2

CHAPTER ONE

agree on the origin of his name, Resmi, though spelled with “vav” by Murad! and “ya” elsewhere. He is sometimes mentioned as com­ ing from Hanya, and confused with another el-Hac Ahmed Resmi from Crete, a member of the ulema, said to have died in 1776.1*3 The confusion is pervasive in all the literature, primary and secondary, concerning the possible two Ahmed Resmis, and is currently unresolvable, its will become clear in the following pages. Ahmed Resmi says of himself in Sefinet, a biographical compilation of all of the reisülküttab up to the time of Koca Ragib Mehmed Pa§a (Reis in 1744; d. 1763), continued by Süleyman Faik to the tíme of Ahmed Vasif at the end of the century: “He is Ahmed Resmi ibn ibrahim, who, with divine guidance, in the course of 1734 or 35, came to Istanbul from Crete, his birthplace, with the aim of achiev­ ing fame in all fields of knowledge.”4 We in fact know nothing more about Ahmed Resmi’s parentage than that he was the son of Ibrahim. Murad! has a little more to tell us about Ahmed Resmi: “He was bom on the island of Resmo [sic] known as Crete, the big island in the middle of the Mediterranean in the year 1694 or 95. He studied the Koran and other things, and worked to achieve knowledge in the sciences, epistolary art, handwriting and literary style. He came to Istanbul in 1734 or 35, and studied there with my father ‘Abd Allah al-Husayn ibn Muhammad, called al-Basri, and Abu al-Tijah Ahmad ibn ‘All al-Manin! al-Dimashqi, and others. He learned Koranic commentary and jurisprudence, philology and grammar, logic, content and style, literary writing and poetry. His composition was superior as well as proficient; an elegant correspondent and philolo­ gist, he had memorized proverbs and sayings, most of the Arab poets, and the Arabic histories. He was eager to profit, mindful of extract­ ing the intellectual benefits of literary questions. His calligraphy was highly regarded and he used to tackle disputes and literary questions which he then substantiated in his various writings.”5 Muradi’s portrait of Ahmed Resmi is a typical, even an archetypal portrait of a scribe (kâtib), heir to a highly respected literary tradition (adab), which could trace its roots to earliest Islamic times.6 The ac1 SO, 1:266. The pertinent facts are: Ahmed Resmi of Crete was a teacher (moderns), and preacher of Mecca, who died in 1776, and was buried in Karacaahmet, also the burial place of our Ahmed Resmi. 4 Sefinet, 1. 1 Muradi, 1:73. The two teachers have not been further identified. *' See definition of adab in “Adab” (Gabrieli) EI-’, 1:175-6; it had come to mean

AHMED RESMl’ S EARLY CAREER

3

quisidon of an adab education wag the first of two prerequisites for entrance into the scribal elite, which had become more conspicuous by its non-observance than its observance in the late eighteenth cen­ tury, when sons of the bureaucracy often entered the upper ranks of the hacegân, without formal training.7 The second prerequisite was kinship or household patronage (intisab). A young Ottoman, like Ahmed kesmi, entered the lower level scribal service as an apprentice (¡akird, or çtrak). (As guild terminology permeated all levels of Ottoman so­ ciety, it is not unusual to find guild referents in the bureaucracy as well.) The apprentice was assigned to an experienced scribe and teacher, generally a member of the hacegân. Promotion to a clerical office was dependent on the successful demonstration of writing skills. The ultimate goal for the few was the prestigious hacegân positions. The majority spent their lives as scribes, often in very frugal circum­ stances.8 While serving an apprenticeship, a young scribe continued his schooling. A child might start as early as age ten or twelve, having already had private tutoring in the traditional Koran subjects at home, or at his local mosque. At the offices of the grand vizier (Babtâli), he was educated in all the arts of writing, and the Turkish language. It was here, too, that he might acquire or be assigned a pen-name, which probably indicated a certain level of poetic achievement, per­ haps as part of the literary, Sufi circles of the palace. Tutoring in the three languages, Arabic, Persian and Turkish, was available for those by the eighteenth century a way of life and a common literature. Christine YVoodhead, “From Scribe to Litterateur: the Career of a Sixteenth-Century Ottoman Kâtib,” British Society of Middle Eastern Studies Bulletin 9 (1982): 57, describing Ta'likizade Mchmed (d. 1599), notes that a typical scribe would be “well-educated in the traditional branches of Islamic knowledge, conscientious and hard-working, a loyal Ottoman subject, a pious Muslim and a man of letters." ’ Bernard Lalor, “Promotion Patterns of Ottoman Bureaucratic Statesmen From the Lâle Devri Until the Tanzimat,” Gtiney-Dogu Avrupa Araftirmalar Dergisi 1 (1972): 79. * See Findley, Bureaucratic, 93-100, where he dwells extensively on the similarides between guild relationships and the scribal structure. The brief description of scribal life is drawn from Carter V. Findley, “A Vision of a Brilliant Career,” in “Festschrift Andreas Tietze,” Wiener Zeitschrift Jur Kunde des Morgenlandes 76 (1986), 95-101, from a document (TOP D 3208), which includes a small essay on the dreams of a young clerk: see also Osman Nuri Ergin, Tiirkiye Maarif Tarthi, 5 vols. (Istanbul, 1977), 1:63-5, for a description of an eighteenth century clerk, and on education at the Porte (Babtâli): see also Joel Shinder, “Mustafa Efendi Paja: Scribe, Gentleman, Pawnbroker,” IJMES 10 (1979): 415-52; Cornell H. Fleischer, Bureaucrat and Intellec­ tual in the Ottoman Empire: The Historian Mustafa Ali, 1541-1600 (Princeton, 1986), 20, on Mustafa Ali’s early educadon; YVoodhead, 58, on Ta'likizade Mehmed’s educadon.

4

CHAPTER ONE

who applied. For the many reasons already noted, this system was well into its decline by the middle of the eighteenth century.910The emphasis on style and the acquisition of courtly, precious knowledge which characterized this education hindered the infusion of new ideas into the Ottoman polity. It was to be from the scribal class, how­ ever, that ideas of change emanated, rather than from the ulema and the army. The tradition of intellectual inquiry and the corpus of literature most often called adab might well have been one of the reasons for the difference. While all Muslims shared the religious educational heritage, i.e., knowledge of the Koran, the hadith and commentary apparatus, Islamic jurisprudence, etc., students of the scribal craft additionally had access to three distinct categories of information: textbooks {adab al-kuttäb), encyclopedic works (comprehensive collec­ tions of Islamic cultural writings which assumed the common Mus­ lim background), and collections of writings of famous scribes and statesmen (miin^eat, from in§a), which could be studied for style as well as content. The three categories often overlap in actual practice, some compilations fitting all three categories, but it is possible to isolate the three types by example, as follows. Al-Risalah ilá al-kuttäb by ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Yahyá, the famous scribe of the last Umayyads, who died in 750, is arguably the bestknown example of the didactic adab al-kuttäb. Addressed to his fellow secretaries, it describes the education of a typical scribe as well as his powers and limitations in service to his master. “Therefore, assembled secretaries, vie with each other to acquire the different kinds of edu­ cation and to gain an understanding of religious matters... . Then, study the Arabic language. . . . Then, learn to write well. Transmit poetry and acquaint yourselves with the rare expressions and ideas the poems contain. Acquaint yourselves with both Arab and nonArab political events and with the tales of (both groups) and the biographies describing them .. . .”'° The Risalah constitutes the end of Ahmed Resmi’s Sefinet, his Turkish translation prefaced as follows: As this fragrant work [of mine] is not confined simply to a description 9 Ergin, 1:67, notes that a pen-name was sometimes given to a new civil servant by the chief of the bureau he entered, and refers to a document from 1839 on the complete debasement of this educational system. 10 Reproduced in Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: an Introduction to Histoiy, tr. Franz Rosenthal; abridged and ed. by N. J. Dawood (Princeton, 1967), 204.

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

5

of the deaths of the famous, I have added here as a conclusion and appendix the work of ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Sa‘id which is generally reck­ oned among the famous books of knowledge and worthy of attention and emulation."

Ahmed Resmi, in this instance at least, paid lip service to the vast range of didactic literature on the duties of a kâtib that must have been available to him. The second type of material available to an eighteenth century kâtib was the encyclopedic works encompassing all the categories of knowledge required of a clerk, as well as examples of official docu­ ments, letters, treaties, protocol and other technical details of the profession. While Jahiz (d. 869), the most famous of the Abbasid literary figures, did not himself actually invent the adab encyclopedia, his own eclectic style and originality popularized the form which created the basis of such manuals from that tíme onward. The great­ est of the compilers, however, was Qalqashandi (d. 1412), who spent his life in the Mamluk chancery of Egypt. His voluminous Subh ala’shaß san‘at al-insha’ embraces “virtually the whole corpus of Arabic writers on kitabe [the “art of writing”] and such related sciences of history and geography.”112 In particular, a rhythmic prose piece com­ posed by him, and included in his compilation, catalogues the fields of knowledge with which a kâtib must be familiar: the Koran, com­ mentary, hadith, the principles of government, the poetry and prov­ erbs of the Arabs, the orations of eloquent persons, and elegant epistles; the history of past dynasties, grammar and rhetoric, calligraphy and the tools of the trade. A subsequent list of “complementary” knowl­ edge which would complete the competence of the kâtib included jurisprudence [fiqh), religions and sects, mathematics, optics, astrol­ ogy, medicine, ethics, and other matter of statecraft.13 Small wonder that the person who mastered this list was referred to as a walking library (ayakli kütüphane).14 The best known of the Ottoman encyclopedic secretaries was

11 Spinet, 73, called ‘Abd al-Hamid ibn Yahyá in Ibn Khaldun's version. Most of the manuscripts of Spinet note as commentary in the margin that this passage was taken from Ibn Khaldun. " “al-Kalkashandi” (Bosworth) E l’, 4:510. 11 C. E. Bosworth, “A Maqama on Secretaryship: al-Qalqashandi's al-Kawikib al-Durriyya fi’-1-Manàqib al-Badriyya” BSOAS 27 (1964): 296 -7. 14 Ergin, 1:114-5.

6

CHAPTER ONE

Feridun Bey (d. 1583), compiler of Mün§eat ül-Selâtin, an example as well of the third category of literature utilized in the chancery, namely collections of letters, state documents, and the writings of distinguished statesmen.15 Feridun Bey’s life is an instructive example of the vicis­ situdes of service in the sultan’s entourage as a member of the chan­ cery. Attached first to Grand Vizier Sokollu Mehmed Pa§a (15651579), he was made Reisüíküttab in 1570 and Chancellor (M$anct) in 1573. When Sultan Selim II (1566-1574) died, and was succeeded by Sultan Murad III (1574-1595), Sokollu Mehmed Pa§a fell from favor, and Feridun Bey was dismissed in 1576. Recalled to Istanbul once again after Sokollu Mehmed Pa§a’s assassination, he was mar­ ried into the royal family in 1582 and reappointed as Niÿanci. He died shortly thereafter, in 1583. The Münçeat was presented by Feridun Bey to Murad III when he ascended the throne in 1574, a normal gesture in a patrimonial environment to gain the attention of the new ruler.16 According to Ahmed Resmi, Feridun Bey collected the registers and decrees and put them in good order while he was Reisüíküttab, and then added the letters and other documents of former Ottoman rulers because he was inspired by a dream to present them. He adds: “Feridun Bey was a grave and distinguished individual, in whom were contained all the moral qualities. His lofty efforts in poetry and prose distinguished him amongst his peers and as the Sahib-i Divan. His family [included] men of wit and poets, and he was a source of much generosity.”17 A mün$eat contained examples of writings that can be character­ ized as state-papers: diplomatic letters from sultans to other rulers; internal communications, from grand vizier to the sultan (telhis); ac­ counts of major victories, with propaganda intent; copies of treaties; imperial orders, and any other document or piece of philosophical or literary writing that the compiler considered worthy of study. Feridun Bey’s Mürqeal was no exception. While the authenticity of some of the earlier parts of his collection has rightly been doubted, he is credited with the compilation of 600-700 documents.18 On his 15 On Feridun, see Sefuut, 12-16, and “Feridun Beg” (Mordtmann [Ménage]) El’, 2:881-2; Woodhead, 60-1, mentions Ahmcd-i Da'i’s Tmsstil, compiled ca. 1420, as the earliest Turkish miinftat still in use in T a‘likizade Mehmed’s day. 16 “Feridun Beg,” 881-2. 17 SefintL, 13-14: Sahib-i Divan generally means a poet with a collection of poetry (divan); it could also here refer to Feridun as a member of the Imperial Council (Divan-i Humâyun). “Feridun Beg,” 881; an example of another munjeat including samples of writ-

AHMED RESMl’ S EARLY CAREER

7

craft and his task, he notes in his chapter on “The Reason for Organizing the Münçeat:. . . It is known to those blessed with intel­ ligence and awareness of the intricacies of rhetoric, that the art of correct speech and writing, are of superior importance and among the essentials for [the attainment of] complete perfection. Scribes have always had a favored place amongst kings and sultans. . . Just as the affairs of state cannot exist without a sharp sword, so the indis­ pensable matters of the military (ehl-i seyf ) cannot be effected with­ out scribes.”19 The most prevalent mün§eat collection of the eighteenth century was that compiled by Koca Ragib, Reisüikütîab and Grand Vizier under two sultans, Osman III (1754-1757) and Mustafa III (1757-1774), a friend and possibly a patron of Ahmed Resmi. Koca Ragib’s career began with his service as a scribe with the army in the provinces, particularly on the eastern front, following an apprenticeship at his father’s office in the Chief Financial Office {Defierhane) in Istanbul. After serving in various capacities with the army of Abdullah Pa§a, the commander of Tabriz, and Hekimoglu Ali Pa§a, his replacement, Koca Ragib returned to Istanbul, and was appointed Paymaster (Maäye Tajdrecist) in 1734.20 In 1735, after another brief period on the Ira­ nian front with the army of his patron, Ahmed Pa§a, Governor of Baghdad, Koca Ragib was appointed Cizye Muhasebecisi, the chief of the office which collected the poll tax. With the outbreak of the war against Russia, Koca Ragib found himself on the battlefield again, at Isakci, in May 1736. He was quickly called back to Istanbul to ne­ gotiate the peace treaty with Nadir Shah, ruler of Persia, as the Ottomans found the pressure of war on two battlefronts too great to sustain. Koca Ragib’s experience in Persian affairs, and his knowl­ edge of the Persian language now proved invaluable. Three officials attended the peace conference, the ReisiilkUttab, the Chief of the Office of Registration (Beylikçi), and Koca Ragib.21 In recognition of his successful negotiations with the Persians, Koca Ragib was promoted to the post of Chief of the Correspondence Office (Mektupçu). With ing of three centuries, dating from the time of Koca Ragib (1764), is catalogued in V O H D T 13:4, no. 299. 19 Ahmed Feridun, Mimjeat-Ul Selátm, 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1847-48), l:14ff. 20 Norman Itzkowitz, “Mehmed Raghib Pasha: The Making of an Ottoman Grand Vizier,” (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1959), 73. The chief sources on Koca Ragib besides Itzkowitz are Sefinet, 70-3 and Hadiqat, (Cavid), 4-8, based entirely on Stfinety see also Arpaeminizade Mustafa Sâmî, Tarih-i Sâmî (Istanbul, 1783), 88ff. 21 Spinet, 72, and Sâmî, 114-5.

8

CHAPTER ONE

that position, he entered the central administration, and had access to the prestigious offices of Reisülküttab and Grand Vizier. When the Austrians, allied with Russia since 1726, sought to avoid fulfilling their military commitment to Russia by offering to mediate an end to the Russo-Turkish conflict that had been raging since 1736, using as leverage their own possible intervention in the conflict, the Ottoman representatives at the peace congress convened at Nemirov in Podolia included Koca Ragib, as Mektupçu, and Tavukçubaçi Mustafa Efendi as Reisülküttab, both of whom were to have an influence on Ahmed Resmi’s career.22 The story of the subsequent events, namely the triumph of French Ambassador Villeneuve and the Ot­ tomans in the Belgrade treaty of 1739, need not be addressed here.23 Obviously, Koca Ragib’s experience as negotiator and his contact with foreign affairs and officials gave him a breadth of knowledge rare in Ottoman circles, which was recognized, and in his case, re­ warded by promotion. In early 1741, he was made Reisülküttab, re­ placing Mustafa Efendi.24 His subsequent success as Grand Vizier only further enhanced his reputation as an exemplary, indeed, ex­ traordinary, member of the scribal profession, which no doubt ac­ counts for the large number of manuscripts of his Münçeat to be found in Istanbul.25 The manuscript examined for this study was found in Cairo, and is entitled Mecmua-yi Mün§eat-i Kâtibî Mwrekkxb-i Nevadirani Âsar-i Ahmed Resmi Efendi’nin Kaleme Aldigi Makaledir.2b In spite of its title, it is in fact a copy of Koca Ragib’s Münçeat, much like the Istanbul copies listed in the manuscript bibliography. The significance of its presence in Cairo, and its attribution to Ahmed Resmi will be discussed later. For the moment, its contents concern us. Numerous n Itzkowitz, “Mehmcd,” 98-9; Sâmî, 95-6. ” See Lavender Cassels, The Struggle Jor the Ottoman Empire, 1717-1740 (London, 1966), for a narrative from the Austrian/Russian side, and good, colorful coverage of events; also Karl A. Roider, The Reluctant Ally: Austria’s Policy in the Austro-Turkish War, 1737 1739 (Baton Rouge, 1972), for a more scholarly effort. 14 Sejinet, 72. Significant work remains to be done on Koca Ragib’s Miinfeat, of which nu­ merous manuscript copies were examined in Istanbul. The problem of the title of the collection is a major one: Mecmua-yi Rasail, Sefinet ul-Ragib, Telhisat-i Ragib Pafa, arc the most common variations. The contents of most of the collections are similar enough to allow for generalizations from one example: the manuscript bibliography contains a partial list of copies. “A collection of fine compositions of the scribal art consisting of rare works, being a composition from the pen of Ahmed Resmi,” Cairo University Library Ms 6796T, 18th cent. My thanks to Eleazar Birnbaum for drawing this copy to my attention.

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

9

Ulhis are included, from the time of Koca Ragib’s period as Mektupçu and Reisülküttab, concerning the Austrian Emperor and Empress dur­ ing the 1737 to 1739 war (fol. 15b), the possibility of peace with the Russian king (fol. 17), peace with the Italian king (fol. 18), the peace treaty drawn up by Ragib Pa§a concerning Austria (fol. 22b-28), various examples of correspondence with Nadir Shah, and a copy of the peace treaty with the Persians (fol. 66ff ). This Miinjeat very likely served the dual function of a manual of style and a foreign affairs textbook for the reisülküttab and aspirants to the grand vizierate such as Ahmed Resmi. As the century wore on, and the defeats of the Ottomans became more frequent and devastating, the Koca Ragib Miin§eat may also have served as a source of solace for the Ottoman administrators, representing, as it does, the last great moment of triumph of Ottoman diplomacy, the restoration of Belgrade in 1739.27 As has already been argued, Ahmed Resmi was a very typical representative of the kâtib organization, who would have had access to the mm$eat textbooks just described, as part of the Ottoman scribal educational system. In at least one instance in his writing, Ahmed Resmi demonstrated familiarity with the Münjeat of Feridun.28 Be­ yond Muràdi’s comments about Ahmed Resmi’s teachers, however, we know nothing more about his schooling, with one exception. A notebook of excerpts from various sources, found in Istanbul, hints at the kinds of information being taught the apprentices of the art of writing, among them Ahmed Resmi. The fact that most of the frag­ ments are from his own work suggests that it may indeed have been his notebook, but as it is without an exact date or further evidence, this remains speculation.29 The contents of the notebooks include scraps of information, mosdy written in Arabic, on hadith, the stars, the Islamic calendar and numbers; stories of venerable companions of the prophet; a small quotation from Suyuti; a laudatory poem in honor of Koca Ragib Pa§a, with the heading: “[a poem] by Ahmed of Crete, known as the ‘walking library,’ in praise of Mehmed Ragib Pa$a, Governor of Egypt”; a lesson in Persian; a page of poetic meters and some couplets; more hadith; two petitions to the sultan from 21 My thanks to Carter Findley for this last suggestion. 28 Hulásat, 15. " [Notebook of excerpts from Ahmed Resmi’s works and the works of others], Esad Ms 3758, n.d. A suggested date can be gathered from a page on chronology (fol. 19a): a list of Hicri dates from the time of Muhammad’s hegira until Muharrcm 1 187/M arch 1773, ten years before Ahmed Rcsmi’s death.

10

CHAPTER ONE

Ahmed Resmi who is designated in them as Ruznamçe-yi Euvel (Chief of the Daily Ledger); a piece on Koca Ragib from Sefinet, and a two page fragment of Ahmed Resmi’s Prusya.30 That Ahmed Resmi was a poet versed in the three languages required by the learned Otto­ man is confirmed by the poem on Koca Ragib in the manuscript just described (in Arabic), and by his inclusion in at least three con­ temporary biographical works on poets and poetry, those of Silâhdâr, Bagdadi, and Râmiz.31 In the first two collections, Ahmed Resmi is represented by an identical one-line biography and a lyrical poem, typical in its standard blend of Persian, Arabic and Turkish love vocabulary: Ahmed Resmi, known as Ahmed of Crete, of the hacegan of the Divani Hümâyun, was famous as a learned man; he served as the Grand Vizier’s Second-in-Command (.Kethiida) and died in 1783. The tongues of the breezes arrived, bringing amber The caravan of Damascus brought a sugared pistachio from your lips . . . With market hyacinths untouched and rosebud mouths as adornment Perhaps the stork will bring the beloved to Istanbul this year . . . The quality of friendship speaks graphically (iremen) with the pen This lowly one brings (creates) a joyful jewel with his power32

The entry for Ahmed Resmi in the Râmiz collection contains a lengthier description of him which is worth excerpting in part here: Ahmed Resmi made his appearance in Hanya, on the island of Crete. When he arrived at the requisite degree of distinction, he went to Istanbul. He was to be reckoned with on account of his great intelli­ gence, and acquired honor and prosperity. By his urbanity and mas­ tery of words and speech, and thanks to unremitting efforts, and perw Ahmed Resmi was Ruznamçe-yi Euvel twice, 1769-1770. Jl Silâhdâr, TezJdre, covers the period from 1750-1789: IÜ Ms T 2557, n.d., and Ali Emiri Ms 795, n.d. H. Râmiz, Àdab-i Zurafi^ includes poets up to 1783: Esad Ms 3873, n.d., and Ali Emiri Ms 762: the manuscript of Çevket Bagdadi, Tezkire, is Ali Emiri Ms 770, n.d. In addition, an anonymous history, Tevarih-i §uara-yi Rum, Esad Ms 3876, n.d., contains the same text as Râmiz: the collection was probably extracted from Râmiz’s text. i2 Silâhdâr, Ali Emiri Ms 795, fol. 32a-b, identical in IÜ Ms T 2557. Three sample couplets have been translated here, including the one which incorporates a reference to the poet, Resmi, in resmen.

AHMED RESMl’s EARLY CAREER

11

fectíon of his virtues [to the satisfaction] of the hacegân, he joined the heights of the lofty fortress of refinement. Among his peers, he was notable for his knowledge and polish. His candidacy for high office was strengthened by becoming a son-in-law of el-Hac Mustafa Efendi, and he entered the lofty chambers of the hacegân of the Divan. As a result of esteemed service, he obtained various high posts and became the envy of his peers. At the time of this writing, he is Second in Command to the Grand Vizier of the imperial army . . . The subject of this biography who is famous for his virtue and his ministerial knowl­ edge and learning, is also well-known for his poetry and m¡a.n

The final piece of evidence concerning Ahmed Resmi’s professional education and success as a kâtib is a small composition of his own entided al-Istinás fi Ahval al-Efrás (Familiarity with the Ways of Horses), echoing in its very ride the long tradidon of adab exercises on the virtues of horses and the famous men who have owned them. The composidon is divided into an introduction, explaining the names and kinds of horses, two chapters of stories, hadith, and proverbs demonstrating the erudition in all the subjects that have been dis­ cussed, a conclusion, and a long prayer.334 A literary effort such as this manuscript served a dual purpose: it demonstrated a level of attainment in the Ottoman cultural system, as a master-work, to borrow from guild terminology, and it served as a means of intro­ ducing oneself to the powerful coteries around the sultan. This manu­ script was written by Ahmed Resmi in honor of Sultan Mahmud I (1730-1754), and especially for Grand Vizier Mustafa (Kose Bâhir Mustafa Pa§a, Grand Vizier from 1752 to 1755 the first time), be­ cause the “insignificant Resmi Ahmed ibn Ibrahim was present on the day when the royal horses of the sultan were released into sum­ mer pasturage in the spring, and he became aware of the care and affection of his masters for their horses.”35 It seems clear from this evidence that Ahmed Resmi had acquired a standing in Ottoman cultural circles with his learning and the demonstration of his liter­ 33 Rámiz, Esad Ms 3873, fol. 43a and Ali Emiri Ms 762, fol. 112. The texts arc identical. No samples of poetry are included in this collection. 34 See “Faras” (Viré) EF, 2:784-7, for the list of works written on horses; two manuscripts of this work were examined: IÜ Ms T 6667, and Kayseri Ra$id Efendi Ms 548, both dated 1167/1753. The text is in Arabic. 35 IÜ Ms T 6667, fol. 3b. This manuscript has the seal of Mustafa III on it, suggesting that it reached a royal collection at some point. The significance of its date of composition and its possible use in the search for a patron will be discussed below; Woodhead, 56-7 notes that Ta'likizade Mehmed prepared his Firàsetnàme, a work of much the same kind as an accession gift to the then Sultan Murad III.

12

CHAPTER ONE

ary abilities in the works just discussed. To ensure his entrance into the hacegân, however, he needed a patron, someone already familiar with the Ottoman chancery. The Ottoman Chancery Circa 1750 Research into eighteenth century Ottoman administrative history is still in its infancy, in spite of the existence of many fine works on the structure of the bureaucracy and its components. There are many reasons for this, among them the long held research assumption that eighteenth century administrative practices simply continued those of earlier periods of Ottoman/Islamic governments, and a belief in the essential stasis of a government in decline, unwilling or unable to foster change. New approaches have begun to yield evidence of both continuity and change, especially in the case of the chancery which increased in size and responsibility, adjusting old practices to new circumstances and inventing new offices and applications to accom­ modate shifting needs as the century wore on.36 By the eighteenth century, the Ottoman central administration had become an elabo­ rate bureaucracy, though still small given the extent of the territory of the empire. The growth in importance of the chancery can be demonstrated by its increasing size, the development of the special­ ized functions of the reisülküttab, and the concentration of responsibil­ ity for foreign affairs in the hands of that individual. Most of the Ottoman reformers of the nineteenth century, almost without excep­ tion, would be drawn from the chancery, as Itzkowitz, Findley, and Lalor have effectively demonstrated.37 The central Ottoman administration has been subjected to many theoretical models, which have often relied on the prejudiced views of European travelers, and/or the sometimes misleading idealism of the large body of advice literature of the Ottomans themselves.38 In 36 Rhoads Murphey, “Continuity and Discontinuity in Ottoman Administrative Theory and Practice During the Late Seventeenth Century7/ ’ Poetics Today 14 (1993): 419—43; see also Cornell H. Fleischer, “Preliminaries to the Study of the Ottoman Bureaucracy,” Journal of Turkish Studies 10 (1986): 135-41. 37 Carter V. Findley, “The Legacy of Tradition to Reform: The Origins of the Ottoman Foreign Ministry,” IJMES 1 (1970): 334-57; Norman Itzkowitz, “Eigh­ teenth Century' Ottoman Realities,” Stadia Islámica 16 (1962): 73-94 (hereafter cited as “Ottoman Realities”); see also Lalor, and the article “Reis-ül-küttâb.” 38 See Aksan, “Ottoman Political Writing,” and Howard for the most recent dis­ cussions.

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

13

the first part of the twentieth century, historians of the Ottoman Empire, grappling with the meaning of the self-definitions of the Ottoman chroniclers, established a series of theoretical dichotomies which influenced research on Ottoman administrative structures for nearly half a century. Wittek and Köprülü were interested in the confrontation of Byzantine and Turco-Islamic traditions, and the circles of loyalty and association which developed around the imperial pres­ ence.39 Lybyer’s work further elaborated the organizational tension in the Ottoman administration as divided along ethnic (Byzantine/ Turcoman) and religious (Christian/Muslim) lines. His model divided the administration into two institutions: the Ruling Institution (nonMuslim converts, products of the Janissary conscription system, devprme), and the Muslim Institution (the religious elite and its re­ lated learning apparatus concerned with the execution of the Islamic law).40 Even though Lybyer’s study concerned sixteenth century Turkey, the theoretical “golden age” of the Ottoman Empire, its thesis was applied by others to the entire span of that empire, successful as a model because Lybyer had found an acceptable substitute for the words Church and State in the Islamic/Ottoman context, and had dealt effectively with the nagging problem of the role of religion in the Ottoman polity and the inherent contradiction of the concepts of sultan and caliph.41 In 1950, Gibb and Bowen began the publication of Islamic Society and the West, an ambitious effort to survey “the effects of the Western impact on the Ottoman Empire and its former provinces.”42 The Lybyer thesis was carried over, even though Gibb and Bowen ad­ mittedly found it inapplicable to the eighteenth century: for them, the breakdown of the Lybyer central administration occurred in the eighteenth century because of the penetration of free-born Muslims into the Ruling Institution, which had hitherto restricted them, i.e., the pollution of the slave elite by Muslims.43 The Gibb and Bowen n Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (London, 1938), and M. F. Köprülü, Les Origines de l'Empire ottoman (Paris, 1935). 40 A. H. Lybyer, The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the Magnificent, (Cambridge, MA., 1913); Itzkowitz responded to Lybyer’s thesis in “Ot­ toman Realities”. 41 Findley’s comments on sultan and caliph in Bureaucratic, 10, represent one of the most intelligent formulations of the problem; the struggle for legitimation, the imperial tradition versus a religious value system, and the role of the fcyhulislam, while all elements of the equation, remain beyond the scope of this discussion. 42 Gibb and Bowen, 1:11. 41 Gibb and Bowen, 1:44.

14

CHAPTER ONE

work, in spite of that limitation, represented a major effort to exam­ ine Ottoman institutions in their Islamic context. Itzkowitz, the first to take exception to the rigid theoretical division of the Ottoman central administration by religion, undertook his prosopographic studies of eighteenth century ruling elites to demonstrate that as early as the latter half of the seventeenth century, the Lybyer pattern was no longer appropriate to the Ottoman context, if it ever had been.44 Continuing the work of Thomas, he attempted to penetrate the source of the confusion about the definition of Ottoman elites, namely, the Ottomans themselves, and in particular, Naima.45 Thanks to Gibb and Bowen, and to Itzkowitz, it became possible to discuss career line formation and the development of strategies which the Otto­ mans evolved to protect themselves against the general insecurities of membership in court circles. As the state grew in size and impor­ tance, three main elites emerged. By the eighteenth century, the military class, or seyfiye, and the religious class, or ilmiye, comprised of the ulema, were increasingly challenged by the scribal class, or kaUmiye, which included the scribes of the treasury and the chancery.46 Each associative group had a well-defined, if fluid, career path to follow when circumstances allowed. Membership in the hacegân, as we have seen, was for many the only reasonably attainable goal for scribes, although increasingly in the eighteenth century, a select few did become grand vizier after having served as reisülküttab,47 It is impor­ tant to stress the word fluid in this context, as it is difficult to oth­ erwise account for the apparent serendipity of many of the career paths, an elasticity at the upper administrative levels in a system 44 See Itzkowitz’s discussion in “Ottoman Realities” and his “Men and Ideas in the Eighteenth Century Ottoman Empire,” in Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic His­ tory, cds. Thomas Naff and Roger Owen (Carbondale, Dl., 1977), 15-26, and Shinder, “Career Line Formation in the Ottoman Bureaucracy, 1648-1750: a New Perspec­ tive,” JESH O 16 (1973): 217-37. 45 Sec Lewis V. Thomas, A Study of Nauna, ed. Norman Itzkowitz (New York, 1972), 120-2. What Thomas/Itzkowitz call the Ottoman Way is further set out in Mubadele - an Ottoman Russian Exchange of Ambassadors, eds. and trs. N. Itzkowitz and M. Mote (Chicago, 1970), 11-12, and Shinder, “Career,” 21-37. 46 The division of the Ottoman administration into three groups is again based on Ottoman theoretical literature: for a good discussion, see Shinder, “Career,” and Fleischer, Bureaucrat, 1. Strictly speaking, a fourth group, the Enderun (Inside Service), or Mabeyn to borrow Findley’s term, which served initially as the source of all adminis­ trative personnel, developed into a palace secretariat only as the other three ma­ tured into differentiated elites, separated from the imperial influence (Findley, Bu­ reaucratic, 48-9, and Itzkowitz, “Ottoman Realities,” 85.) 47 For definition of hacegân and kâtib which will be dealt with extensively below, see Findley, Bureaucratic, 101; Shinder, “Career,” 221; Thomas, 37-9, and Itzkowitz,

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

15

otherwise restrictive and ceremonially rigid. It reflects paradoxically the strength and weakness of the Ottoman polity that became in­ creasingly obvious as the century and the decline of the recuperative powers of the empire progressed: strength because of its ability to adjust to the demands of job-seekers, incorporating talent into the ruling circle, and weakness because of the lack of continuity, coher­ ence, and trained personnel. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the scribal class, the last of the three associations to develop in size. Findley notes: “as the governmental system continued, even in the face of decline, to differentiate itself more and more from the sultan’s household, elements of the ruling class that had been only margin­ ally distinguishable or miniscule in size now emerged with distinct form and unprecedented power.”* 46*8 The selection of the grand vizier from the chancery, a growing trend in the eighteenth century, dem­ onstrates more than anything else the now extensive power base of the scribal class and the gradual shift from a military to a bureau­ cratic empire. Documentation for the scribal class becomes significant only in the sixteenth century. Prior to that time, the chancery was not a differentiated part of the Ottoman household. Recent research has demonstrated that around 1530, the scribal class under Süleyman I had taken definite shape, with scribes assigned to both the financial branch (under the Chief Financial Officer, Ba§ Defterdar) and the chancery branch (under the M¡ana) of the government. A prelimi­ nary study by Fleischer of pay registers for the sixteenth century has demonstrated that the number of clerks on monthly salary for the period generally remained under 100, the majority in the financial offices.49 By contrast, the religious and military administrative estab­ lishments already consisted of 25,000 members, exclusive of the pro­ vincial cavalry.50 “Ottoman Realities,” 87. It must be pointed out that the distinction between trea­ sury and chancery scribe may be an artiñeial one. While the office of Defterdar was nominally in charge of the treasury scribes, it appears that at least at the lower hacegân level, the officials moved freely from one branch to the other. Ahmed Resmi’s career is typical in that regard. 46 Findley, Bureaucratic, 47. 49 Fleischer, “Preliminaries,” 135-41. Fleischer cautions that the number must be considered hypothetical until a clearer picture is formed. His figures represent an update on ö m er Liitfi Barkan, “H. 933-934 (M. 1527-1528) Mali Yilina Ait Bir Bütçe Omegi, Istanbul Üniversitesi Ikásat Faküitesi Mecmuasi 15 (1953/54): 323-6. Barkan's documentation is discussed by Findley, Bureaucratic, 53; see also “Reis-ül-küttâb,” 673. 50 Findley, Bureaucratic, 53, footnote 30.

16

CHAPTER ONE

The offices of M$anci, and Ba§ Deflerdar were elements of the clas­ sical Islamic/Ottoman administrative configuration, subordinate to the sultan. Along with the grand vizier, who was recognized as the sultan’s generad deputy, they formed a triumvirate of offices whose titles and functions were inherited from former Islamic states. The three offices were responsible for the correspondence and the registration of docu­ ments, the revenue and expenditure of the state, and the administra­ tion of the sultan’s army and entourage, respectively.51 They formed part of the Divan-i Hümâym, and were also called the erkân-t devlet, the pillars of the state.52 As the administrative complexity of jhe_empire grew, so too did the nascent scribal class in service to the two officials just described. Just when and how the Reisiilkiittab became a separate office jn the Ottoman administration is the source of much discussion, based on scattered, and sometimes contradictory, evidence, inalcik’s authorita­ tive summation of the evidence need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that in the Islamic context, the model of Chief of the Scribes existed. Its evolution into a separate and important office is strictly an Ottoman phenomenon. The most important single source of in­ formation concerning the Reis in Ottoman times is Ahmed Resmi’s Sefinet. The Reisüüdälab was initially an official in charge of those scribes attached to the Nx$anci, in other words, a chief scribe. From the mid­ fifteenth century, and certainly into the time of Süleyman I, the Reis was a minor official, who did not hold a seat in the Divan. Ahmed Resmi begins his biographies with Celâlzâde Mustafa, Koca Niçanci (d. 1567) under Süleyman I, after alluding to several possible previ­ ous candidates as Reis about whom too little was known.53 Feridun Bey described the Reis position as a reviewer of significant documen­ tation, for example of the licenses for all appointees, and administra­ tive orders and decisions.54 He thus came to be an individual en­ trusted with the writing and wording of such documents as well. Gibb and Bowen, and Findley each point to the significance of the Reis as one of three officers reporting directly to the grand vizier, 51 Gibb and Bowen, 1:107. 52 Merkez, 58, 247fF. The term erkân-i devlet was later broadened to include all members of the hacegán. 53 Sefinet, 5. tnalcik disputes Ahmed Resmi’s assumptions about the first Reis, in “Reis-ül-küttâb.” Obviously, the office evolved without official recognition of the specific date. 34 Feridun 2:572-4; “Reis-ül-küttâb,” 674.

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

17

the Kethüdâ, and the Sergeant-at-Arms (pwu§ba§i) being the other two.55 In earlier periods, the Kethüdâ had been a chamberlain or majordomo, while the Çavu$ba$i functioned as a pursuivant. Proximity to the grand vizier, upon whom devolved most of the affairs of state as the sultan increasingly withdrew into the palace, and the very nature of the tasks performed by these three officials, especially by the Reis, increased their visibility and power, particularly after 1654. Prior to that time, when the physical location of the grand vizier and his staff was still the palace, they simply formed part of his private entou­ rage. Sultan Mehmed IV (1648-1687) presented Grand Vizier Dervi§ Mehmed Pa§a with a separate establishment known as the Babtâli in 1654.56 The first, perhaps obvious, consequence of that move was the separation of the “public” government of the grand vizier and his staff from the sultan’s “private” government, whose acknowledged leader, and chief competition to the grand vizier, was the Chief Black Eunuch (Ktzlar Agasi). The most significant change, however, was in the chancery staff. Under the new arrangement, the Ni$anci remained behind in the palace, maintaining his ceremonial function but losing effective control over the Reis, while the Defterdar, removed from the palace and in separate quarters, was isolated from what had become the power center of the empire, the Babiâli.51 The bureaucratization of the chancery branch of the Ottoman administration was a second consequence of the separation of powers in 1654. The chief beneficiary of the change was the Reis whose office and power base increased disproportionately when compared to those of the Kethüdâ and Çavufbaji. There were two important reasons for this change apart from the physical separation from the palace: one was the business conducted and recorded in the offices under the Reis, and the other, related reason, was the increasing importance of foreign affairs and the concomitant correspondence and record-keeping attached to it. By the early eighteenth century, the Reis was head of three offices forming the original chancery of the Divan-i Hümâywv the Beylik, or Divan Kâlemi, the Tahvil, and the Rüus. The Beylik was the heir to the sixteenth century scribal offices, and its incumbent was responsible for the registration of all customary law (örf), the legal status of the " Gibb and Bowen, 1:111 ; Findley, Bureaucrate, 52; the Kethüdâ would become the Interior Minister of the nineteenth century. 56 Gibb and Bowen, 1:113. ” Findley, Bureaucrate, 56-7.

18

CHAPTER ONE

non-Muslim communities, and treaties and capitulations. The Tafwil office was concerned with the assignment of certificates (berats) for viziers, commanders and ulema, from land benefices. The Riius office was concerned with assignments of income from other sources and supported pensioners and newly graduated students as well as some other categories of individuals until they found positions. The Beylikçi was in charge of all three offices and reported directly to the Reis, both of whom acted as editors and reviewers of the documents pro­ duced in the offices described.58 It is possible to see even in this early structure the potential for patronage at the disposal of the grand vizier and his staff, a characteristic feature of eighteenth century chancery life. In 1699, however, foreign affairs assumed a new significance in the chancery. In that year, the Ottomans signed the Treaty of Karlowitz which ended the long war with the Holy League. Most historians consider the treaty a landmark because for the first time the Ottoman Empire faced the limits of its territorial expansion and was forced to recognize the Europeans as equals. In this period, and under Amcazâde Hüseyin Pa§a, the last of the Köprülüs, the socalled “era of reform” began.59 Also for the first time, a Reis was appointed to head the peace mission that was to meet with the Europeans. This was a break with tradition; previously, treaty nego­ tiations had been left to the military commanders. Rami Mehmed Efendi, a product of the scribal bureaucracy, was the Reis appointed for this service. He was accompanied by Iskerletzade-Alexander Mavrocordato as Chief Interpreter, a member of the Phanariot com­ munity of Istanbul which dominated the office of Divan-i Hümàyun Tercitmam, or Chief Interpreter of the Divan, and the office of Gover­ nor ( Voyvoda) of Moldavia and Wallachia for over 100 years.60 Abou El-Haj, who has studied this particular negotiation in depth, asserts that it was the first time that the Ottomans recognized the advan­ tages of strategic and reciprocal diplomacy.61 The Treaty of Karlowitz had three practical results: the adoption M Klaus Michael Röhrbom, Untersuchungen zur osmanischen Verwaltungsgeschichte (Ber­ lin, 1973), 59; Ignatius Mouradgea D’Ohsson, Tableau général de l'Empire othoman, 7 vols. (Paris, 1788-1824), 7:159ÍT; Findley, Bureaucratic, 69fT; “Reis-ül-küttâb,” 673^4. 59 Stanford Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modem Turkey, 2 vols. (Cam­ bridge, 1976-77), 1:223 5. 60 The Phanariots were Greeks from the Fener district of Istanbul. See “Fener” (Mordtmann) El2, 2:879-80. hl See especially his “Ottoman Attitudes.”

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

19

as normal practice of what had been in fact an ad hoc decision, that is to use the chancery for negotiations; an expansion of the respon­ sibilities and staff of the Reis to encompass foreign affairs; and the equation by Europeans of the position of Reis with the foreign sec­ retary or minister for foreign affairs of European states. For all later negodadons, members of the chancery continued to be called upon as plenipotentiaries. Thus, for the Passarowitz negotiations in 1718, the M$anct, Silâhdar ibrahim Efendi, and the Superintendent of the Arsenal (Tophane Nazin), Yirmisekiz Çelebi Mehmed Efendi, were appointed as representatives of the Ottoman side.62 In 1739, at the Nemirov Conference with the Russians and Austrians leading to the treaty of Belgrade, discussed above, the Ottomans were represented by Reisülküttab Tavukçubaçi Mustafa Efendi and Koca Ragib. At the abortive treaty negotiations of Bucharest in 1771, in the midst of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774, the chancery was once again rep­ resented by Reisülküttab Abdürrezzâk Efendi and Vâsif Efendi, who later served both as a Reis and official historian.63 For the Küçük Kaynarca conference of 1774, Ahmed Resmi, then Second-in-Command to the grand vizier, and ibrahim Münib Efendi, members of the battlefront chancery, were the Ottoman plenipotentiaries.64 To the offices under the Reis’ responsibility were added three more by the end of the eighteenth century. While there is some debate about whether these offices reported directly to the Reis or to the Kethüdâ, there is a consensus about their function: their rise was di­ rectly related to the increasing importance of foreign affairs in the Ottoman central administration. The three offices were those of Divani Hümâyun Tercümant, Mektûbî-i Sadr-i Ali, and Antedi, the latter having been formed around 1777 according to inalcik.65 The Divan-i Hümâyun Tercümant has already been briefly discussed, in regard to treaty ne­ gotiations. The very nature of his job, as chief interpreter for the government, meant that he saw all documentation from foreign states, was present at formal audiences with the representatives of those foreign states, and was the only Ottoman officer to pay official visits to foreign residences.66 The Reisülküttab, with rare exceptions, spoke M O T 4:1, 140-1. Yirmisekiz Çelebi was the famous Ottoman ambassador to Paris in 1720-21. w Sâmî, 95. M O T 4:1, 422. 64 “Reis-ül-küttâb,” 675. “ Findley, Bureaucratic, 77-8.

20

CHAPTER ONE

no European languages, and had to rely heavily on the chief trans­ lator and his staff of eight to ten assistants.67 The Mektûbî-i Sadr-i Ali was the correspondence office of the grand vizier. D’Ohsson, whose late eighteenth century account of the administrative structure of the Ottoman state forms the basis of much research on this period, links the Mektupfu, chief of this office, to the Kethüdâ, but recent studies of the career paths of the eighteenth century Reisülkütiabs would seem to suggest that the office of Mektupçu was in fact a stepping-stone to the office of Reis, and therefore, logically subordinate to it. Again, the Reis, and in this instance, the Kethüdâ as well, were privy to all the top secret aspects of the Ottoman government. The number of clerks in the Mektûbî-i Sadr-t Âli was around thirty by the end of the cen­ tury.68 The third office to come under the jurisdiction of the Reis in the eighteenth century was that of the Amedî. Initially, as personal secre­ tary to the Reis, the Amedî was responsible for “noting the receipt of fees due the chief scribe from newly invested holders of benefices of land.” He also assisted the Reis in the preparation of documents for the grand vizier, and played a large role in the business of diplo­ macy, attending meetings with the foreign representatives, and pre­ paring correspondence for the Reis. He was assisted by five to ten clerks.69 By the end of the eighteenth century, the Reis alone had a staff of 100-150 scribes. The offices under his aegis were responsible for two major aspects of government: warrants of appointment (distribution of licenses and benefices), and relations with foreign governments, the latter a function increasingly important to the shrinking Otto­ man state. Small wonder that the representatives of foreign states considered the Reis as the minister of foreign affairs, or foreign sec­ retary. Many of the diplomatic reports and memoirs of eighteenth century ambassadors in Istanbul corroborate that point.70 Often, the 1,7 Mistrust of the Terciiman is a leitmotiv of eighteenth century Ottoman diplo­ macy: see Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Des osmanischm Reichs Stcmlsverfassung und Staatsverwaltung. 2 vols. (Vienna, 1815; reprint, Hildesheim, 1963), 2:117-9, and “Tercüman” (Orhonlu) LA, 12:175-81. 48 D’Ohsson, 7:169; Itzkowitz, “Ottoman Realities,” 88; “Reis-ül-küttâb,” 675. w Findley, Bureaucratic, 78-9. 70 Vergennes, French Ambassador to the Porte, 1756-68, recorded meetings and conversations with the Reisülküttab concerning the Polish question which reveal both a certain sophistication about European affairs and mistrust of the diplomatic prac­ tices of the European states: see Louis Bonneville de Marsangy, Le Chevalier de Vergennes: son ambassade à Constantinople. 2 vols. (Paris, 1894), l:343ff.

AHMED RESMl’ S EARLY CAREER

21

Reis was the only high official of the Ottoman administration whom the foreign representative was allowed to see. D’Ohsson describes the Reis as “tout à la fois ministre des affaires étrangères, secrétaire d’Etat et chancelier.”71 Whether or not the Ottomans themselves viewed the Reis as a foreign minister is open to debate. The long and respectable literary and intellectual heritage centered more on the style and presentation of government business than on its actual content, typical of imperial bureaucracies, but the eighteenth century would appear to represent a transition from the centuries old adab tradition to a civil bureaucracy. The clerical staff of the combined Grand Vizier and Defierdar offices numbered some 1000-1500 persons, by the end of our period, most of whom were still employed in the financial offices, and most of whom would spend their lives in lower-level offices.72 O f the 10001500 scribes, approximately fifty served at the bureau chief level of the chancery, the prestigious hacegân. Orhonlu reproduces a list of the hacegân from 1766, numbering fifty-three.73 Admission to the hacegân became the goal of the ambitious. Increasingly the grand viziers and other chief administrative officers of the empire came to be drawn from the hacegân pool, rather than from the military or the palace service per se, although admittedly the boundaries of the career path are at times blurred. The grand vizier, historically a member of the imperial household, as a graduate of the palace school, and as the sultan’s deputy, was in charge of the army as well as the chancery, accompanying the sultan to the front, and, once the sultan stopped going on campaign regularly, commanding the army himself. Addi­ tionally, because most of the administration went on the frequent campaigns, an elaborate system of substitute government (officials who stayed in Istanbul to operate the bureaucracy) had become common practice, and by the eighteenth century such lieutenants (kaymakams)j existed for most of the major positions of the court. One of the curious aspects of the Ottoman government by the mid-eighteenth century was the phenomenon of “secretaries as generals,” that is, the peripheralization of the military and the appointment of bureaucrats as grand viziers. Ahmed Resmi’s frequent complaints about the incom­ 71 D’Ohsson, 7: 159-60. 72 From TO P D 3208: Findley dates it from internal evidence between 1777 and 1797; see Bureaucratic, 56 and 363, note 41. 71 “Kh(w)ádjegán-i Diwàn-i Humäyün” (Orhonlu) EI2, 4:908 -9; he also mentions a 1754 list from Mehâsin (1804), 1:33-4; see as well d’Ohsson’s list, 7:191-5.

22

CHAPTER ONE

petence of the upper echelon of the Ottoman government and of its inability to make decisions is vivid, though subjective, evidence of the breakdown of traditional systems and the confusion of roles just described.74 Itzkowitz described the process as the “Efendi turned Pasha” trend: the appointment of professional bureaucrats to the governorships of provinces and as grand viziers, a product of his prosopographic research of the eighteenth century chancery ranks (he lists eight Reis who served as governors of provinces and five who became grand vizier prior to 1774). He studied the career paths of the 26 Reis who held office between 1697 and 1774, using as one of his primary sources Ahmed Resmi’s Seftnel. Sixteen of the twenty-six men were from the central administration, and ten of those sixteen were from the Mektupçu ’s office. By contrast, the financial offices, as stepping stones to the upper administrative levels, had lost all of their former consequence.75 Findley’s research into the backgrounds of the Reis following 1774 demonstrates that the Amedi office also became a place of recruitment for the upper offices.76 Further research has suggested that the figures may only be significant in the context of the size of the personnel pool from which they were drawn, as com­ pared to the much larger military and religious spheres. The Otto­ man Empire was suffering from “hardening of the career arteries,”77 in part because of the decline in educational standards, in part be­ cause the offices had become inheritable. Half of the men who served as Reis from 1768 to 1836 were from”scribal households.78 Competition for entrance into the influential hacegân remained fierce, ¿is increased pressure from provincial elites and over-crowded schools inflated the ranks of the scribal offices, leading to a gradual decrease in the quality of the service. Standards also declined as elaborate systems to maximize the number employed and the profit gained were developed. By the eighteenth century, it was normal practice to charge fees for entrance and promotion into any of the offices, as well as for the services of those offices, a lucrative source of income and power for the elite who established massive patrimonial house­ holds in imitation of the sultan. An annual system of rotation of the n As also described in Lalor, 80. 75 Itzkowitz, “Ottoman Realities,” 86-94. 76 Findley, Bureaucratic, 106; Karl Barbir’s Ottoman Rule in Damascus 1708-1758 (Princeton, 1980), draws attention to a reverse trend: pafas becoming efendis. 77 Itzkowitz, “Ottoman Realities," 91. 78 Carter Findley, Ottoman Civil Officialdom: A Social History (Princeton, 1989), 48.

AHMED RESMl’ S EARLY CAREER

23

appointments (teocihat) of the bureau chiefs, held every year in the month of §ewal, simultaneously increased the annual income of the grand vizier and the Reis, and satisfied the increasing pressure for employment at the Babmli, leading to the debasement of the hacegân rank itself.79 None of this evolutionary development was unique to the Ottoman Empire, as further comparative studies with other im­ perial bureaucracies will no doubt demonstrate. It was still theoreti­ cally possible for a provincial like Ahmed Resmi to become an im­ portant member of Istanbul ruling circles, given the right set of circumstances, and the right patron. Patronage and the Development of Ahmed Resmi’s Career Patronage (intisab) was the essential prerequisite for membership and employment in the Ottoman administration, following the education and literary apprenticeship which has been described. By the eigh­ teenth century, devjirme loyalties had been superseded by kinship loy­ alties, based on blood or household kinship, in spite of traditional state suspicion of such allegiances, which Mardin calls the “leitmotiv” of Ottoman statesmanship.80 Ottoman grandees imitated the impe­ rial household, building vast estates and maintaining hundreds of retainers. To consolidate their power, they encouraged talented young Ottomans by employing them in their households, further consoli­ dating the relationship by marrying these young men into their own families, reflecting the similar imperial practice of marrying the grand vizier into the sultan’s household (domad olmak: to become a son-inlaw).81 By the eighteenth century, if not before, this practice was so widespread as to become a commonplace phrase of the biographies and histories of the period, domad olmak signifying the acquisition by the official in question of a patron, and access to the upper strata of Ottoman government, from within an influential household.82 19 See Lalor, 82, for a discussion on the attempts to reform the chancery, and “Reis-iil-küttâb,” 675, on fees for offices. 80 See his “Power, Civil Society,” 271. 81 Medn Kunt discusses the powerful provincial ‘families’ of earlier eras, in The Sultan's Servants: the Transformation of Ottoman Provincial Government, 1550-1650 (New York, 1983); see also Findley, Bureaucratic, 33-4, and Shinder, “Career,” 228. 82 The examples are numerous: of the more famous eighteenth century grand viziers, Çorlulu Ali Pa$a, 1706-1710, Silâhdar Damad Ali Pa$a, 1713-1716, and Koca Ragib Pa$a, 1757-1763, were all son-in-laws of the imperial household.

24

CHAPTER ONE

Disgrace, of course, could mean confiscation of the estates, and oc­ casionally death. The household of the disgraced official, including those of its allied members, followed his fortunes, good or bad, though it was not necessarily permanent. Koca Ragib was sent to Egypt following his dismissal as Reisiilkiitlab in April 1744, but returned tri­ umphantly as Grand Vizier thirteen years later, after demonstrating his skill as an administrator of a troublesome province.8384 Ahmed Resmi arrived in Istanbul in 1734 or 35, a promising stu­ dent, and little else. By his own testimony, it was three years before he allied himself with a patron, Tavukçuba§i Mustafa Efendi, twice Reisülküttaby 1736-1741, and 1744-1747, and a leading intellectual of the age. As Ahmed Resmi informs us in Sefinet “I became a protégée of the late el-Hac Mustafa Efendi in 1737 and with the passage of time in his entourage, I became his son-in-law in 1747, joining the scribes of the lofty Diuan.”M The printed version adds parenthetically that the first position he held was Chief Tax-Farmer (&z$ Mukataaa), one of the hacegân positions on Orhonlu’s list.85* Chief Tax-Farmer had, in fact, been the first hacegân position held by Mustafa Efendi. Information about Mustafa Efendi is very sparse, 83 Itzkowitz, “Mehmed," 119-21. Koca Ragib apparently left Istanbul after a dispute with the Kxilar Agasi. 84 Sefinet, 2. If we accept his birthdate at 1694 or 95, Ahmed Resmi is by this time more than 50 years old, and more than 70 when on the battlefields of the Danube, perhaps why the year 1700 proved more acceptable. 85 “Kha(w)àdjegàn,” 908. The dates supplied by Ahmed Resmi are contradicted by other sources. The date 1734 or 35 as Ahmed Resmi’s arrival date in Istanbul occurs in two manuscripts of Sefinet TO P Ms R 1455, 1163/1750, fol. 2, and Birnbaum Ms T 5, copied 1295/1878, fol. 2. SO gives the date for Ahmed Resmi’s arrival and entrance into service as 1733, which GOYV follows. SO also notes the date for marriage into the family of Mustafa Efendi as 1735, with a Bursa Mukätaaciiik appointment. The printed edition of Sefinet has 1744 as the date when Ahmed Resmi joined Mustafa Efendi’s entourage, which O T follows. 1744 is reasonable as a date, because it is the year that Mustafa Efendi became Reis for the second time, and therefore he was in a position which naturally allowed for patronage. Both O T and SO refer to an earlier position held by Ahmed Resmi, that of Selanik Baruthane Nairn, which they have taken from Süleyman Izzi’s history (Tarih-i Vekâ'i‘ (Istanbul, 1784), 70), where it says: “Selanik Baruthanesi N aim , Resmi el-Hac Ahmed Efendiye tevcih,” for the year 1746. This is not a hacegân position, according to Orhonlu’s list (“Kha(w)àdjegàn,” 908-9). The use of el-Hac may again mean that this is a confu­ sion of the two Ahmed Resmis as discussed earlier. It is also theoretically possible that Ahmed Resmi accompanied Tavukçubaçi Mustafa Efendi to Mecca (see below) during the hiatus between Mustafa Efendi’s two appointments as Reis (he returned in 1742, Sâmî, 212). El-Hac, however, would have stuck to Ahmed Resmi for the remainder of his life, in all probability, so it is significant that none of the bio­ graphical sources give him the title, although it occasionally appears in the chronicles, where the references are clearly to “our” Ahmed Resmi.

AHMED RESMl’ s EARLY CAREER

25

and survives primarily in Ahmed Resmi’s own description of him in Seftnet. A native of Kastamonu, bom in 1688, Mustafa Efendi was orphaned early, and brought up by his uncle Elmas Pa$a, in Istanbul. In 1708 (or 1710), he became the son-in-law of Tavukçubaçi Ali Aga. Like Tavukçuba§i Ali, he was destined for the palace service, when his patron died, but according to Ahmed Resmi he did not care for it, preferring to spend his time in the company of intellec­ tuals.86 In 1730, Mustafa Efendi entered the hacegân as Ba§ Mukataaa; that same year, he was sent to Austria to announce Mahmud I’s acces­ sion to the throne. The report of his embassy, in contrast to most of those of his generation, gives an account of the history of Austria and includes many details of the state finances, along with a general picture of affairs in Europe, and the diplomatic maneuverings he witnessed in Vienna itself.87 Mustafa Efendi’s next important position was as Beylikd in May 1733; from there, he joined the same select circle of administrators as Koca Ragib, and was involved with the negotiations with Nadir Shah of Persia. Subsequently, he became Reisülkütlab, in December 1736.88 As such, he was involved in the negotiating sessions which resulted in the 1739 Belgrade treaty, where he distinguished himself for his perspicacity and tenacity. He was characterized by western observers as cautious, balancing the interest of the state against the security of his head. “Si’il prend le bon parti, il calcule ce qu’il aurait pu gagner en prenant le mauvais et tâche de n’y rien perdre.”89 Dismissed as Reis in January 1741, he returned to his native Kastamonu, after a long absence, and was reunited with his family. Ahmed Resmi could very well have been with him on this trip, to judge by the vividness of the description of the family reunion: “For six or seven months, he [Tavukçuba§i Mustafa] performed the nec­ essary familial prayers and calmed the giddiness of joy and yearning of his nearest and dearest who had suffered keenly from his long absence.”90 After a pilgrimage to Mecca which added the title “el-Hac” * Spinet, 66. *’ Faik Rejit Unat, Osmanh Skalen ve Sefaretnameleri (Ankara, 1968), 65; for manu­ scripts of the report, see [Collection of political essays], Iü Ms TY 6095, n.d., fol. 197b—2 19a; see also SO, 4:429. " Sffmet, 67-8. 89 Edgar Zevort, Le Marquis d’Argeruon el le Ministère des affaires étrangères du ¡8 novembre 1744 au 10 janvier 1747 (Paris, 1879), 184. 90 Sffinety 68; Mustafa’s dismissal is recorded in Sâmî, 186. This passage could just

26

CHAPTER ONE

(“pilgrim”) to his name, Mustafa Efendi was re-installed as Reis in April or May of 1744, and served for three and one-half years, until November 1747, in the course of which he wrote a small treatise on Francis, Duke of Tuscany, and husband to Maria Theresa, after the Duke was made Emperor in 1745.9192 He was then appointed as Rn&wmçe-yi Euvel, and while in that office, died on 1 September 1749.a2 By Ahmed Resmi’s account, Mustafa Efendi was reputedly a man of bounteous good qualities, the very essence of generosity and no­ bility, highly learned, especially in adab and the fine art of conversa­ tion, possessed of a powerful memory, a congenial and generous companion, and an eloquent rhetorician, capable of silencing argu­ ment. He was grave and tranquil, eschewing the harmful and ob­ scene. He was devout and constant in the performance of his reli­ gious obligations and a humble and genial man inclined to cheerfulness and hospitality. He had command of the three languages (Arabic, Turkish and Persian) in both prose and poetry, and was fond of social discourse with the Arab ulema. Although such conversations generally necessitated the use of formal Arabic, he was familiar with the spoken language of Egypt and Syria. The ulema admired him, calling him in amazement, the “Çahban of Rum,” and the “Elder of the Age.”93 As patron of the arts, Mustafa Efendi, like many states­ men of his generation, erected mosques and schools, including a complex in Belgrade, and numerous smaller versions in Kastamonu and Istanbul.94 He was also responsible for the construction of a public (endowed) library to contain his books, though it was built only after his death by his son, §eyhülislam A§ir Efendi.95 The construction of separate personal libraries by top Ottoman as easily be one of the standard cliches of the genre although not so frequently used by Ahmed Resmi. 91 Unat, Osmanhy 68. A copy of the treatise is included in [Collecdon of political essays], IÜ Ms TY 6095, n.d., fol. 219b—27, essays on European affairs, including most of the works of Ahmed Resmi. The latest internal date in the manuscript is 1783, the year of Ahmed Resmi’s death. For Mustafa Efendi’s reappointment as Reis sec Izzi, 4. 92 Sanely 69. 9:* This is a distilled summary of Ahmed Resmi’s description of Mustafa Efendi, laudatory as one would expect of a beneficiary of Mustafa Efendi’s generosity; the unusual aspect of this description is his comments on Mustafa Efendi’s command of spoken Arabic, a comment which reinforces the earlier observation concerning the general artificiality of the training in the chancery. §ahban was a companion of the prophet Muhammad, noted for his eloquence, while Rum refers to Anatolia. 94 Stfnet, 69. 95 Information concerning the construction of the library, its staffing and opera-

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

27

officials which were open for general use became a popular practice in the eighteenth century, to judge by their proliferation in that era. Those of Auf Efendi, built in 1741/42, Koca Ragib, 1762, and Murat Molla in 1775, are still used as libraries today, looking very much as they must have in the eighteenth century.96 While the building hous­ ing the library of Mustafa Efendi no longer exists, his collection has been preserved at Siileymaniye Library, along with the books of his son and grandson. A catalogue of the books that was made in 1863 is preserved in Topkapi Library. While a preponderance of the 1237 volumes are of a religious nature, there are a significant number of histories and literary works, enough to warrant Ahmed Resmi’s de­ scription of him as a widely-read man. A sample: 174 books of hadith; 129 books on jurisprudence; 47 books on dogma and scholastic the­ ology: 144 books on history; 210 books on adab.97 By allying himself with Mustafa Efendi, Ahmed Resmi joined a prominent and illustrious family of intellectuals and state servants. A son of Mustafa, Abdürrezzak Bähir Efendi was Reis twice (1772 to 1774 and 1779), and served with Ahmed Resmi on the ill-fated battlefields of the Russo-Turkish war of 1768 to 1774, while a grand­ son, Atâullah Mehmed, was Reis, in 1786/87. Another son, the pre­ viously mentioned A$ir Efendi, who died in 1804, served as §eyhülislam from 1798 to 1800. A further family member, Ahmed Azmi, described tion is to be found in A$ir Efendi’s Vahfnam at Siileymaniye Library (A$ir Efendi Ms 473, n.d.). It affords a fascinating look at the functioning of such a semi-public library, mandating that it be opten two days a week, from sunrise to the time of the mid-aftemoon prayer. The library was apparendy built in Bagçekapi (Bahçekapi). í’AsUmbul Kütüphaneleri Tanh Co&rafya Yazynahm Kalaloglan. 1. Türkçe Tarih Yazrnalan. 2. FasiküL Vahjnâmeler (Istanbul, 1962)), 820-22. In that same bibliography, a vakxfhame is listed purporting to be that of Ahmed Resmi Efendi (Reisülküttab 1233/8 and 1233/1, an appendix; see Istanbul Kütüphaneleri, 818-9. Reisülküttab 1233/8 is dated 1 188/1774, the appendix a year later). In it Ahmed Resmi endows the salaries of a number of religious scholars in a mosque in Üsküdar and appoints himself as overseer (mütevelli). The endowment was to be added to that of Reisülküttab Mustafa Efendi, up>on the death of Ahmed Resmi. There are a number of problem? with this entry, the chief being the fact that the original has disappeared from the Reisülküttab manuscript collection, making it impossible to verify the information it contains. He is listed as Ahmed Resmi Efendi ibn Hüseyin, rather than Ibrahim; the Vahjname refers to his having served as Mullah of Mecca, characteristics of the “other” Ahmed Resmi. It remains a mystery. * See Thomas Goodrich’s “Strolling Through Istanbul Libraries,” Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 9 (1985): 1-19. 97 [Catalogue of the library collection of Tavukçuba$i Mustafa and Afir Efendi], T O P Ms Y 358, 1280/1863, referring to the Reisülküttab Collection in Siileymaniye Library. Much of the collection has been declared lost.

28

CHAPTER ONE

only as Ahmed Resmi’s son-in-law, accompanied Ahmed Resmi to Ber­ lin, and was subsequently ambassador to Berlin himself in 1790/91.989 The death of Mustafa Efendi in September 1749 left Ahmed Resmi without a patron. For the following few years, there is little evidence of his playing a significant role in Ottoman administrative circles. The next positive identification of Ahmed Resmi in the annual ap­ pointment roles occurrs on 28 July 1754 as Sergi Nazin." Although perhaps unemployed in the intervening period, Ahmed Resmi was not idle. Eight months after the death of his patron, the earliest known copies of his manuscript of Sefinet appear.100 Ahmed Resmi’s stated reasons for writing Sefinet were twofold: to compile a guide to the exemplary lives of the Reisülküttab, much in the manner of Osmanzade Taib Ahmed’s Hadikat ül-Vüzera, a biographical compendium of the empire’s grand viziers, and to honor his late patron, Mustafa Efendi.101 In keeping with that purpose, his original intention must have been to end the manuscript with Mustafa Efendi. Most of the examined copies do, in fact, end with Koca Ragib, who was preceded and followed in office by Mustafa Efendi.102 The Search for a New Patron A secondary reason could very well have been his search for another patron. In the discussion of al-Istinàs fi Ahval al-Efräs, the role of the presentation copy in the patrimonial environment has already been mentioned. In most instances, the presentation text of these manu­ scripts congratulates the recipient on his appointment to a high office, and alludes to his generosity, as a fairly obvious and acceptable way of asking for employment. It is difficult to ascertain, however, if the

9" Sefirut, 108-12 on Abdürrczzâk; 128-9 on Atáullah Mehmed; on A$ir Efendi, see Hamdiye Oguz, “XVIII Asir Osmanli Çcyhülislâmlan,” (Lisans, Istanbul Üniversitesi, 1953), 78-9; on Ahmed Azmi, see Unat, Osmanli, 149. 99 Mehâsin (1804), 1:33. Sergi jVazm was a hacegân appointment in the Babidefter, and dealt with outgoing amounts and outstanding accounts of the treasury. 100 Cemaziyelewel 1163/April 1750. Two copies were examined with that date, T O P Ms R1455 and Ali Emiri Ms 720; a third, Lâleli Ms 2092 is dated Gurre-yi Cemaziyelâhir 1163/May 1750. A similar conclusion that these represent the earli­ est date of finished composition is drawn by the compiler of VOHDT (13:5, no. 154), where a fourth manuscript of Sefinet is described. 101 Sefinet, 2. 102 Mustafa Efendi’s biography is complete in a single entry, Ahmed Resmi’s normal practice throughout the manuscript for Reis who held the office more than once.

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

29

text alludes to the past or future beneficence of a particular indi­ vidual because of the almost impenetrable difficulty and vagueness of the high Ottoman style.101*03 Nonetheless, it is possible to speculate about the relationships reflected in the presentations, and their potential impact on the career of Ahmed Resmi. O f the twelve datable copies of Sefinet so far encountered, eight are presentation copies, including one to Grand Vizier Divitdâr Mehmed Emin (175Q—1752).104 When the presentation copies were given to ReisülküUab themselves, as with Ali Emiri 720 to Naili Abdullah Efendi (Reis, 1747-1753), and Lâleli 2092 to Abdi Efendi (Reis 1753-1755 for the first time), the biographies of those individuals have been added to the manuscript, suggesting emendations to the original work. The Lâleli 2092 manuscript is particularly interesting in this regard. It was originally presented to Abdi Efendi at the beginning of May 1750, when he was Official Secretary and Paymaster of the Divan (Tezkireci-yi Evvel), but an additional marginal note on the presenta­ tion page adds that Abdi Efendi honored him by praising the work, and, when Abdi Efendi was subsequently appointed as Reis at the beginning of November 1753, his biography was added to the list of the illustrious. That note is dated March or April 1754.105 Abdi Efendi was a logical choice as a patron. Quite apart from his appointment as Reis, he had had a long and distinguished career in the hacegán, spending a remarkable sixteen years and four months as Tezkireci-yi Euvel.'06 The biography of Abdi Efendi in the printed version of Seßnet is almost certainly the work of Ahmed Resmi, as it duplicates the text in Lâleli 2092 already discussed. In addition, the Istanbul manuscript of al-Jstinàs fi Ahval al-Efràs, while written for Grand Vizier Rose Bâhir Mustafa Pa§a, has a presentation page to Abdi Efendi, dated the beginning of June 1754, a month before Ahmed Resmi’s appointment as Sergi Naztn, 28 July 1754.107 Ahmed Resmi dared to present this copy to Abdi Efendi because he de­ 101 Certain phrases are recurrent, however, and must have formed the standard vocabulary of patronage: “Defterdar Ahmed Efendi hazrederinin terciime-yi kerimeyi el-arunlanyle” (Birnbaum Ms T 5, fol. 2b); “Hâlâ Sadrazam ve badr-i efham ve etemm, ubbehet ve atifedu Vali iin-niam, ciilla ül-semin Utarid rakim, Aristo hikam Mehmed Pasa” (TOP Ms R 1455); “Vefur-i luft ve nuumederinden sayan-i kersemeye kabul buyururlar miilahazasi.” (TOP Ms R 1455). an t o p Ms R 1455; see Ahmed Resmi bibliography for others. ‘üi Lâleli Ms 2092, presentation page. 106 Sefuut, 63. 107 Mehásin (1804), 1:33.

30

CHAPTER ONE

pended upon “the preponderance of his approval and commenda­ tion.”108 While the clues are interesting and suggestive, there is no further evidence to suggest that Abdi Efendi did indeed help Ahmed Resmi find employment in the hacegân once again. The evidence linking Ahmed Resmi to Koca Ragib, if not as patron, then certainly as mentor, is more abundant and convincing than for Abdi Efendi. By far the most interesting of the Sefinet manuscripts is Reisülküttab 639, which is in all likelihood Ahmed Resmi’s auto­ graph. This copy has copious additions to the biographies through­ out the text, demonstrating the constant editing and updating that went on in this kind of work.109 That Ahmed Resmi was interested in the career of Koca Ragib is obvious from this manuscript which contains significant additions to the biography concerning his later life, which are not found in the printed version. Some additional biographies of later Reis are included here as well: for example, îsmail Raif Efendi (1774—1776), Halil Hamid (1779-1780), and Abdiirrezzak Bähir Efendi, Ahmed Resmi’s brother-in-law, mentioned above.110 The most important aspect of the manuscript, however, is a note at the end of it which states that it was sent to Koca Ragib while he was in Rakka. “This essay, because it contains the life of the most gen­ erous of men, was sent [brought] to him at the time he was Rakka’s governor. . . He has bound this humble one [the author] to him with the rope of his kindness and generosity, spreading his favors. By means [of this writing], his eulogy and praises, the substitute for second life, will live forever.”111* Ahmed Resmi apparently called his manuscript Halifet ül-Rüesa, meaning literally A Succession of Reis, or A Succession of Captains, or, 108 IÜ Ms T 6667, presentation page. 109 Reisülküttab Ms 639, 1195/1780 latest date. Its presence in the Reisülküttab collection strengthens the internal evidence that it was Ahmed Resmi’s working copy, if indeed Ahmed Resmi’s estate was merged with that of Tavukçuba$i Mustafa as indicated above. The text and marginal notes are in a similar hand, and in two places it is signed Resmi (fol. 30b in a marginal addition on Telhisizade Mustafa Efendi, and fol. 56b, following a biography on Halil Hamid, signed 2 Rebiyülewel 1195/26 February, 1780, still within Ahmed Resmi’s lifetime). 110 Reisülküttab Ms 639, fol. 56-7, follows Koca Ragib’s career to his death in 1763, as does Esad Efendi Ms 2296; the printed version ends with his appointment to Rakka in 1750. 111 Reisülküttab Ms 639, fol. 58b. “Bu risale-yi sahihat ül-makale asknda tereümeyi kennte al-arunlanm mütezemmin olmak münasebetiyle. . . isal olunmuj idi. .. . Bu kemtere teveccüh ve talattufa temhid ve zeman-i medannda silsile-yi lûtf ve ihsanla takyid ve tasfid buyurarak bu surette her ömr-i sani menzillerinde oían medaih ve senalann tahlid eylemijdir. ¡sal ohmmak can also have the meaning of “to be brought.”

AHMED RESMl’ S EARLY CAREER

31

more loosely, A Succession of Leaders. At Koca Ragib’s request, how­ ever, he changed its name to Sefinet ül-Rüesa, a much more felicitous choice which can be translated as The Ship of Captains."1 The same manuscript notes that the alterations to the Koca Ragib text were made by the biographee himself.113 The coincidence of the tide of Ahmed Resmi’s and Koca Ragib’s Münçeat, frequendy called Sefinet iil-Ragib, is surely more than that. It has already been asserted that Ahmed Resmi was the chief source of the biographical information on Koca Ragib. In one of the many manuscripts of Sefinet iil-Ragib to be found in Istanbul, reputedly compiled by Ahmed Niizhet, Confidential Secretary (Divitdâr) to Koca Ragib, the following note appears: “Ahmed Niizhet became Divitdâr while he [Koca Ragib] was in Rakka and Aleppo, at the beginning of his service there. Until the time of his [Koca Ragib’s] passing away, he [Niizhet] was his companion, and the one who recorded his eloquence. From the gracefully written work called Sefinet ül-Rüesa by Ahmed Resmi Efendi, who is still Mektûbî-i Sadr-i Âli, the pages worthy of esteem have been transferred verbatim.” 114 There is too litde known about Ahmed Niizhet to speculate much further but it would appear that Ahmed Resmi was a better source of information on Koca Ragib than his own secretary. Koca Ragib moved to Rakka from Çayda in January 1750 and from there to Aleppo in July 1755.11516Another biographical work was composed by Ahmed Resmi in those same years. Hâmilet ül-Küberâ (or Hâmilet ül-Kübrá: The Bearer of the Great) on the Kizlar Abalan of the palace service, is much in the style of Sefinet."6 Ostensibly written by Ahmed Resmi because of an incident involving one of the eunuchs, Siinbül Aga, and the island of Crete, Ahmed Resmi’s birthplace, it 113 “I$bu risale Ragib Pa$a merhume arz olundukta Sefinet ül-Rüesa ismiyle tesmiye kilinmi$,” Ali Emiri Ms 720, fol. 2b; also Lâleli Ms 2092, on the title page; in Esad Ms 2296, the tide is corrected in the manuscript itself to Spinet, the printed text, 89, has a marginal note that according to reliable sources, Halifet was replaced by Spinet at the request of Koca Ragib. Reis (plural Rüesa) means “leader”, “captain”, “admi­ ral” and specifically in Reisülküttab, “Chief of the Scribes” - thus the word play in the tide Spinet. 1,5 “Sahib-i terciime Ragib Paça hazretlerinin içaretiyle bu vechle tashih olunmu§tur,” Ali Emiri Ms 720, fol. 46a. 1,4 Quoted from Spinet ul-Ragib, IÜ Ms T 5711, 1200/1785, fol. 26b. Ahmed Resmi was briefly appointed Mektupçu in August of 1764. m Dates noted in Ali Emiri Ms 720, fol. 50b. 116 Ten copies of Hâmilet ül-Küberâ were examined in Istanbul, the earliest of which has a date 1163/1749, TO P Ms E H 1403. A signed version, Esad Ms 3378/2, fol.

32

CHAPTER ONE

is of interest here because the presentation page, dated March or April 1753, is to Ragib Mehmed Pa§a, Governor of Rakka. Consid­ ering Koca Ragib’s power struggle with the black eunuchs through­ out his career, it would not be unreasonable to surmise that Ahmed Resmi might have written this work at Koca Ragib’s suggestion., or at least in full knowledge of its potential impact.117 Could Ahmed Resmi have been with Koca Ragib, perhaps in Rakka, to account for part of the silence of the sources on his whereabouts until his reappointment to the hacegân in Istanbul in July 1754? The previously described manuscript, Mecmua-yi Miin§eat, is another tantalizing clue. What constitutes a collection of the writings of Koca Ragib is attributed to Ahmed Resmi, even though it contains only one small piece by him.118 One final connection between Ahmed Resmi and Koca Ragib is the previously mentioned eulogy to Koca Ragib composed by Ahmed Resmi, suggesting familiarity with his successes in handling the Mamluk rebellions in Egypt, where Koca Ragib served as Governor from 1744-1748: You quelled rebellion in Egypt. . . (line 5, 1st half) Order has overcome the fortress of the evil generation Though they took little notice of its worth (line 11 ) How they desired (ragib) to be like Ragib Though he was the blade of the sword and the sharpness of teeth (line 13)"9

By the time of his appointment as SergiNazin in 1754, Ahmed Resmi was well-versed in the vagaries of service in the Ottoman adminis36-52a, is dated 1178/1764, and has several marginal variations (fol. 43b signed Resmi) which may or may not be proof of an autograph copy. There may very well be a word play on “hâmilet,” “pregnant,” as the Kizlar Abatan were guardians of the wives and mothers of the sultans. 117 IÜ Ms TY 1210, 1167/1753, is the manuscript copy consulted here; the story of Sünbül Aga is on fol. 2b-3. The manuscript has a later addition (ca. 1167/1753) not included in TO P Ms E H 1403, on the death of el-Hac Bejir Aga, and the then current Aga, Beçir Aga (There are at least three Bc$ir Agas who were Kizlar Abalan in the course of the eighteenth century). See Itzkowitz, “Mehmed,” 118-21, and 150, on Koca Ragib’s struggles with the Kizlar Agolan. 118 The work by Ahmed Resmi included in Mecmua-yi Mün¡eal, Cairo Ms 6796T, 18th cent., fol. 32-34, is his Layiha (Muhsinzade) on the 1768 to 1774 war. 118 Included in the [Notebook of excerpts), Esad Ms 3758, fol. 35b. It is neither a very inspired, nor intelligible poem otherwise.

AHMED RESMI’ S EARLY CAREER

33

tration. He was also allied and well acquainted with two of the most famous and influential intellects and statesmen of the first half of the eighteenth century. He had clearly arrived at a certain level of rec­ ognition in the Ottoman cultural system because of his learning and judicious use of his pen, and was no more or less than an exemplary member of the chancery. What, then, was the key factor in the trans­ formation of Ahmed Resmi into a critic of the government after 1774? The answer must lie, at least partially, in the next chapter of his life, the exposure to new cultural systems in Europe. In late 1757, Kiiçük EvkqfMuhasebecisi'20 Ahmed Resmi was appointed to the Vienna embassy to announce the accession of Mustafa III to the sultanate. At the time, Ahmed Resmi was also Kethüdâ to Grand Vizier Koca Ragib’s Kethüdâ Ebubekir Efendi. According to Ahmed Cevdet’s account, Ahmed Resmi, who was to acquire distinction through his successive embassies to Vienna and Berlin, had been honored by the esteemed regard of Grand Vizier Koca Ragib.*121

130 The Kiifiik Evkqf Muhasebtcisi position is mentioned in Mehâsin (1804), 1:99 and followed by Mehmed Said Fera’izizade, Giilftn-i Mamif 2 vols. (Istanbul, 1836), 2:1505. The position had to do with record keeping concerning vakif pensions and it was a part of the BabtdefUr. There is no further evidence of Ahmed Resmi’s actual ap­ pointment to this office. 121 Cevdet, 2:150; Seyyid Hakim, Tarih, TO P Ms B 231, n.d., fol. 283, mentions the Ebubekir connection: “tebrikname-yi cülus-i hümàyun için . . . Sadrazam Kethüdási Ebubekir Efendinin kethüdâsi hacegân-i divandan Giridi el-asil Resmi Ahmed Efendi Nemçc canibinc.. . . ”

CHAPTER TWO

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN: A GLIMPSE OF THE OTHER Ahmed Resmi’s Knowledge of Europe One of the favorite stories concerning Ottoman ignorance of Euro­ pean geography in the eighteenth century appeared in its most re­ cent version in Bernard LewisXMuslim Discovery of Europe!) The Otto­ mans were reputedly astonished attK?~appcarâtiTiE—51^ the Russian fleet in the Dardanelles in 1770, and made a formal protest to the Venetians for allowing the Russians to sail from the Balde to the Adriatic Sea, alluding to a channel connecting the two, sometimes represented on medieval maps, but of course, non-existent.1 2 One of the sources for this story is Väsif Efendi, the official chronicler of the latter half of the eighteenth century. His version of the story is worth quoting. After a brief digression on Peter the Great and his con­ struction of the modem Russian navy, Vâsif adds: “This time, be­ cause the Russians had insufficient ships and untrained captains, they hired Venetian and English captains from the Christian seafaring nations, and became well-versed in the science of the sea. Some nations who hated the Russians secredy informed the Devlet-i Aliye of the Russian intention and suggested that the Ottomans prepare for war. The men of rank of the time assumed this circumstance false and unsubstantiated, as they were unable to fit the sending of a Russian fleet from Petersburg to the Mediterranean into their way of think­ ing . . . They considered the matter ridiculous and arrogantly rejected the advice of those who contradicted them. So the Russians appeared at Lepanto and brought terror with them . .. Those who had con­ sidered the Russian feat impossible were drowned in a sea of shame

1 Lewis, Muslim Discovery, 153. V ' Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph von, Geschichte des omanischen Reiches, 2d ed., 10 vols. (Pest, 1827-35; reprint, Graz, 1963), 8:355-6.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

35

and the violence which had united them in opposition turned to mildness.”3 This passage suggests that the Ottomans were privy to what is known today as intelligence, and that they learned by it, albeit as an after effect of the event in this case, the destruction of the Ottoman fleet at Çe§me, in 1770. In emphasizing the ignorance and reaction­ ary attitudes of certain elements of the Ottoman ruling grandees, those who were better informed, or rather, who allowed themselves to become better informed, as Vasif himself adequately demonstrates^ have been overlooked. This is particularly true of the period prior to the reforms of Selim III in the 1790s, when, according to most his­ torians, the Ottoman “enlightenment” began. In light of the general assumptions just described, it will be necessary to establish what political and geographical information was available to Ahmed Resmi as he set out on his embassies. The Ottomans, entangled with Iran until 1746, maintained peace on the western borders for the period 1740-1768. That did not mean, as many have asserted, that they were uninterested in Europe, as the large number of embassies to various European capitals demonstrates. The Polish question, culmi­ nating in the first division of Poland in 1772, the series of European wars (1740-1748 and 1756-1763), and Russian aggression in the Crimea caused an intense level of diplomatic activity in Istanbul, involving many members of the Ottoman government such as Ahmed Resmi, who represented the Ottomans twice in Europe once in Vienna (1757/58) and once in Berlin (1763/74). In each case, he presented a report to the court which was doubtless circulated and shared by court circles. The report from Berlin, in particular, is fairly detailed and survives in numerous copies, allowing us to assess the nature and influences of such glimpses of the other.4 Such embassy reports, one source of geographical information available to the Ottomans, were equally important for the political and social information about Europe they conveyed, although the accuracy and value of the infor­ ’ Mehâsin (1804), 2:70; a further interesting anonymous contemporary account notes: “All Europe was surprised and alarmed at seeing, for the first time, the Russian flag flying among the islands of the Archipelago.” An Authentic Narrative of the Russian Expedition Against the Turks by Sea and By Land (London, Printed for S. Hooper, 1772), 8-9. M. S. Anderson, “Great Britain and the Russo-Turkish War of 1768- 1774,” English Historical Review 69 (1954): 44, calls it “one of the most spectacular events of the eighteenth century.” 4 Over 20 manuscript copies have been recorded to date: see Ahmed Resmi bib­ liography.

36

CHAPTER TW O

mation depended entirely on the receptiveness of the individual ambassador. Contrasting the report of Ahmed Resmi, in which he is quite keen to record in an objective fashion how strange he found Berlin, with that of Ahmed Väsif Efendi, whose 1787 embassy report on Spain contains many asides on the stinginess of his hosts, is a valuable lesson in the limitations of the genre.5 Maps, geographies, indigenous and translated, were other sources of information on Europe. A large map, dated 1768, drawn on silk, and housed in the Archeology Museum Library in Istanbul, by Enderunlu Mustafa, “on the staff of the Grand Vizier,” would ap­ pear to be an indigenous piece of work, representing the countries of Europe as Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Russia, France, the island of Britain, Germany and the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and the western part of the Ottoman Empire, all of which are de­ scribed as surrounded on the north and west by the Atlantic Ocean, on the east by Asia and on the south by Africa. The map includes! the names of the seas and islands in the Mediterranean, as well as the Straits of Gibraltar. As part of a descriptive paragraph on one edge of the map, the cartographer notes: “Even though the area of the region known as Europe is small, it is worthy of respect because of the skill of its population in various arts and sciences, especially in1 the science of geography, which is given first place.”6 While the sci­ ence of cartography may have been languishing in the Ottoman Empire, it was not entirely dead. Perhaps one of the most interesting of the geographical works to survive from the eighteenth century is a geography of Wallachia first noted by Orhonlu, who attributed the work to Ahmed Resmi. Two manuscripts exist of this particular report, one in Istanbul, the other in London, both internally dated 1760.7 The Principality of Wallachia was a tributary state of the Ottoman Empire whose governor was regularly selected from among the Greek Phanariot community of 5 For Vâsif’s account of his embassy, sec Unat, Osmanh, 144. 6 [Map] Archaeology Museum Library Ms 1074, 1182/1768. Enderunlu Mustafa was a cartographer of some note: see Cengiz Orhonlu, “Geographical Knowledge Amongst the Ottomans and the Balkans in the Eighteenth Century According to Bartinli Ibrahim Hamdi’s Adas,” in An Historical Geography of the Balkans, ed. Francis \V. Carter (London, 1977), 271-92. 7 See Cengiz Orhonlu, “Ahmed Resmi Efendi’nin Eflak Cografyasi," Giiney Dofju Avrupa Arafttrmalan Dergisi 4/5 (1975/76), 1-14, and “The Geography of Wallachia Written by a Turkish Politician,” Revue des etudes sud-est européennes 13 (1975), 447-52. The Istanbul manuscript copy, Efläkeyn, T O P Ms H 445, n.d., was used by Orhonlu; the other is British Museum Ms O r 11156, n.d., also called Eflâkeyn.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

37

Istanbul, following the treachery of the local native governors during the Russo-Turkish confrontation of 1710-1711.8 In response to com­ plaints by the governor9 about Janissary usurpation of Wallachian land in the area around Fethülislam, north of the Danube, a com­ mittee was appointed with .. miiderrisinden Giridi el-Hac Ahmed Efendi” as its chief, to restore the territories to their rightful owners. The potential research value of this little work is manifold. Apart from the initial description of the northern Danube shores from Fethülislam to Ibrail at its mouth, including fairly full descriptions of the river systems and agriculture, the report includes all the corre­ spondence of this particular committee with Istanbul during the in­ vestigation. A number of documents concerning the committee’s in­ vestigation are to be found in the Baçbakanltk Archives as well.10 Thus, it is a particularly rich source of information on center-periph­ ery interaction, and perhaps the first Turkish geography of Wallachia. Considering the almost continuous Ottoman-Russian confrontations in that area after 1768, possession of information on its geography should have been invaluable. The manuscript may not, however, be the work of Ahmed Resmi Efendi, as there is significant evidence to suggest that the journey to Wallachia was not undertaken by Ahmed Resmi but rather by the elusive Miiderris Ahmed Resmi of Crete, 8 Shaw, History, 1:331. These court appointees served as agents and sources of information on Balkan affairs, as a document from the archives demonstrates (CH 8335, 15 Rebiyülewel 1176/4 October 1762, “Bogdan Voyvodasi Kullanndan Gelen Havádisdir.“) The topic is the Polish succession question in the event of the death of Augustus III. 9 Eflâkeyn, TOP Ms H 445, fol. 22b; probably Scarlatus Ghica, who served from 7 Sept. 1758-11 June 1761. (Nicholas Iorga, A History of Rumania: Ijmd, People, Civi­ lization (London, 1925), 268-71, lists all of the governors.) 10 Orhonlu gives a full description of the text of Eflâkeyn, TO P Ms H 445 in his articles: of the archival sources concerning this report, CH 6557, Zilhicce 1173/July 1760, in four parts, would appear to be the most complete. It is a summary of the action taken in Fethülislam, noting the reasons for investigation, amount spent (800 kese akçe), and the fact that order was restored, which involved confiscation and destruction of farms in some instances, and the restoration of the property to resi­ dents of the Principality. The last page of this document is an account of the hold­ ings of various Muslims in Wallachia and the ways in which they were to be com­ pensated. Other relevant documents include CH 1733, Çewal 1173/May 1760, and CH 82, Safer 1174/September 1760, a communication from the governor and a firman about the restoration of order in Wallachia. CD 11367 is a summary of the documents arriving from “Kapici Mehmed Aga“ (the Vidin Commander who as­ sisted Ahmed Efendi) and “Mullah Ahmed Efendi“ in Fethülislâm, dated 16 Muharrem 1174/28 August 1760. Some evidence on the insolubility of the problem of Janissary* abuses is to be found in earlier communications on Wallachia in the Ecnebi Defteri, Romanya 77/1, n.d., 140, 155 6, dating the violations back to 1757.

38

CHAPTER TW O

previously described. The lengthy dedications include one to the Sultan, the Grand Vizier Koca Ragib, and the current Çeyhülislam, Veliyüddin Efendi (d. 1768), presumably the author’s boss. The in­ vestigation would have required someone versed in legal matters. Miiderris Ahmed Efendi and his entourage left Istanbul on 7 Septem­ ber 1759. In June of 1759, our Ahmed Resmi Efendi was appointed as Maliye Tezkirecisi, following his return from Vienna. Surely, Ahmed Resmi’s currendy held posidon would have been mentioned in the manuscript." The Ahmed Resmi of this study, however, was involved in the translation of a geographical work entitied Cografyayi Cedid (The New Geography), of which two copies are to be found in the Siileymaniye collections. A note on one of the copies (Hiisrev 268) says that Ahmed Resmi obtained it when he went to Vienna as Ambassador in 1757, and that it is a translation. The other copy (Hiisrev 269) states that Ahmed Resmi transcribed it following his return from Berlin in 1763 and that it is an anonymous work. The latest internal date of the work would appear to be 1714, in a mention of the Treaty of* Utrecht.112 The original may have been in Latin, but the introductory chapter has both Latin and Arabic definitions, suggesting a previous translation from Latin into Arabic (?) Chapter two discusses Europe, with seventeen countries listed, including the western parts of the Ottoman Empire, and among the seas of Europe mentioned are the “Mare Balticum” and the “Mare Germanicum.”13 There is quite a bit of detail on Paris, with a note to the effect that the English Channel is called “La Manche” by the French.14 That some additions were made by Ahmed Resmi, or his translator, is evident in notes such as that on Rome which is referred to as “the name they give to Kizil Elma.”15 Further proof of the range of Ahmed Resmi’s knowledge of Eu­ rope is the extensive “Digression on the Geography of Europe which forms part of his embassy report on Berlin.”16 From Istanbul west, 11 Eflákeyn, T O P Ms H 445, fol. 5a, for the departure date. The final internal date of the manuscript is Rebiytilewel 1174/October 1760 (TOP Ms H 445, fol. 50b); our Ahmed Resmi’s appointment is recorded in Seyyid Hakim, Tarib; TO P Ms B 231, fol. 468a, and MehAsin (1804), 1:159. Ahmed Resmi continued in that post until Çewal 1173/June 1760 (CD 13767). 12 Co(¡Tajya-yi Cedid, Hiisrev 269, n.d., fol. 243. 15 Cograjya, Hiisrev 269, fol. 7b. 14 Cofcrajya, Hiisrev 269, fol. 16a 15 Cofcrajya, Hiisrev 269, fol. 70. 16 Pmsya, 21-7.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

39

he began, were to be found the countries of Rumeli, Austria, Venice, the Papal states, France, Spain and Portugal. To the north of these countries were to be found England, the Netherlands, Saxony, Den­ mark, Sweden, Courland, Pomerania and Poland. The fact that these countries were prosperous and populated was dependent upon the will of God. Amongst the geographers, these countries were known as “Europe” but they were famous as “Rumeli” and “Frengistan” in the language of the people. As a drawing, Europe would resemble a long audience hall with projections on two sides into the ocean, manifesting fine regions and cities, surrounded on the south side by the Mediterranean and embraced on the north by branches of the Atlantic, the North and Baltic Seas. If one were to leave the Dardanelles in the direction of Bozcaada and Lemnos, the Mediter­ ranean coast would stretch from Komotiní, Kavala, Vólos and Thessaloniki, the Peloponnesus, Sicily, Italy, Rome, Genoa, Savoy, Corsica, France, Spain to Gibraltar in the Straits of Ceuta and on the outside, the shores of Portugal. Just as those fortunate to live under the protection of Sultan Mustafa were happy with the [ocean­ like] quality of his generosity, as in the saying: “Live by sovereignty or by the sea”, the people of the aforementioned regions prospered day and night with the help of the bounty of the Mediterranean. So too the inhabitants of the northern shores profited from the Baltic Sea. The ports of the Mediterranean, Ahmed Resmi continued, were Thessaloniki, Venice and Marseilles, while those of the northern regions were Amsterdam, Hamburg and Danzig. Ships of Portuguese, English, Dutch or other origins, which came from India and the New World, could easily dock in these three places. Amsterdam was the port to the north of Spain and France. Hamburg was the port for Austria, and Danzig the port for Poland, Ahmed Resmi contin­ ued. The rivers which flowed towards these ports included the Vistula which passed Krakow and Warsaw, the Oder, passing Breslau in Silesia and Frankfurt in Brandenburg, and the Spree, passing by Berlin and Potsdam, still the capital of Brandenburg. These rivers, joining others, descended to the sea coast. Ships especially made for river traffic carried all kinds of supplies and commercial goods in this manner. As the area had been rid of pirates and robbers, long gal­ ley-like rowboats called çam and borâzân (bronzina), and barges like the Black Sea $ayka, completely loaded, covered the distance south to north in ten to fifteen days, manned by five to ten men who pro­ ceeded slowly, sometimes opening the sail, sometimes pushing with long poles. As for the return, because they relied on the wind, it

40

CHAPTER TW O

took them thirty to forty days. They lived and profited by carrying rice, coffee, sugar, and other goods from the New World and other seaports to their own countries, even to the doorsteps of the facto­ ries, by sea and by river, without having to go ashore. Because there were designated, well-known seasonal market towns called fairs, the aforementioned goods were sent to these places. Merchants from all over the world brought their provisions and wares by land and by sea to these bazaars and enriched them with their commerce. “Even so, God protect me,” exclaimed Ahmed Resmi at this point, “in most of the provinces, poverty is wide-spread, as a punishment for being infidels, and there are those who are well-known for surviving on a piece of bread and meat. Anyone who travels in these areas must confess that goodness and abundance are reserved for the Ottoman realms.” Great care was taken in the promotion of those items in demand as commerce was the source of all livelihood and happiness. For example, suppose a man had neither the strength nor the endurance for the trip to the bazaars. He would give a list and the money to a well-known merchant in his city, saying “I want such and such from the Leipzig fair.” The merchant in turn would inform his part­ ner at that bazaar by what is called the post, sent by a trustworthy stage coach. In days, in hours, what he wanted would arrive at his feet without any effort on his part. The merchants strove to equal one another in honesty and straightforwardness in commercial affairs to the extent that there was a famous story about Frederick the Great, who, when it was pointed out to him by some people that he had not remained true to his word, replied “I am not a merchant.”17* O f other sources of information available to the Ottomans, the foreign community in Istanbul was perhaps the most colorful. The dispatches and memoirs of all the diplomats of the period can be carefully read for their observations about the Ottoman court and its 17 Ibid. Ahmed Resmi refers to Gibraltar by its western name rather than Jabal al-Tariq, the Arabic form, or Septe Bogazi, the Turkish name for the straits, sug­ gesting his source was a European one. In most particulars, his description of the river systems appears accurate. His lengthy description of the merchants and the fairs, i.e., the burgeoning market and industrial towns of Europe, is unusual for its muted admiration. Ahmed Resmi checks himself mid-way through the passage to remind his readers that this was infidel territory he was describing. His comment about people well-known for their simple diets suggests that the austerity of north­ ern Europe struck him forcibly. The Leipzig fair was indeed one of the largest in Europe.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

41

knowledge (or ignorance) of European affairs, with the similar caveat about the limitations of these observers that was made concerning the Ottoman ambassadors. Nonetheless, there is evidence in the re-, ports of Porter and Vergennes, English ambassador (1746-1762) and French ambassador (1756-1768) respectively, that a great deal of in­ formation was exchanged between countries, especially on the part of France, the Ottoman Empire’s oldest confidant. The foreign dip­ lomats’ chief contact was with the ReisiiUdiUab, The Minister of For­ eign Affairs in the eyes of the foreign community. There are notable interviews recorded by Vergennes in which the current Reis was not only aware of European affairs but also accused the French govern­ ment of betrayal for not excepting the Ottoman Empire from the casus foederis of the new Franco-Austrian alliance of 1756.18 Political information was obviously used as a weapon in the diplomatic maneuverings at the Porte, a phenomenon hardly restricted to the Ottoman Empire. A further source of information on Europe was the translation of European texts. Prior to the 1750s, the translations into Turkish were more or less restricted to lists of the dynasties of Europe and brief potted histories such as those described by Lewis and Ménage.19 Their presence in Ottoman libraries is usually attributed to the influence of Ibrahim Miiteferrika, or, Humbaraci Ahmed Pa§a (the Comte de Bonneval, d. 1747), the French renegade. Copies of similar texts exist from throughout the century.20 O f more interest are two further manuscripts which may be translations, one on Russia, the other on Austria and Prussia, which are remarkably detailed. The manuscript on Russia is a report of a Kazak nobleman which starts with a description of Russia, and traces the history of the Russian interest in and invasion of the Crimea, with particular attention to the cam­ paigns of Generals Miinnich and Lacy in the 1737 to 1739 war. The manuscript also includes lists of the Russian commanders and the infantry and cavalry regiments.21 The anonymous text on Austria '¿«Bonneville de Marsangy, 1:343-4. ryL ew is, Muslim Discovery, 168-9; V. L. Ménage describes a copy (Ms Esad 2062, n.cT), in “Three Ottoman Treatises on Europe,” in Iran & Islam, in Memory of the Late Vladimir Minorsky, ed. C. E. Bosworth (Edinburgh, 1971), 421-33. 20 For the period under discussion, a text exists on the Christian kings of Europe, which was translated at §umnu in 1772, presumably in preparation for the abortive peace treaty negotiations at Bucharest that same year ((Collection of political es­ says], 1Ü Ms TY 6095, fol. 410b-30a). 21 [Collection of political essays], IÜ Ms TY 6095, fol. 62-78: “Memalik-i Moskov’a

42

CHAPTER TW O

and Prussia describes the Holy Roman Empire from its earliest days, and its current condition, with special emphasis on Frederick the Great of Prussia. The colophon notes that “the matters described were sometimes taken from the historians and sometimes acquired from the newspaper [gazete] . . . a word for printed papers of events, which arrive from time to time.” The latest date on this text is 1755 or 56, the beginning of the Seven Years’ War.2223Further direct evi­ dence that the court translators made use of foreign newspapers in this early period is to be found in the Baçbakanhk archives. Abdülhamid I established a newspaper translating office around 1780 but prior to that time such efforts appear to have been more ad hocP One such document bears the heading: “Events from a newspaper which has arrived from Europe”, and consists of short summaries on France, Genoa and Stockholm.24 The evidence demonstrates that' Ottoman knowledge of Europe was somewhat restricted to the realm of the empire’s neighbors and potential enemies, and it is in that context that Ahmed Resmi’s two trips to Europe loom large. The Diplomatic Setting The eighteenth century is an important watershed in the history of Ottoman and European diplomatic relations. Although permanent diplomatic representation of the Christian nations of Europe in Istanbul Dair Kazakbeyzadesinin Takriri.” For a description of the Münnich and Lacy cam­ paigns, see Alan Fisher, The Russian Annexation of the Crimea, 1772-1783 (Cambridge, 1970), 24. 22 [Collection of political essays], 1Ü Ms TY 6095, fol. 129-45. Georg Hazai, “The Image of Europe in Ottoman Historiography,1' in Turkic Culture, Continuity and Change, ed. Sabri M. Akural (Bloomington, 1987), 73, mentions another copy of this text in Hungary, with later additions. 23 Rodcric Davison, “How the Ottoman Government Adjusted to a New Institu­ tion: the Newspaper Press,11 in Turkic Culture, 17. Frederick the Great recommended the Gazette de Cleves and the Courrier du Bas-Rhin for the purpose of translation, both decidedly pro-Prussian. 24 CH 2737, 28 Rebiyiilewel 1160/9 April 1747, “Frankistan’dan Viirud Eden Nümune-yi Havàdisàtdir.11 Other examples contain evidence of the penetration of information on Europe into Ottoman decision-making circles in other ways: reports compiled by the Chief Translator of the Divan, prepared for either the reisiilkUttab or the grand vizier, and intelligence reports from the Moldavian and Wallachian gov­ ernors. CH 8300, Zilkade 1165/October 1752, “Divan Terciimam Kullannin Takriridir,11 on Russian-Turkish relations during the 1737-1739 war, on Elizabeth of Russia, and the vulnerability of Poland; CH 8335 as above, from the governors; T O P Ms E 5801/1, 1175/1761, [News from Europe], on the imminent attack on Frederick by the Russians and Austrians during the Seven Years1 War, etc.

AHMED RESMI DM VIENNA AND BERLIN

43

had begun late in the sixteenth century, it was not until the end of the eighteenth that the Ottomans participated in any significant way in multilateral relations, sending the first permanent missions to European capitals under Selim III, in 1793.25 That decision was only the culmination of a number of steps, as Hurewitz notes, in the' “Europeanization of Ottoman diplomacy which undeniably was as much a product of the innovating zeal at Istanbul in that period as were changes in military organization.”26 Other experiments in di­ plomacy included more diplomatic missions with specific purposes such as Ahmed Resmi’s to Berlin, the consistent use of mediation during treaty negotiations which proved so successful at Belgrade in 1740 and characterized all treaty negotiations thereafter, startling offers by the Ottomans themselves, notably in 1745, to mediate in the War of Austrian Succession, and capitulations, which after 1740 became comprehensive and permanent.27 In fact, while the Ottomans toyed with multilateralism and diplo­ matic reciprocity, “Europe brought its system to the Sublime Porte.”28 The Treaty of Karlowitz in 1699 established a number of precedents in Ottoman diplomacy that accelerated the incorporation into the European system, including diplomatic equality of the sultan and his Christian counterparts, the monarchs of Europe, and the use of the bureaucracy rather than the military for treaty negotiations.'29 Fur­ ther, the treaty stipulated the appointment of a Russian permanent representative to the Istanbul foreign community, thus altering the diplomatic balance in a significant way, by allowing for continuous*1 ” See B. Spuler, “La diplomatie européenne à la Sublime Porte aux XVIIe et XVlIIe siècles,” Revue des études islamiques 39 (1971), 6; see also Ercümend Kuran, Avrupa’da Osmanlt Íkämet Elfiliklerinin Kurulusq ve llk ElfUenn Styasi Faaliyetleri, 17931821 (Ankara, 1968), and Garrett Mattingly, Renaissance Diplomacy (London, 1955), for early diplomatie relations in Europe. Ä Hurewitz, “Europeanization,” 456; on 435 he acknowledges that the European system itself was modified when confronted with non-Christian states. 11 See Thomas Naff, “Ottoman Diplomatic Relations with Europe in the Eigh­ teenth Century: Patterns and Trends," in Studies in Eighteenth Century Islamic History, eds. Thomas Naff and Roger Owen (Carbondale, III., 1977), 92; Virginia Aksan, “Ottoman-French Relations, 1739-1768," in Studies on Ottoman Diplomatic History, cd. S. Kuneralp (Istanbul, 1987) 50; on the capitulations see Naff’s article, where he notes that as the balance of economic power shifted to Europe via the capitulations, diplomatic reciprocity became an absolute necessity. 28 Naff, “Ottoman,” 96; Hurewitz, “Europeanization," 457. w Spuler, 9; Hurewitz, “Europeanization,” 459-60, notes that no permanent misisions, Christian or Muslim, existed in Japan, China or Persia before the nine­ teenth century.

44

CHAPTER TW O

and secret contacts between Vienna and Moscow, a leitmotiv of eigh­ teenth century European diplomacy.30 Istanbul was considered a hardship appointment, even though a much prized one in the European diplomatic community. Contem­ porary accounts by representatives of various states note the isolation of the foreign community in its own quarter, the problems of local communication, the difficult trek to Istanbul overland, the hazards of sea travel, the problem of maintaining communications with the home government, the constant threat of disease and fire in Istanbul itself, and the frequent cash flow problems, even though the Otto­ mans defrayed the living expenses of the representative while he was within Ottoman territorial jurisdiction. “Gift-giving,” an essential part of the Ottoman imperial system, frequently strapped the foreign dip­ lomats who used such means to gain access to the ReisüüaiUab, usu­ ally their only official contact.31 Foreign representatives could expect one interview with the sultan and might never privately see him again. Likewise, a full and humiliating day of ceremonials accompanied the visit to the grand vizier, who also might never interview the repre­ sentative again, though this began to change as the century wore on. The Ottomans did not respect the immunity of the diplomatic com­ munity and frequently held the representative accountable for the action of his country, imprisoning him as part of a declaration of war being perhaps the most egregious example. Small wonder, then, that the foreign community was preoccupied with precedence and intrigue, with the universally disliked dragomans acting as intermediaries.323

30 See Spuler, 10. 31 The entire question of support of foreign representatives by the host govern­ ments is in need of a thorough analysis, along with diplomatic practices in general. One of the recurrent themes of the dispatches of European diplomats is the lack of cash, and the indebtedness which occurred as a result of “gifts” to Ottoman offi­ cials, a problem equally common to the Ottoman permanent missions in Europe when they began in 1793. The Ottomans, in theory, assumed responsibility for the foreign representative as soon as he crossed into Ottoman territory; see Thomas Naff, “Reform and the Conduct of Ottoman Diplomacy in the Reign of Selim III, 1789-1807,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 83 (1963), 307, and Fatma Müge Gôçek, East Encounters West (New York, 1987), 64. See also Mübahat S. Kiitiikoglu, “XVIII. Yüzyil Osmanh Devletinde Fevkalâde Elçilerin Agirlanmasi,” Türk Kültürü Arafhrmalan 27 (1989): 199-231. 33 Spuler, 16ff, goes into some detail on these matters; see also Aksan, “OttomanFrench,” 43-4; Helga Fischer, “Das osmanische Reich in Reisebeschreibungen und Berichten des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Das Osmanische Reich und Europa, 1683 bis 1789: Konflikt, Entspannung und Austausch, eds. Gemot Heiss and Grete Klingenstein (Münich,

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

45

The infrastructure of European diplomatic procedure, with its re­ cruitment and training of career diplomats, the emphasis on the acquisition of local language and elaborate nomenclature and hierar­ chy,33 became by the end of the eighteenth century, an inseparable part of European foreign policy, evolving from the Christian ethics of the Renaissance into the modem state system. In the Ottoman Empire in this period, by contrast, relations with other nations were still very much dominated by Islamic principles which postulated a unified Muslim state, the Dar al-Islam, in a state of continuous war with the enemy, the Dar al-Harb. Over the centuries, perforce, Mus­ lim jurists elaborated a series of interpretations which allowed for temporary truces and a system of safe conduct which could be used to facilitate relations with Europe.34 Muslim residence in a Christian 1983), 113-42, for a schemadzation of the information to be found in all of the eighteenth century contemporary accounts; Baron François de Tott’s Memoirs of Baron de Tott 2 vols. (London, 1785; reprint, New York, 1973) and Sir James Porter's Observations on the Religion, Law, Government and Afanners of the Turks (Ix>ndon, 1768), are the most informative European observers, although Baron de Tott is condescending. Bonneville de Marsangy's biography of Vergennes is intelligent and vivid. Naff, “Ottoman," Spuler and Hurewitz, “Europeanization," all contribute comments on life in Istanbul; see also Mary Lucille Shay, The Ottoman Empire from 1720 to 1734 as Revealed in Despatches of the Venetian Baili (Urbana, 111., 1944); A. C. Wood, “The English Embassy at Constantinople 1660-1762," English Historical Review 40 (1925): 533-61, and the Recueil des instructions données aux ambassadeurs et ministres de France depuis les traités de Westphalie jusqu'à la révolution française, vol. 29: Turkey (Paris, 1969), for the English and French views, respectively. The practice of imprisoning the ambassadors was abandoned in the 1790s. Pierre Ruffin was the last arrested in 1798 (Henri Dehérain, La vie de Fierre Ruffin, orientaliste et diplomate, ¡ 742-1824 (Paris, 1929), 126). The local dragomans were frequently drawn from the Phanariot com­ munity, the only place in Istanbul where European language expertise could be expected to be found. The common language of diplomacy was Latin or Italian, but French began to assume great importance towards the end of the century. VJ William James Roosen, The Age of Louis XIV: the Rise of Modem Diplomacy (Cam­ bridge, MA., 1976), 74, describes the ephemeral attempts at schools of diplomacy, those of Peter the Great, Frederick the Great (1747) and the French Académie politique of 1712, which died with Louis XIV; on Ottoman educational efforts in diplomacy late in the century, see Lewis, Muslim Discovery, 131-3. The Ottomans did not respect the gradations of the European diplomatic hierarchy in Istanbul, but expected it for their own diplomats in Europe. Although the representatives actually had different appellations, i.e., hapt kethiidast for the Austrian and Russian residents; elçi for the French and English ambassadors, it made no difference when it came to precedence. Porter notes that the “French ambassadors have often pretended supe­ riority of rank at the Porte; the Turks have as solemnly declared to others the nullity of their pretensions and that all ambassadors are on the same footing," (Sir James Porter, Turkey, Its History and Progress from the Journals and Correspondence of Sir James Porter, Fifteen Tears Ambassador at Constantinople, ed. G. Larpent ilxmdon, 1854; reprint, Edinburgh, 1971), 269). 14 Lewis, Muslim Discovery, 59ff; see also “Aman" (Schacht) EF, 1:429-30.

46

CHAPTER TW O

nation or infidel control of large Muslim populations were likewise difficult concepts to incorporate into an imperial system based on the ideal of the universality of Islam and the shari'a. This is particu­ larly true of the period under discussion, when, for the first time, significant Muslim territory and Muslim peoples passed into Chris­ tian hands, notably in the Crimea, Wallachia and Moldavia. For the Ottoman ambassador, the confrontation with Europe was as troubling as that of their European counterparts in Istanbul. Apart from the physical and financial difficulties already described, the enormous crowds which greeted their arrival, the avid curiosity of populations who had never seen Muslims, and the quarantine sys­ tem, often rigidly enforced at European borders, constituted signifi­ cant barriers to the simple exchange of ambassadors. The embassy reports of the period are often dominated by the minutiae of the ceremonies of diplomacy and questions of precedence about which the Ottomans were very precise when it concerned their own diplo­ mats.33*5 An exception to that was Ahmed Resmi. The Embassy to Vienna Upon the death of Osman III in October 1757, Ahmed Resmi was appointed to travel to Vienna to announce the accession of Mustafa III as Sultan.36 It was typically the pattern to send emissaries to the Christian states friendly to the Ottoman Empire to make such an­ nouncements. Tavukçubaçi Mustafa Efendi, Ahmed Resmi’s patron, for example, had been sent to Austria to announce the accession of Mahmud I in 1730, and Ali Aga and Dervi§ Mehmed Efendi were sent to Poland and Russia, respectively, to announce the change in sultans from Mahmud I to Osman III in 1754.37 In this instance, in addition to Ahmed Resmi, two other ambassadors were appointed, §ehdi Osman Efendi to Russia and Mehmed Aga to Poland.38 By the mid-eighteenth century, the appointment and outfitting of am­ bassadors had fallen into a regular pattern. The particulars are spelled 33 See Lewis, Muslim Discovery, 129, on the quarantine station at Zemun; also Yirmisekiz Çelebi in Gôçek, 22, for his forty day quarantine, and 44, on the crowds which greeted his arrival. Ottoman quarantine stations were a nineteenth century development. 36 O T 4:2, 617. 37 Unat, OsmanU, 65-8, 97-102. 38 Seyyid Hakim, T O P Ms B 231, fol. 283-6; Mehâsm (1804), 1:99; Unat, OsmanU,

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

47

out in a lively fashion in Mubadele, describing the embassy of Abdülkerim to Russia to ratify the treaty of Küçük Kaynarca in 1775.39 Once the elaborate preparations were near completion, the ambas­ sador had an interview with the sultan who presented him with his official letter credentials. Prior to that, a ceremony for the inspection and transfer of the gifts which were to accompany the ambassador generally occurred.40 Once the preparations were completed, the ambassador and his escort, often numbering in the hundreds, de­ parted from Istanbul with proper pomp and circumstance. For Ahmed Resmi and his entourage, this departure date was 2 December 1757, approximately one month after his appointment.41 Ahmed Resmi appears to have been accompanied by more than sixty people. Among the officials who accompanied him were the Kafnci Ktlhiidasx, Com­ mander of the Palace Guard, the thirty-strong Janissary escort; an 102-12 on all three ambassadors mentioned; see also Faik Re$it Unat, “Çehdi Osman Efendi Sefaretnamesi,” Tarih Vesikalan 1 (1941): 66-80; 2 (1941): 156-9; 3 (1941): 232-40; 4 (1941): 303-20; 5 (1942) 390-400. It was standard practice to appoint the ambassador to an honorary post, in this case, §M-i Sani, second only to the ÿtkk-t Euvel, or Ba$ Defterdar, chief financial officer of the empire. Unat, Osmanh, 24, mentions the honorary titles given to the ambassadors. Elçi (ambassador) was indis­ criminately applied, although there seems to have been a distinction between orta elçilxk and bityiik elçilik, see “El£i” (B. Lewis) El2, 2:694. Vâsif mentions the finances of the embassy verifying that the ambassador was given an advance for his expenses and was responsible for the material goods necessary for the journey, drawn from imperial supplies. (See Mubadele, 25, concerning the financing of Abdülkerim’s em­ bassy; and Gôçek, 64, about Yirmisekiz Çelebi’s financial woes). 39 Mubadele, 15-31 ; Itzkowitz used a document surviving from an embassy of 1793 which reviews historical precedence for Ottoman embassies. The documents for the 1775 embassy are substantial, which makes his work invaluable for establishing the general parameters of such an embassy. 40 Unat’s introduction to this subject, Osmanh, 23-42, is still very useful. The 1793 document used in Mubadele, 15, leaves one with the impression that protocol had been altered with Ahmed Resmi’s Berlin embassy so the exact order of preparations may not have been the same for the Vienna embassy. Abdülkerim describes his interviews with the grand vizier and sultan (Mubadele, 57-8). Gifts were the most essential part of the exchange of ambassadors so the routine cannot have varied by much. For lists of gifts, see Mubadele, 18, for Abdülkerim’s list and Gôçek, 142-4 for those of Yirmisekiz Çelebi when he went to France in 1721. A list of the gifts for Ahmed Resmi’s Vienna embassy is as yet undiscovered. 41 Vtyana, 4. The Ebüzziya printed edition of 1886 or 87, has the title Vxyana Sefaretnamesi. The text also appears in Mehâsin (1804), 1:120—32, and Fera’izizade, 2:1512-17, in summary. The Vienna embassy manuscripts consulted in Istanbul include Ms Esad Efendi 3379, 1175/1761, and [Collection of political essays], IÜ Ms TY 6095, fol. 23lb-46, n.d. The text has been “modernized” in Ahmed Resmi Efendtnin Vtyana ue Berlin Sefaretnameleri, ed. B. Atsiz (Istanbul, 1980), modernizing in this case meaning rewritten. The version cited in this discussion is the printed Ebüzziya text with a verificadon against both the IÜ Ms TY 6095 manuscript and a Cairo University Library copy, Ms 2650T, 18th cent.

48

CHAPTER TW O

imam; the Keeper of the Seal (Mühürdar)\ the Guardian of the Trea­ sury (Hazinedar), presumably of the gifts and any cash advance; two Sergeant-at-Arms (Çauuÿ), often used as messengers; the Secretary of the Embassy, ibrahim by name, who carried the various official documents; 22 çuhadars, personal servants and escort of the ambassa­ dor; an interpreter, assigned by the host government; the Kethüdâ, i.e., the Majordomo; and a Silâhdar, a ceremonial sword-bearer.42 The trip to Vienna took almost three months. The description of the voyage overland to and from Vienna and the details of the pre­ sentation of the official documents to Maria Theresa (1740-1780) and her husband Francis I (1745-1765), constitute the first part of Ahmed Resmi’s report. The second part of the report, “Tefsil-i Memalik-i Nemçe” (“Details on the Domains of Austria”) contains a brief history of the Habsburgs and observations concerning the present state of affairs in Austria that he saw fit to record.43 The initial leg of the journey from Istanbul to Belgrade via Edime, Filibe and Sofya took forty days.44 The first stop was Edime, reached from Istanbul in seven days. There the embassy stayed of necessity (probably for pro­ visioning) for three days before proceeding to Cisr-i Mustafa Pa§a,

42 Ahmed Resmi himself refers to his sixty followers and retainers, Vtyana, 6, who accompanied him and were with him in Belgrade. To date, no archival records concerning this embassy have surfaced. One contemporary record, in Portuguese, has been used to estimate the size and composition of Ahmed Resmi’s entourage: uEmbaixada que Resmi-Achmet Effendi enviado extraordinario do Grao Sultao, deo na corte de Viena no dia 17 de abril deste anno,” (Lisboa, 1758), probably a dip­ lomatic report from the Portuguese representative in Vienna to Lisbon. The report lists the ambassador’s retinue at 130, which would have included the Austrian es­ cort, as it describes the procession and members of the embassy on the day of the meeting with the Emperor. The reporter may well have been D. Joào Carlos de Bragança, a Portuguese ambassador who arrived on 2 March 1758. This may have been his first communiqué to Iisbon. (See Romulo de Carvalho, D. Joào Carlos de Bragança, 2o. duqne de Laföes, fundador da Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa (Lisboa, 1987), 17-20). For a description of Yirmisekiz Çelebi’s entourage, see Goçek, 140; for that of Abdiilkerim, Mubadele, 58, which includes a description of his departure from Istanbul, probably fairly typical for the period. The Portuguese report does not include the numerous servants who must have seen to the transportation and sustenance of this large group of people, ibrahim Efendi has not been identified. The Portuguese report does mention the court interpreter by name, “Mons. Seleskowik” in one place and “Mons. Seleskowitz” in another suggesting East European origins. (“Embaixada,” 1-2) 43 The second part of the text begins on Ityarn, 23. 44 Most of the place names recorded here are spelled Turkish style, according to Andreas Birken, Die Provinzen des omanischen Reiches (AViesbaden, 1976), when found, unless well known in English. See appendices for glossaries and maps of the IstanbulVienna-Istanbul routes.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

49

named for the bridge over the Maritsa River, where they stopped for the night. Ahmed Resmi was impressed with the mosque com­ plex which he claimed had been erected by the favorite wife of Sultan Siileyman, and which for two hundred and fifty years had been the very model of charitable institutions but which in recent times, be­ cause of the mismanagement of the officials (mütevellis), had ceased to serve the people of the surrounding area, much to their sorrow.45 The embassy proceeded through Filibe, Sofya and Çehirkôy with­ out comment by Ahmed Resmi, arriving in Ni§ along with the win­ ter rain and snow which forced a three day stay. (5). On the twentyeighth day of the journey, they set out to cross the Morava River which, having no bridge, required a boat for the passage. The weather was uncooperative, however, as everything was frozen, causing an enforced stay of four more days. Ahmed Resmi comments on the need for patience: “Erbain içinde erbain çikarak” (“forty days peni­ tence in mid-winter”), and then, fortuitously, the embassy arrived in Belgrade on the fortieth day of the journey, at the beginning ofJanuary 1758.46 Belgrade, as a result of the 1740 treaty triumph, was Ottoman territory, now the edge of the empire, and it was in Zemun that the ambassador was to be met by the representatives of his host govern­ ment, the Habsburgs. News of the arrival of Ahmed Resmi in Belgrade was sent to the local commander, who immediately dispatched a guide (imihmandar) and an interpreter to greet the ambassador at the Sava River, the Ottoman/Austrian border. Ahmed Resmi describes his crossing in vivid terms: the interpreter and guide came from Budapest to Belgrade and greeted him with pleasure. They were prepared to cross the Sava with rafts, as was the usual procedure, but the freez­ ing weather made it impassable. It was equally impossible to cross on the ice as the river was only half frozen. It was decided to cross with a light rowboat (piyade kaytk) after chopping out a channel. 25 ,s Viyana, 4. All citations to the Ebiizziya text hereafter supplied as page number in parentheses in the text and notes. Ahmed Rcsmi’s comments on the rapacity of the officials is well-intentioned and indicative of Ahmed Resmi’s critical eye. The müUveUi was the guardian charitable trust properties, and assigned a proportion of the income. ** (5). This passage is an extensive pun on four and forty: “Erbain” can mean infinity, the worst month of winter and the penitence period of the Sufis. Ahmed Resmi likens the four days to the forty and then immediately adds the coincidence and sanctity of arriving in Belgrade on the fortieth day, forty generally considered a lucky number. That the embassies were often undertaken in the worst seasons of the year simply added to the discomfort of travel.

50

CHAPTER TW O

January 1758 was selected as the date of the transfer of the embassy into Austrian hands, in the middle of the Sava. (6) On that date, the Belgrade Defierdar escorted Ahmed Resmi in a magnificent proces­ sion to the shores of the Sava, where they boarded the boat which was greeted half way out by a bedecked rowboat containing the interpreter and the commander of Zemun. Here, the Belgrade Defterdar turned Ahmed Resmi and his entourage over to the Austrians. On the other side of the Sava, carriages and two regiments of soldiers awaited him. (7) The embassy was taken to Zemun itself, two hours distance from the Sava. After a seven day visit, they were joined by two [more] interpreters, two guides, a doctor and a sixty member escort with a captain. The now much increased embassy proceeded by slow stages, five to six hours a day, with one day in three as a rest day, to Osek castle, two hours north of the juncture of the Drava and the Danube.47 ösek is described by Ahmed Resmi as an im­ pregnable fortress on the river Drava. Across the river, again on its shores, Ahmed Resmi noted a small casde, located twenty hours from the Bosnian border and surrounded by richly endowed outlying ar­ eas east and west. (7-8). They crossed the Drava without incident, although Ahmed Resmi commented on the extensive marshes on the other side of the Drava, which necessitated a large bridge network. (8) Fifteen more days were required to cover the distance from ösek to Istolni Belgrad, in Austrian hands since 1688.48 Ahmed Resmi noted only the presence of a neglected and ancient casde on the edge of a lake. Eight days later, the embassy arrived in Raab, de­ scribed as a solid fortress located between the Raab and Rabnitz rivers, and fortified by the redoubts and numerous islands because of its proximity to the Danube. (8) The next stop was Altenburg. This town, explained Ahmed Resmi, was surrounded by a stockade, within which were to be found the elaborate storehouses and mills of the empress. Raab formed the border between Hungary and Austria. 47 Ahmed Resmi’s entourage was now over hundred. The need for the presence of a doctor remains unexplained. He may simply have been a fellow passenger under Austrian escort. Ahmed Resmi was not required to undergo the quarantine, unless the seven days in Zemun was a token gesture. The period could and did vary: Dervi} Mchmed Efendi was required to wait ten days at the Russian border when he was sent to Petersburg to announce Osman Ill’s ascension in 1754 (J. Dumoret, “Relation de l’ambassade du Dervich Méhemmed-Efendi à Pétersbourg en 1168 de l’hcgire (J. C. 1754), extraite des Annales de l’empire ottoman de VassifEfendi,” Journal asiatique 8 (1826): 118). 48 A. Birken, 28.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

51

(8-9) The embassy had now arrived at the outskirts of Vienna, stop­ ping in early March 1758, where a three day rest was necessary to arrange the final details of Ahmed Resmi’s entrance into Vienna, and to receive the greetings of the Emperor, Francis I. On 13 March 1758, Ahmed Resmi proceeded into Vienna, where he was met at the head of a bridge by an interpreter and a regiment of cavalry. From there, he was escorted to Leopoldstadt, the normal residence for ambassadors. (9) The days of Ahmed Resmi’s arrival, he continued, were by chance the first days of spring (Nevruz). It was also the second year of the Seven Years’ War (1756 to 1763), when Frederick the Great of Prussia and Maria Theresa, both dissatisfied with the Aix-la-Chapelle peace of 1748, were once again at war. In 1757, Frederick’s troops had conquered Saxony. In 1758, it was to be Bohemia’s turn.49 The confusion occasioned by the threat of Frederick caused Ahmed Resmi to comment: Brandenburg [Frederick the Great], having completed his preparations, had turned his attention to the empress’ own territory, Bohemia. Sol­ diers were being mobilized in Vienna and the fear of Brandenburg’s coming was abroad. Apart from the outward preparations, the aid of pagan gods like Lai and Manat was invoked. Every day, they [the citi­ zens of Vienna] walked with their families to the places of worship where they assumed their prayers would be answered and occupied themselves humbly praying for the defeat of Brandenburg, each ac­ cording to his beliefs.50

The next few pages of the report are devoted to the various prepa­ ratory meetings and the receptions themselves. At the preparatory sessions with the chief minister,51 pleasantries were exchanged and 49 By 1758, the Seven Years’ War had settled into a series of skirmishes and diplomatic maneuverings. The combined alliance of the Austrian, Russian, French and Swedish forces posed a real military threat to Frederick even though he contin­ ued to advance on Vienna throughout Ahmed Resmi’s stay; E. N. Williams, The Ancien Regime in Europe (Hanmondsworth, 1970), 378ff. 50 (9-10). Lai and Manat are pre-Islamic, Arabian idols. This is an interesting passage. Although it resembles the typical Ottoman response to the infidel’s god(s), it is nonetheless unusual in the mildness of its criticism and its touch of humor, a lively evocation of the desperation of the citizens of Vienna. Vienna was in very real danger, as Frederick’s attack on Olmiitz in April, 1758, brought him alarm­ ingly close (Ronald Walter Harris, Absolutism and Enlightenment, 1660-1789 (London, 1964), 297-8). He was later forced to withdraw. Ahmed Resmi’s appointment with the monarchs was postponed until April because of all the excitement. 51 (11). The minister is not identified but could be Kaunitz, Maria Theresa’s

52

CHAPTER TW O

the date of the official conveying of the sultan’s greetings was deter­ mined. Ahmed Resmi was to be received first by Francis I and then by Maria Theresa. On 19 April 1758, Ahmed Resmi was escorted to the palace in the private carriage of the Emperor, with great ceremony (12-13). He was struck by the grandeur of the throne room and the rich garb of the emperor, who was dressed in black velvet embroidered with diamonds (13). They exchanged formalities with the aid of interpreters. Three days later, the same ceremony was repeated with the empress.52 Banquets were organized for Ahmed Resmi, his entourage and various court officials on the days of these formal receptions. His comments on them are interesting. With the food of his own cooks and in his residence, representatives of the Austrian Reisülküttab, and state notables celebrated with him, eating both their own and his cuisine. The formalities were now over but Ahmed Resmi did not leave Vienna until well into the month of June, 1758. In this part of his report, he remarks on the tedium of his days. Even though a carriage was placed at their disposal to take them wherever they wished to go, the fear of Frederick’s imminent attack on Vienna meant that they were never free of the endless military preparations which included the accumulation of supplies in the Vienna fortress and the bivouacing of soldiers in the city. So much chaos and commotion disturbed one’s peace of mind. While it would have been possible for the embassy to stay longer in Vienna, “the attraction exercised by the yearning for Istanbul tugged at his skirts,” so with various Chancellor of State for over forty years. Ahmed Resmi had two meetings with the officials of the emperor and empress in order to establish the protocol of the cer­ emonies, which obviously dictated separate interviews with each of the monarchs, one the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the other the Queen of Hungary, etc. In the course of his meeting with Kaunitz, Ahmed Resmi gave him a letter from the grand vizier. 12 The Portuguese report dates the reception by the emperor as April 17, and by the empress April 19. It also notes that the emperor was pleased with the sultan’s peaceful message. While Ahmed Resmi reproduces a line or two of his address to the emperor, the anonymous Portuguese reporter elaborates a bit on the contents, notably that the new sultan intended to increase his navy and reorganize his armies but had no bellicose intentions. (“Embaixada,” 5). It was no doubt that which pleased the emperor. The Ebiizziya text includes a paragraph on the empress’ apparel (14) which is missing from the two manuscripts in hand. The complete ceremony with the empress is not otherwise described. The Portuguese eyewitness comments very briefly on the court’s reaction to Ahmed Resmi. He was treated with the greatest distinction, not only for his character but also for his demeanor. He knew how to treat each person with affection or pomp, each in accordance with his rank (“Embaixada,” 7).

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

53

excuses, Ahmed Resmi requested official permission to depart. Once permission was obtained, the various official ceremonies of departure took place, again with the emperor and empress on separate occa­ sions. (14^16). Along with the official letters, Ahmed Resmi was given various gifts from the emperor, the empress and the prime minister, consisdng of gold chains and silver vessels. (16) The return journey to Belgrade was accomplished by boat on the Danube in thirty-five days (17), probably because the season allowed for it and the conditions of war would have made overland travel difficult. A fleet of seven small ships {¡am) was provided for the re­ turn journey. On 2 July 1758, the embassy, with its guide, inter­ preter and escort, boarded the ships in Vienna. The first significant fortress on which Ahmed Resmi commented was Kumran, which, according to him, was situated on the eastern side of an island, sur­ rounded by the waters of the Danube. (17) The fleet apparently did not stop here. Two days later, they passed in front of the Estergon fortress. The upper fortress on the Estergon hill, noted Ahmed Resmi, was bound about by a lower fortress. On each side, extensive towns existed. (17-18) On the eighth day after its departure from Vienna, the embassy stayed over at Buda, having previously passed by large villages and towns with orchards, gardens and trees (18). The Buda fortress was stretched along a ridge, south to north, within shooting range of the Danube. The Buda fortress, Ahmed Resmi continued, had been well maintained and remained in its former condition. To the south of Buda, a palace was being built for “Yuzepus”, son of the empress, who would inherit the Hungarian throne. It stood in­ complete, its construction interrupted by the struggle with Frederick the Great.53 On all sides of the palace, stretching for half an hour’s distance, were flourishing and richly adorned towns with beautiful hot springs. (20) Across from Buda was Pe$te, a well maintained town. The towers [of the fortress] were, however, no longer being main­ tained. After Buda, the ships continued the voyage down the Danube, stopping every two or three days for a rest. In this fashion, they arrived in Varadin in twenty-two days. According to Ahmed Resmi, the Varadin fortress was built of rock on a ridge, and had been

” (18-19). Here, Ahmed Resmi means Joseph II, emperor with his mother after the death of Francis I in 1765. The Ottoman version of the name is either a scribal corruption or an attempt to convey the Hungarian version of his name, Josephus (Jozef, or Jozcfusi.

54

CHAPTER TW O

completely fortified by a lower casde on the Danube shores, across the way, a well maintained stronghold. (20) Five days later, in early August 1758, Ahmed Resmi arrived in Zemun once again. The surrender of the ambassador to the Belgrade Defterdar occurred in the middle of the Sava River as before, with some minor variations, as the weather now permitted the full use of the river. This time, according to Ahmed Resmi’s description, a raft had been prepared of two separate pieces, painted green on one side and black on the other. He, along with his interpreter and the Zemun commander, boarded a small boat which carried them to the raft while the Belgrade Defterdar approached the raft in a frigate; after the official ceremonies and refreshments, the Zemun commander turned Ahmed Resmi over to his fellow countrymen, expressing his great pleasure about the embassy. (21) Following two days rest, the embassy boarded ships on the Danube to continue the trip to Rusçuk. The first stop was Semendire for­ tress, which, according to Ahmed Resmi, was at least four hundred years old, had thirty towers and was fortified with two castles and a moat, on the model of the Istanbul fortresses. Most of it was in ruins. (21) The towers to be seen from the Danube were still well main­ tained and beautiful and the old mosque and baths were still in existence. Some time earlier, however, those ordered on campaign had burned the floors, bridges and gates of the castle in order to make it uninhabitable, fearing the subsequent occupation of the castle by the infidels. Ingress and egress therefore, were difficult, especially in the winter mud, making it necessary for the guards and their people to live outside the castle. Because there was no other fortress in the area, it had become the custom for the people of Hisarcik and Kolar and Hasan Pa§a Palankasi to gather at this fortress in times of need. Ahmed Resmi learned from the locals of the need to make the for­ tress inhabitable and that it would take very little to repair the bridge and gates.54 The fleet now passed Fethiilislam, Vidin, Nikebolu and Zistove, arriving in Rusçuk in ten days. There, the embassy celebrated M (22-23). This little vignette is very interesting as Semendire was very much march territory in this period, where obviously the larger fortresses were shelters for smaller outposts. The passage is one of the few instances in the report where Ahmed Resmi would appear to be making a direct appeal to the sultan. Part of his charge as an ambassador may have been to observe the fortresses along the way. The contrast between the condition in the Ottoman and Habsburg territories, though not consciously drawn by Ahmed Resmi, is nonetheless striking.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

55

the Islamic feast of sacrifice. (23) Four days later, the embassy trans­ ferred to horses and continued the journey to Istanbul overland via Hezargrad, Çumnu, Kirkldlise, Burgos, Çorlu and Silivri, arriving in early September, 1758, after an absence of nine months.55 Here, the narrative of the journey itself ends, remarkable once more for the lack of descripdon of the formal ceremonies for returning ambassa­ dors which dominate the reports of many others of Ahmed Resmi’s generation, and for the lack of lengthy salutations for the health and well being of the sultan and the empire.56 Ahmed Resmi, however, must have felt his report was deficient because he was compelled to add the section entitled “Tefsil-i Memalik-i Nemçe” to his report, perhaps setting a precedent.57 As if he himself is aware of the novelty of the undertaking, he prefaced his digression as follows: “Consider­ ing it one of the benefits of an embassy to have acquired, to the utmost of one’s ability, information on the conditions of the high­ ways and the countryside, one has ventured to explain anew some of the behavior and customs of the Austrians.” (23) The comments that follow in the next thirteen pages of the Ebüzziya text (23-36) can be divided into three broad subjects: the current political status of various components of the Habsburg empire, an assessment of the two major rivals of the period, Maria Theresa of Austria and Frederick of Prussia, and general comments about Vienna and its inhabitants.58 The lands of the Austrians, began Ahmed Resmi, were divided into nine kingdoms and three or four dukedoms, each

“ Nine months was probably an average length of time for such an undertaking. Dcrvij Mehmed Efendi’s trip to Petersburg in 1755 took him eight months (Unat, OsmtmU, 99-102; also Dumoret). Likewise, Abdiilkerim left in December 1775 and returned mid-August 1776. The unfortunate Mehmed Emni Efendi, who left Istanbul for Russia in May of 1740, did not return until May of 1742; Münir Aktepe, Mehmed Emni Beyefendi (Pafa)’mn Rusya Seßreti ve Sefaretnâmesi (Ankara, 1974), 85, 120. * See especially that of Mehmed Emni Efendi, one of the most formal reports of the period, which begins with a lengthy piece of verse and ends with a nine line prayer for the continuation and prosperity of sultan and empire. (Aktepe, Mehmed,

86, 121) 57 Most of the embassy reports after Ahmed Resmi, including his own to Berlin, have a section tacked on at the end with general comments about the trip; the most famous example is Ebubekir Ratib Efendi, whose well known recommendations to Selim III, based on a trip to Vienna in 1791, are more important than the report itself; see Unat, Oimanh, 154-62. As Gôçek, 65, speculates, the reports may have existed in various formats, depending on the intended audience. There does, how­ ever, appear to be a generalized format starting with this report of Ahmed Resmi, which remains in practice for the rest of the century. “ B. Ercilasun, “Ahmed Resmi Efendinin Türk Yenilejme Tarihindeki Yeri," in

56

CHAPTER TW O

master of a hereditary independent government with its own coin­ age. (24) The nine rulers, according to Ahmed Resmi, were known as electors, because they chose an emperor. They were collectively responsible to obey the laws of the empire, and come to each other’s assistance, each according to his ability. Three of the electors were archbishops and the remainder military men. Of the nine rulers, three were included in the Rhine districts, the archbishoprics of Mainz, Cologne and Trier constituting the territories of the first, second and third electors. The fourth was Bohemia, under the jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Empress, the Queen of Hungary, Maria Theresa and her husband, the Duke of Austria. The fifth elector was from the province of Bavaria.59 At this point, Ahmed Resmi felt the necessity of explaining the succession crisis that had followed the death of Emperor Charles VI (“the one who gave Belgrade to the DevUt-i Aliyé') in 1740. Charles Vi’s daughter, Maria Theresa, was not se­ lected as empress, in spite of years of negotiation by her father to that end before his death. Instead, all the electors, who coveted the position of emperor, chose the Elector of Bavaria, because he could claim relation by marriage to Charles Vi’s niece, and because the French, equally covetous of Bohemia and Hungary, lent their sup­ port. Charles VII, the Bavarian Elector, died after two or three years and Maria Theresa succeeded him, ruling with her husband, who was also Duke of Tuscany and Austria.60 The sixth elector, Ahmed Resmi resumed, was Augustus of Saxony, also King of Poland, whose territory had been invaded by Frederick Atsiz Armaganx (Istanbul, 1976), 127ff, has categorized Ahmed Resmi’s comments on Europe from his two embassies and Hulâsat. w In most essentials, Ahmed Resmi’s description is correct. The electors and the emperor formed the College of Electors, governing a federation of territorial prin­ cipalities, some 300 odd states or 2303 territories; see Olwen H. Hufton, Europe: Privilege and Protest, 1730-1789 (Glasgow, 1980), 143-6. Election of an emperor was theoretically possible but it had become hereditary in the Austrian house, by long tradition. This practice survived even the struggle for succession in 1740. 60 (26). Ahmed Resmi has correcdy defined the problem of the succession crisis. Charles VI had no male heir and Maria Theresa, as a woman, was ineligible. Charles VI negotiated a Pragmatic Sanction with most of Europe which would allow Maria Theresa’s ineligibility to be waived in return for various concessions. Under pressure from France, with whom Charles had been unable to come to terms, the Electors denied the negotiated right upon his death. Charles Albert of Bavaria, who was related to the Habsburgs by marriage to a daughter of Joseph I, brother to Charles VI, was elected Charles VII in 1742 and died shortly thereafter, in 1745. The suc­ cession then reverted to the house of Austria, with Francis I (1745- 1765) elected as emperor in 1745. He was also Duke of Tuscany and Duke of Austria.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

57

two years earlier.61 The seventh elector was the Prussian king, in­ vested with the territory of Brandenburg, bordering on Saxony. Brandenburg, Ahmed Resmi felt compelled to define, was actually the name of a castle within this territory which by corruption of the letters is pronounced “Grandebor.” Brandenburg’s personal name was Frederick. Frederick had once desired to marry Maria Theresa but he was rejected by Charles VI in favor of Francis because he was charged with being Lutheran. (27) His rejection by the emperor had made of Frederick an implacable enemy. As a consequence, he and Maria Theresa had been at war two or three times. Frederick was not alone either in his desire or his aggression. “On the wing of his co-religionist, the English king, he continued to fly in the imperial air,” and two years earlier, had drawn everyone into the conflict.62 Maria Theresa, in addition to being naturally disinclined to war and aggression (27-28), was also very involved with the well-being of her thirteen surviving children, and along with her husband, worked day and night to see to their welfare and the preservation of their inheritance. (28) Bohemia, bordering on Austria, had been devas­ tated since the war with Brandenburg (1740-1748 and again in 1756). Apart from the reduction in income from that quarter, the main treasury was empty, forcing Maria Theresa and Francis to request aid from their neighbors and the church. As a result, remedies such as reducing the number of her staff had been sought. Ahmed Resmi had learned of this from the reports of the monarchs themselves. (28) The Hungarian Kingdom may appear docile and submissive to Maria Theresa, Ahmed Resmi mused; nonetheless, the Hungarians hated the Austrians, and because of the proximity of Hungary to the Ottoman Empire, Hungarian nobles such as Rakoczy had often taken shelter there, causing continuous warfare. (28-29) Maria Theresa’s father, Charles VI, divided Hungary into fifteen or twenty villages in order to avoid the conflicts which arose among them, and distrib­ uted land grants to the Hungarian nobles in return for service. Charles did not receive a portion of their agricultural products; rather, in the time of war, the Hungarians were assigned to aid him with soldiers and money, leaving it to their generosity and means rather than by 61 (26). Frederick attacked Saxony in 1756; Augustus III was King of Poland, 1733-1763. 62 (27). Brandenburg and Grandebor are the standard Ottoman names for Frederick the Great. Prussia was Protestant (Lutheran and Calvinist). It was Frederick’s father, Frederick William I (1713-1740) who wished the alliance by marriage between his

58

CHAPTER TW O

compulsion, so it was said. But of course the king had estates else­ where which belonged to him. The produce of these estates he stored in his own granaries until he could get a good price for it. (29) In order to regulate the price of these goods as well as those of Bohemia, it was forbidden to transport such provisions from Hungary into Bohemia. The Hungarians must of necessity sell their crops within their own borders. It is known that in those years when the crops were good, the Hungarians looked to Wallachia and Moldavia to sell their excess, hoping to send it to Istanbul via the Danube, be­ cause they could not get a good price for it at home. The Palatinate was the seat of the eighth elector, and the ninth, Hannover, was governed by an appointee of the English King George whose inheritance it remains.63 In passing, Ahmed Resmi then men­ tioned a few of the important dukedoms of the empire: Savoy, under the jurisdiction of the King of Sardinia, Hesse and Swabia. Pausing to comment on the administration of the Austrian realms, Ahmed Resmi continued: from this description, the plethora of part­ ners of the Austrian Kingdom is evident, as well as the configuration of the administration which runs the Empress’ government. In con­ trast to the eternal Ottoman state, it is like the sun at mid-day. When one understands the small expanse of her [Maria Theresa’s] terri­ tory, the insufficient income of the administration and sees no ap­ parent destitution, one has to ask how they procure the necessary capital to administer their kingdoms? The answer lies in the fact that no matter how they appear to be living in luxury, the conditions of their states are solid and well connected; they refrain from fraud in order to procure income; they abstain from squandering income and expenditures and they do not neglect to esteem moderation in all things.64 For example, they collect a thirty percent custom from the merchants of England and France as well as the Ottoman Empire and charge a tax of four to five gold pieces for an ox. They meddle son and the daughter of Charles VI. Frederick the Great married a bride chosen by his father in 1733. (Williams, 374). The theory of rejected suitor to explain Frederick’s fairly constant animosity to Maria Theresa throughout this period is no more far­ fetched than any other explanadon. The English had allied themselves with the Prussians at the Convention of Westminister in January 1756. The expression “On the wi ng. . . ” is interesting, meaning both a bird’s wing and an army wing or flank. w (30). The House of Hannover, 1714- 1901, started with George I, 1714-1722. M (31). This is a remarkable paragraph for Ahmed Resmi’s generation in its free­ dom from the usual Ottoman/Muslim disdain of all things Christian. In light of Ahmed Resmi’s later writings, especially Hulâsat, it can be considered an early, veiled criticism on his part of the excesses of his own government.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

59

in the buying and selling of most food stuffs, collecting a duty almost equal to the real worth of those items generally desired by the popu­ lation, such as tobacco and wine. They collect a piaster from any­ one, rich or poor, who wants to enter the fortress gates after sun­ down. When they gather at the theaters (hayaUiane) which is an important nighdy custom of the city, there is no end to the disagree­ able ways that money is made off those of all classes, humble and great, who want to be near the king and queen. Ahmed Resmi noted as a final example of Austrian economy the fact that in contrast to the Ottoman ambassadors, they did not give one penny to Christian ambassadors. (32) A summary of the current political situation between Austria and Prussia follows. (32-33) The reasons for the disputes with Frederick and for his victories can be explained, according to Ahmed Resmi, as follows: Frederick thought of nothing else except his obsession with increasing his territory. Day and night he expended a great deal of energy in organizing the training and administration of his troops. On the battlefield, he personally plunged headlong into danger. He was a man of perseverance and bravery.65 The Austrians, by con­ trast, were concerned more with repelling the aggression than with warfare, enmity or territorial expansion. Austria’s allies, France and Russia, not wishing to send their armies into battle, but for the sake of their friendship, spent their days greeting Austria from afar, as if to say: “Hello, brother.” Should the empress’ fortunes be reversed, however, they would seize the opportunity to gain control over the territories nearest and most suitable to them.66 It might appear that Brandenburg would be victorious, but Ahmed Resmi reminded his readers of what Ibn Khaldun had to say about old and new dynas­ ties in his Muqaddvmak. the conquest of an old dynasty by a new one was dependent upon constant attacks (day and night) over a consid­ erable period.67 It was not beyond the realm of possibility for Frederick to destroy his enemies, but he had to persist in his efforts. (33) “ (32). This is an interesting portrait. The admiration for Frederick the Great is quite evident at this juncture which antedates Ahmed Resmi’s meeting with Frederick in Berlin in 1763-64. “ (32-33). The expression used by Ahmed Resmi is “Merhaba iyi (ey?) karde$,” a sample of his simple, humorous style, much more prevalent in Huíásat. 67 (33). Ibn Khaldun, 254. This analysis by Ahmed Resmi is heavily dependent upon the passage entitled “A new dynasty gains domination over the ruling dynasty through perseverance, and not through sudden action,” 252, one of many such examples in Ahmed Resmi’s writing.

60

CHAPTER TW O

At this point, there is an apparent break in the manuscript, as if Ahmed Resmi originally meant to end his narrative here. The final section, a description of Vienna, appears as an afterthought, a col­ lection of small observations that Ahmed Resmi must have felt be­ longed in his report. The Vâsrf version of the sefaretname sets off this final section with the heading: “A Concise Description of Vienna,” and this may well have been the way in which Ahmed Resmi con­ ceived of the inclusion of this passage.68 The interest in this passage lies in what Ahmed Resmi felt was worthy of notice. He first de­ scribed the Vienna fortress as standing on the banks of a branch of the Danube, its walls approximately sixteen cubits in height, its cir­ cumference a twenty minute walk and its moat of average size. The interior of the fortress was crammed with four to five story stone buildings and large churches. Most of the houses were rented out, and a single house contained five or six men with their families. (33) Within the fortress were to be found fountains and public squares for important events. Although the fortress could not be considered terribly large or fortified, it was nonetheless surrounded by richly adorned houses, with gardens and orchards. This area too was en­ closed by a further moated fortification with city gates in various places.69 To the west, at an hour’s distance from the fortress lay Kahlenberg. The Danube originated on the north side of this moun­ tain and flowed towards the northern side of the fortress where it was divided into five parts, shaped like five fingers, one of which flowed alongside the fortress. Access to the fortress was by a gate on the north side connected to a large bridge. From there towards the north, the Danube had to be crossed by bridges in four places. Among the canals created by the branching of the Danube were a number of islands, most of them covered with forests.70 On the south side of the fortress ran a smaller river which with its outlying areas formed one edge of the fortress grounds and then poured into the Danube on the eastern side of the fortress. The inhabitants of these areas were many, and as buying and selling was controlled by the state, “ Mehásin (1804), 1:131. 69 (34). The walls he describes are approximately on the site of the famous Ringstrasse and road complexes which replaced the inner and outer medieval fortifi­ cations in the nineteenth century. 70 (34). Ahmed Resmi is correct in all the particulars here. The Danube forked into three main branches and many smaller fingers to the north of the Vienna fortress (The description was compared to an eighteenth century map.)

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

61

everything was very expensive. (34—35) On the eastern side of the fortress was a large park surrounded by the Danube. Most of it was covered with natural planting. In some areas, open spaces had delib­ erately been left. As this was state-owned property, it was opened to the public in springtime, with the rich frequenting the southern side while the rest were permitted to use the northern side. Even though there was no obstacle to their intermingling, they didn’t interfere with one another. On both the north and south sides were richly adorned palaces and gardens. The aristocrats and the rich were permitted to visit these gardens, dependent upon the season. (35) The notables and wealthy of Vienna slept until the forenoon. They sat down to eat at noon and did not get up from the table until the late afternoon. They then climbed into carriages and visited the places mentioned until sunset at which time they attended the numerous theaters within the fortress to see comedies and operas. After leaving the theaters, they went to visit and socialize with one another, with candles in their hands and lanterns at the doors. They had an evening meal together and visited with one another in their houses and on the streets until morning and there were neither disruptions nor throngs to keep them from doing so. Readily apparent, Ahmed Resmi added as a final note, was the degree to which they abhorred having to limit this kind of diversion and devote all their energy to defending themselves against Brandenburg and their other enemies. (36) ^ The text ends here, again, in a rather abrupt fashion without salu­ tation. The simplicity of style; the objective observations and occa­ sional admiration of infidel ways; the intelligent discussion of the threat posed by Frederick and its possible outcome, and the overall accu­ racy of the historical section on Austria and the electors of this work is striking. While no masterpiece, it represented a refreshing, enter­ taining departure from the normal dry catalogue of affronts and slights that made up the genre until this period. As for the impact of the report on his fellow bureaucrats at home, it is worth noting the comments of Väsif Efendi, who prefaced his inclusion of the com­ plete report in his history by recommending it be read by all, as it could be counted among the rare works of the pen offered to the sultan which was pleasing and free of nonsense.71

71 Mehásui (1804), 1:121.

62

CHAPTER TW O

The Interim Period, 1758 to 1763 Ahmed Resmi returned from Vienna to Istanbul in early September 1758, but, as previously noted, did not join the ranks of the hacegân again until June 1759. Surely it was no coincidence that he was appointed Paymaster (Maliye Tezkirecisi), which had been Grand Vi­ zier Koca Ragib’s first hacegân office, a position Ahmed Resmi ap­ pears to have held, or been reappointed in until 1761,72 Whether in recognition of his successful completion of the embassy to Vienna, or because of the intercession of a patron, these appointments kept him squarely in the financial wing of the administration, where he had previously served. He is next encountered as having been reappointed Anadolu Muhasebecisi in June 1762.73 The following year, he became Ambassador to Berlin.74 Perhaps it was his knowledge of Austria and Prussia which acted as an influence on his selection, for the period following 1756 in Istanbul was dominated'by Prussian-Ottoman ne­ gotiations to reach a defensive alliance. According to Karl Adolf von Rexin, Frederick’s emissary to Istanbul, Ahmed Resmi had been chosen because he was a minister praised as an unpretentious and reasonable man, who had won himself much love and esteem in Vienna.75 The traditional diplomatic relationships of Europe were to undergo profound changes in the course of the eighteenth century, mostly due to the skillful machinations of Frederick the Great. Prior to 1756, the traditional French-British and French-Austrian rivalries predicated 72 Mthásin (1804), 1:159; Seyyid Hakim, TO P Ms B 231, folio 468a; SO, 2:380; O T 4:2, 617. There is confusion in the documents, because Ahmed Resmi is said to have been dismissed from the position of Mahye Tez/drecisi in CD 13767, June 1760. O T 4:2, 617 and SO, 2:380, record him as reappointed to the same position in 1761. 71 His appointment as Anadolu Muhasebecisi, another accounting office, is recorded by Seyyid Hakim, T O P Ms B 233, folio 131b: “Anadolu Muhasebeciligi Resmi elHâc Ahmed Efendi’ye ibka” suggesting renewal and Mchasm (1804), 1:210. 74 O T 4:2, 617; Kemal Beydilli, Buyuk Friedrich ve Osmanldar—XVIII TüçnJda OsmanhPrusya Münasebetleri (Istanbul, 1985), 81-2, dates his appointment as ambassador as 6 June; Mehâsin (1804), 1:226, as 2 June 1763. 75 Gustav B. Volz, “Eine türkische Gesandschaft am Hofe Friedrichs des Grossen in Winter 1763/64,” HohenzoUem Jahrbuch (1907): 33-4. Rexin, whose real name was Gottfried Fabian Hande, had already had some experience working in Istanbul but for Austria, not Prussia. A Silesian by birth, he had joined Prussian service after the 1740 invasion. The name change was to disassociate him from his past. Though he spoke some Turkish, by all accounts, his diplomatic skills were insufficient to the demands of the Istanbul diplomatic scene. Yet, he remained Frederick’s chief nego­ tiator throughout this period. (Beydilli, 26, note 2)

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

63

much of the diplomatic activity of Europe, founded as it was on the strength of Louis XTV’s empire and Cardinal Fleury’s expertise. By the mid-eighteenth century, however, both the French and Austrian empires had been eclipsed by the rise of two new powers in Eastern Europe, Prussia under Frederick and Russia under Catherine the Great. The shift of the center of European power to the east, the gradual dismemberment of Poland and concern about what was to become of the Ottoman Empire became the diplomatic questions of the second half of the century. The role of Britain and France, them­ selves entangled in the cosdy Colonial Wars (1754—1763), and far from the lands under dispute, was to supply military support, to mediate as necessary and to provoke the Ottoman Empire into ac­ tion against Russia when deemed efficacious. The shifting alliances of the period reflect an increasing concern on the part of most of the states of Europe about the power of Russia and their efforts to maintain a proper balance of power in the triangle formed by the borders of Austria, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. In January and May of 1756, the European diplomatic world was stunned by two new treaties. The first was the Convention of Westminster between Britain and Prussia, for the protection of Hannover, hereditary ter­ ritory of the kings of England. The second was the Treaty of Versailles, which allied France and Austria. Russia, Saxony, Sweden and most of the Holy Roman Empire joined France and Austria in the Treaty of Versailles. The diplomatic isolation of Frederick by this latter treaty precipitated a series of actions on his part that led to the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763) and led him also to the search for new allies, chief among them the Ottoman Empire.76 The first attempt to create a Prussian-Ottoman alliance can be dated from shortly after Frederick’s invasion of Silesia in 1740, the beginning of the War of The Austrian Succession, when he approached Moldavian Prince Ghika to initiate discussions with the Porte. Once Frederick had signed the treaties of Breslau in 1742, and of Dresden in 1745, temporarily settling his protracted disputes with Maria Theresa, his interest in an 76 The brief sketch here of eighteenth century European political relations can be supplemented by the many works which exist on the subject, especially those of Albert Sorel, The Eastern Question in the Eighteenth Century (New York, 1969); D. B. Horn, “The Diplomatic Revolution,” in New Cambridge Modem History, 7:40-64, (Cam­ bridge, 1970); Eric Robson, “The Seven Years’ War,” in New Cambridge Modem His­ tory, 7:465-86 (Cambridge, 1970); and M. S. Anderson, “European Diplomatic Relations, 1763-1790,” in New Cambridge Modem History, 8:252-78, (Cambridge, 1965); see also Spuler.

64

CHAPTER TW O

alliance with the Ottoman Empire waned. This pattern of relations between the two states would continue in much the same fashion for the next fifty years.77 Frederick’s second approach occurred early in 1755 following the death of Sultan Mahmud I in December of 1754. Estimating that the change in sultans might engender a different political climate, Frederick sent Rexin to Istanbul on an investigatory mission in order to gauge the condition of the Ottoman Empire and its willingness to establish relations with Prussia. Frederick was interested in securing the capitulatory rights already enjoyed by the other European na­ tions, but he was equally interested in a defensive alliance, with two main stipulations: the two states would be mutually responsible to defend one another in case of attack, and because of the distance separating them, should one of them be attacked, the other would create a “diversion” to divide and vitiate the strength of the aggres­ sor.78 Rexin remained unofficially in Istanbul from March to June 1755 and through the intercession of the Swedish ambassador Gustav Celsing was able to have an interview with Reis Abdi Efendi. Rexin had brought with him a number of letters from Frederick: a letter of congratulations for the new Sultan Osman III as well as correspon­ dence concerning Frederick’s desire for a treaty of friendship. The documents which survive from this exchange indicate a polite post­ ponement of discussion of the proposals on the part of the sultan, just short of an outright refusal. Rexin was obliged to be satisfied with that state of affairs. Moreover, his presence and purpose for being in Istanbul were no longer secret from the rest of the diplo­ mats of the foreign community, who had undertaken to counter his influence. He left Istanbul on 16 June 1755.79 77 On this particular series of events, see Selâhattin Tansel, “Büyük Friedrich Devrinde Osmanli-Prusya Miinasebetleri Hakkinda,” BelltUn 10 (1946): 135-6; O T 4:2, 235. Prussian and Ottoman relations have been fairly well addressed by both German and Turkish historians. The 1985 Turkish study by Beydilli makes consid­ erable use of the works of Carl Adolf Bratter, Die preussische-türkische biindnispolitik Friedrichs des Grossen (Weimar, 1915), and Wilhelm Nottcbohm, “Die preussischetiirkische Defensiv-Allianz 1763/65,” In Festschrift des Friedrich Werdeschen Gymnasiums, 132 57, (Berlin, 1881). Beydilli also corrects some facts in the formidable article by Tansel, “Büyük Friedrich,” adding further documentary evidence from the Turkish archives. H. M. Scott questions whether Frederick had any serious intentions about an alliance, and secs the Ahmed Resmi embassy as significant only in so far as it was used as a pawn to achieve the 1764 alliance with Catherine II. (“Frederick II, the Ottoman Empire and the Origins of the Russo-Prussian Alliance of April 1764,” European Studies Review 1 (1977): 153-75.) 78 Beydilli, 26-27, also 35; Bratter, 47. 7q This diplomadc initiative is fully documented in CH 5553 and CH 2680 (Beydilli,

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

65

When Rexin returned to Istanbul again in January 1757, what had been Frederick’s desire for an alliance had escalated into a question of survival. In 1756, the diplomatic reversals allying France, Russia and Austria against Prussia and Britain, increased Frederick’s fear of invasion, and precipitated his attack on Saxony in August of 1756, initiating the Seven Years’ War.80 Rexin arrived requesting permission to reside in Istanbul and to engage in discussions con­ cerning a defensive alliance between the Ottoman Empire and Prussia.81 The situation in Istanbul had also changed. The new Grand Vizier, Koca Ragib (11 January 1757-7 April 1763), brought a pe­ riod of stability to the office which survived even the change of sul­ tans from Osman III to Mustafa III. Koca Ragib was a cautious politician in foreign affairs, fully aware of the inadequacies of the Ottoman military forces, who had earned the trust of his masters because of his judiciousness and honesty.82 Admiration for Frederick’s startling victories at Rossbach and Leuthen in 1757 against over­ whelming odds had even reached the streets of Istanbul, according to a Rexin report of July 1758, where the cry “Brandenburg, Brandenburg” was heard on the streets and in the coffee houses. Ahmed Resmi had returned from Vienna in late August 1758, bringing first hand reports of Frederick’s successes and the disruption of Viennese life. The initial response of the Ottomans to the request for an alliance is therefore not surprisingly a cautious but polite postponement, noting that it would be unseemly to reject the pro­ posals of such a state out of hand.83 Frederick was reputedly encour­ aged by these and other apparent preparations for war in Istanbul: the inspection by Mustafa III of his army and his navy and his desire to go to Edime; the orders which the sultan sent to the Moldavian and Wallachian governors concerning the war materiel depots, and the appointment of Kmm Giray as Crimean Khan, a well known enemy of the Russians.84 Koca Ragib finally met secretly with Rexin in April 1759. Although generally inclined to the alliance, Koca Ragib 29-32); sec Helmuth Scheel, Preussens Diplomatie in der Türkei 1721-1774 (Berlin, 1931), 11-12, for copies of Frederick’s letters. 90 Williams, 378. 91 Beydilli, 36; see also Tansel, “Büyük Friedrich,” 138-9. 92 O T 4:2, 391; Beydilli, 37. 93 Beydilli, 37; Bratter, 75; Karl A. Roider, Austria’s Eastern Question, 1700-1790 (Princeton, 1982), 104, goes so far as to say that Koca Ragib dealt with Rexin for that reason alone, and that his intent was never serious. 94 From reports by Rexin in Beydilli, 39; Kinm Giray’s appointment noted in Mehâsin (1804), 1:151.

66

CHAPTER TW O

requested a British guarantee, as Britain was now Prussia’s sole ally. The British, for their part, were afraid to endanger Russian-British commercial ties and wary of an alliance which forced all signatories to reach a mutually agreed upon peace, a stipulation which was contrary to the 1756 Convention of Westminster.85 Military developments of 1758, especially the defeat of Prussian forces at Kunersdorf in August, probably contributed to Ottoman unease and led to the adoption of further delaying tactics. Although the §eyhülislam Çelebizâde Ismail Asim Efendi was known not to oppose the alliance, a council was secretly held in early 1760 to determine if the alliance was legal according to Islamic law. After the pros and cons of such an alliance were thoroughly discussed, it was decided that there was no legal impediment to entering such an agreement.06 Frederick was apparently so encouraged by the news as to draw up a series of recommendations for Ottoman action against the Austri­ ans. The British, however, were reluctant to go beyond a verbal guarantee, which proved unacceptable to Koca Ragib. A reverse in Frederick’s fortunes again influenced thinking in Istanbul, when, in June 1760, he was forced to surrender Landeshut to the Austrians. By November 1760, the proposed alliance had been reduced to a treaty of friendship and commerce, with an eighth clause added by the Ottomans that certain additional articles, beneficial to both sides, could be appended without restriction, thus leaving the door open for further discussion of a defensive alliance.87 By July 1761, both sides had accepted and ratified the Prussian capitulations.88 In the two years between the signing of the commercial treaty in July 1761 and the departure of Ahmed Resmi’s embassy in July 1763, Frederick renewed his proposals for a defensive alliance and made a series of offers and counter offers which depended upon events as they unfolded in Europe. Frederick’s situation remained critical throughout 1761, especially after the British war subsidies to Prussia were suspended.89 At the suggestion of Koca Ragib’s own financial officer, Ali Aga, Rexin wrote to Frederick the possibility of exploit­ ing the Tatars, using Kinm Giray to provoke the Russians, stir the 85 Bcydilli, 43 -4. 86 Bcydilli, 48-9, summarizing HH 317, which is undated but which Beydilli argues for some rime between 1-17 February 1760 from internal evidence, disputing Tansel’s date of 1762 (“Biiyük Friedrich,” 283-4) 87 Beydilli, 50-6. 88 O T 4:1, 345-7; Beydilli, 59. 88 Williams, 379-80.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

67

Porte into action against Russia and an alliance with Prussia. Mustafa III, reputedly inclined to a defensive alliance from the outset, was ready to march to Edime with the Janissaries in the spring of 1762. Koca Ragib was quick to inform the foreign diplomatic community that it was only a military exercise, as anxiety about a defensive alliance continued to preoccupy the representatives of Austria and Russia in particular, who were astonished at the war preparations. Koca Ragib was to continue to oppose the war party in Istanbul until his death a year later.90 Upon the death of Elizabeth of Russia, the new tsar, Peter III, a great admirer of Frederick, immediately ceased hostilities, and by May 1762, a peace treaty had been drawn up between Russia and Prussia.91 Frederick coached Rexin to urge the Ottomans to attack Austria, not Russia. Koca Ragib, for his part, no longer saw the necessity for any alliance with Prussia, following the Russian-Prussian rapprochement. The May 1762 Janissary upris­ ings may have been due in part to Koca Ragib’s continued passivity. A new series of proposals circulated between Berlin and Istanbul, as the Ottomans sought Frederick’s guarantee of Russian neutrality in return for a campaign against Austria. In June 1762, Rexin once more had a defensive alliance ready to be signed, when the news arrived in Istanbul in early August of Catherine II’s coup in Russia (July 9). Catherine failed to ratify the recently concluded PrussianRussian peace treaty, once again threatening Frederick’s security. Uncertainties about the events in Russia derailed alliance negotia­ tions outright, and by October 1762, Koca Ragib had rejected the alliance altogether. Rexin, in his efforts to promote the defensive alliance in Istanbul, had spent one million taler from 1757-1762.92 The Embassy to Berlin The Ottomans made the next move. In January 1763, Mustafa III expres­ sed a desire to send an ambassador to Berlin. Frederick’s instructions to Rexin were to ensure that the ambassador had full signatory powers, 90 Beydilli, 62. The fact that the suggestion came from the Grand Vizier’s per­ sonal secretary-treasurer can be interpreted as treachery, given that Koca Ragib was maintaining neutrality at the time (from a report by Rexin, May 1761); Koca Ragib died in April, 1763, following a protracted illness (prostate), O T 4:2, 392. 91 Beydilli, 68. 92 Beydilli’s summary of this period is masterful, 73-8, making full use of docu­ mentary evidence: the amount spent by Rexin is from his own report of October 1762.

68

CHAPTER TW O

otherwise, the embassy would be an unwanted, expensive visit of protocol, useless in furthering an Ottoman-Prussian defensive alliance.93 Although notorious for his dislike of spending money on court ceremonials, Frederick was not entirely without his own reasons for attempting to reopen negotiations at this juncture. The February 1763 Treaty of Hubertusberg, which ended the Seven Years’ War, achieved little, apart from recognizing Prussia’s significance as a major power in eastern Europe. Frederick remained isolated in his own mind, having been, in fact, deserted by Britain and not yet having achieved an agreement with Catherine II.94 The question which was to preoc­ cupy not only Frederick, Austria and Russia, but also the rest of Europe for the next decade was the future of Poland. The problem of the election of a successor to the ailing Augustus III, who had ruled since 1733, now assumed top priority in diplomatic negotia­ tions. While each of the major powers pledged not to interfere in the Polish election of a new king, they secretly lobbied for the promo­ tion and election of their own candidates. The Polish question was the deciding factor in the Ottoman determination to send an ambas­ sador to Berlin at this time. Mustafa III, without stable guidance in foreign affairs following the death of Koca Ragib in April 1763, inclined towards an alliance with Prussia. The ostensible reason for the proposed embassy was as a follow-up to the 1761 treaty and exchange of gifts, but Mustafa III also wished to ascertain Frederick’s attitude to the Polish situation and his willingness to reopen discus­ sion concerning an Ottoman-Prussian alliance, as Ahmed Resmi revealed to members of his entourage.95 Further factors influencing the sultan’s decision to send an ambassador were French pressure to intervene in Polish affairs to prevent the election of the Russian candidate, Stanislas Poniatowksi, and negotiations then underway 93 Beydilli, 79-81, from the Rexin and Frederick correspondence of 2 May 1763. The expenses were estimated at 3000 taler a month for such an embassy; Scott, 163, notes Frederick’s disillusionment with the Ottomans as a potential ally: from Frederick II, King of Prussia, Politische Correspondent Friedrich des Grossen 46 vols. (Ber­ lin, 1879-1939), 22:204-5, 9 September 1762; also 23:17-8. Ahmed Resmi em­ barked on the embassy without the signatory powers in question, standard Ottoman practice. 94 Scott, 156; Beydilli, 80. 9i As reported by Janokaki Frankopulo, Rexin’s hand picked interpreter who accompanied Ahmed Resmi to Berlin; Nottebohm, 137; Scott, 163; see Joseph von Hammer-Purgstall, Histoire de l'empire ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu'à nos jours, tr. M. Dochez (Paris, 1844), 16: 116-7, for Ahmed Resmi’s instructions from Mustafa III; also Beydilli, 83. The sultan himself informed Ahmed Resmi of his charge.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

69

between Austria and the Ottomans to renew the Belgrade treaty of 1739, which could be influenced by playing the Prussian card.96 In June 1763, Mustafa III announced that Ahmed Resmi Efendi had been selected as the ambassador to Berlin and that preparations for the embassy were under way. Ahmed Resmi’s version of the events leading up to the embassy is set out in the early pages of his re­ port.97 Following the normal salutation and prayer, the report begins with a description of Frederick, who, according to Ahmed Resmi, was famous as the elector of Brandenburg, and who had aimed at widening his territory and increasing his prestige since his accession to the throne in 1740. As a result, he had constantly been at war with Austria. Frederick had gained renown for his stability and per­ severance on the battlefield, in spite of the combined opposition of France and Russia, but he understood the necessity of an alliance with a large state uninvolved in the conflict. For some time, Ahmed Resmi continued, Frederick had been envious of the honor which his neighbors and co-religionists Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and England had acquired by allying themselves with the Ottomans, and he had persisted in his efforts to achieve similar glory. His wish was ultimately fulfilled in 1761, when the sultan saw fit to “open the gate of kindness and permission.” In the course of what naturally follows such a treaty, a Prussian ambassador was sent to Istanbul with costly presents. Then, in order to enhance his stature 96 See Aksan, “Ottoman-French,” 55, for a discussion of the French influence on Ottoman affairs at the tíme; sec Scott, 161ff on the Polish question; Beydilli, 80, taken from Rexin’s comments to Frederick, on the Austrian factor. 97 Prusya, 7-8. The records for this embassy are rich and interesting. On the Turkish side, TO P E 5033/1, dated 14 Muharrem 1178 /14 July 1764, is a pre­ liminary report to the sultan immediately upon Ahmed Resmi’s return to Istanbul. Other documentary evidence is to be found in CH 7239, from 1764; CH 8333, CH 8629, CH 8818, and CH 8824, all from 1763, which concern the expenses of the embassy, and CH 674, n.d., a report from Poland concerning the delicacy of Ahmed Resmi’s situation as a representative of the Ottoman government in Poland when Augustus III died, in October 1763. Twelve manuscript copies of the report were examined. The Ebiizziya edition of 1886, entitled Sefaretname-yi Ahmed Resmi (cited as Prusya), was used for this discussion, and compared with two manuscript copies: Cairo Ms 6438T, 18th cent., and [Collection of political essays], 10 Ms TY 6095, fol. 37b 62a. The earliest surviving manuscript would appear to be from 1764 (A$ir Efendi Ms 252). The full text appears in Mehäsin (1804), 1:239-61, and a summary is included in Fera’izizade, 2:1543-7. The text has been modernized in Ahmed Resmi Efendi’nirt Viyana ve Berlin Sefaretnameleri. European documentary sources have been fully utilized by Beydilli and Volz, whose article on the embassy is liberally illus­ trated and treats the ceremonies in elaborate detail. Scott’s article adds additional documents from British sources.

70

CHAPTER TW O

among the kings of Europe, Frederick requested the sending of a special Ottoman ambassador to his court. It was decided to send Frederick twice as many gifts as had been received from him, in order to demonstrate the glory and stature of Islam and the caliph­ ate, and “this insignificant servant” was appointed as ambassador to carry out this mission.98 Preparations for the embassy probably resembled that of Vienna. Two ceremonies would have preceded Ahmed Resmi’s departure, one for the transferral of the letters and royal gifts from the treasury into the ambassador’s keeping, and a second for the official farewell interview with the sultan.99 As Ahmed Resmi informed his readers: “On a propitious day at Davud Pa$a Palace, [the ambassador], with eyes shining like golden slippers of Yemen, after receiving the royal decrees and having been shown the imperial gifts, set out on the assignment with which he had been honored.” The date was 24 July 1763.100 Ahmed Resmi was accompanied by a retinue of some seventy retainers.101 They included two Sergeants-at-arms; the Kaptci Kethüdâsi:; an imam; the Majordomo (Kethüda); a treasurer; the Embassy Secre­ tary; Janissary musicians, and numerous personal servants. Accom­ panying Ahmed Resmi was his brother-in-law Ahmed Azmi Efendi, 98 This passage is curiously out of character with most of Ahmed Resmi’s works. Highly stylized and condescending, it resembles the writing of other ambassadors and chroniclers of the age. Typically such works often began with a florid style but then slipped into simpler prose as the text progressed, as is the case here. The style may reflect the author’s perceived importance of the Prussian embassy as compared to the Vienna embassy. On the gifts presented to Frederick see Volz, 40. Bonneville de Marsangy, 2:251-2, produces this list: a tent, embroidered in gold; 12 horses; 2 Persian rugs; a sword inlaid with precious stones; 20,000 piasters; a flagon of rose essence. The list of a total of 46 presents was published in Berlinische Nachrichten von Staats- und Gelehrten Sachen on 29 November 1763, unavailable for this research. Volz does not reproduce the list of gifts, but notes Frederick’s reaction to them. In a letter to Prince Heinrich, Frederick commented that they should not be a source of envy, and lists various bolts of muslin, silk, “chap d’or”, etc. (Volz, 40). By Febru­ ary, Frederick was issuing instructions for the discreet selling off of the Ottoman presents such as the saddles and riding equipment, silk, woolen and camel hair stuffs, (see Frederick, 23:268, and Volz, 40), Ahmed Resmi himself mentions one or two of the imperial gifts: a ceremonial tent (otak) and horses (Prusya, 43-4) 99 Mubadele, 15. See above, note 40. 100 Davud Pa$a was the traditional point of departure for campaigns to western Europe. This departure date is taken from TO P Ms E 5033/1. The date in Prusya, given in both Christian and Muslim form, the beginning of Muharrem 1185/1777, is simply wrong. 101 Beydilli, 82, lists the number at 73; Volz, 30, as 70; Ahmed Resmi himself refers to the official procession to the king (with Prussian escorts) as numbering 60; Prusya, 44.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

71

who would later make the same journey to Berlin as ambassador.10102 The documents for this embassy, which set out the requisition and method of payment, demonstrate the logistics of supplying the daily rations to feed and mount seventy or more retainers. The require­ ments were based on the precedent of the Hatti Mustafa Efendi embassy to Austria in 1748. The daily supplies included: 100 tum-i (ift (double portions) of bread 35 okka meat (98 lbs.) 7 okka clarified butter (19.6 lbs.) 2.5 kile rice 2 okka coffee (5.6 lbs.) 2 okka beeswax [for candles] (5.6 lbs.) 10 okka honey (28 lbs.) 10 okka dahk (flour) (28 pounds) 8 araba (wagons) of wood 60 horses 10 kile barley 150 okka fodder (420 lbs.)

The method of payment is spelled out on the bottom half of this same document, a summary (telhis) presented to the sultan and dated two days later. The first leg of the journey from Küçük Çekmece to Ismail passed through Ottoman held territory. In the region, Ahmed Resmi was to draw his supplies from the people of the districts in exchange for a stamped receipt which would later be reimbursed in Istanbul. From Ismail to Hotin and Hotin to the Polish Border, however, rations were to be supplied by the Moldavian governor against a stamped receipt, with the amounts to be subtracted from local taxes, in particular, the poll tax funds.103 101 The retinue is described in Volz, where a folded plate illustrates Ahmed Resmi’s entrance into Berlin. Ahmed Azmi was Ahmed Resmi’s brother-in-law, although as in Volz, he is occasionally described as his nephew, as in the comment by one of his Prussian escorts who noted that “the young nephew of Ahmed” had difficulty using a fork and knife. (36) For a description of Ahmed Azmi’s career, see Unat, Osmanb, 149ff, on the 1790 Berlin embassy. This ensemble is similar to the one which accompanied Ahmed Resmi to Vienna, minus the musicians. 103 CH 8818 is actually 2 documents, dated 14—16 Zilhicce 1176/26-28 June 1763, a month before Ahmed Resmi’s departure. The list is repeated in CH 8824, 25 Zilhicce 1176/7 July 1763, nodng that the standard applied from Ismail to the Polish border. This document, signed and sealed by the Chief Accounting Officer (Defterdar), is probably a copy of what was sent to the Moldavian governor, or, perhaps, carried by the ambassador himself as proof of the imperial orders. Explicit orders to this effect are spelled out in CH 8333, dated 18 Zilhicce 1176/30 June 1763.

72

CHAPTER TW O

A record of one day’s purchase of the mandated supplies at Pazarcik, eight days out of Istanbul, also survives. Signed by Ahmed Resmi himself, it reproduces the same account previously discussed, adding the actual costs for that day, and the way in which the debt was finally setded in Istanbul, two months after Ahmed Resmi’s return in 1764. The cost for that day was 29.5 foray for wages and supplies.104 The balance owed the governor of Moldavia also exists, detailing expenses for thirty-five days’ rations, horses, carriages and wages for the drivers, at one thousand, nine hundred seven and a half foray.105 There is no evidence of a cash advance made to Ahmed Resmi as was the case with Abdülkerim Efendi’s embassy to Russia in 1775, itself based on the precedent of Mehmed Emni’s embassy to Russia in 1740.106 Ahmed Resmi’s embassy suffered periodic financial em­ barrassment, to judge from a number of acrimonious discussions that occurred between the ambassador and various Prussian officials who were operating under instructions from Frederick to restrict the daily allowance of the embassy to the agreed upon 65 gold ducats. By the end of Ahmed Resmi’s stay in Berlin, Frederick was prompted to write that the Turk had been “eating his ears off.”107 Ahmed Resmi’s report of his embassy to Berlin is a much more accomplished piece of prose than that of Vienna. It is clear from the more formal introduction, the extensive descriptions of a number of stopping places and the considerable analysis of Frederick and his policies that Ahmed Resmi intended this work for a wider audience. He says as much in his conclusion: Twenty or thirty years from now, the anecdotes and legends of those wise and experienced, who are versed in this subject, alive or dead, llH CH 7239. The last date on the document is 20 Rebiyülewel 1178/17 Sep­ tember 1764. Ahmed Resmi does not mention Pazarcik in his report. 105 CH 8629, with a series of orders and accounts, is dated variously from 25 Zilhiccc 1176-Rebiyülewel 1177/6 July-mid-Scptember 1763. 106 MubadeU, 23, on Abdülkerim. He was advanced 25,460 kuruf. 107 Frederick, 23:67 & 178, where he mentions the 65 piasters, and equates them with ducats. Beydilli, 82, erroneously cites the figure of 60 ducats; see Volz, 34, for the frustration of Rexin and Major von Pirch, Ahmed Resmi’s official guide in Prussian territory, over the question of payment. Ahmed Resmi’s only specific com­ plaints about such matters concern the incident in Hotin (Prusya, 15), and his re­ mark in passing on “the trifling gifts” that were presented to him as he left Berlin (Prusya, 53). Frederick’s well known parsimony certainly played a part in creating the fiction between ambassador and host, but the reports of misunderstanding be­ tween Ottoman and Christian courts vis à vis ambassadorial maintenance were common to the age.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

73

will differ. The man whose words can be relied upon will be rarer than the philosopher’s stone or the phoenix. Therefore, with a willful pen and a willing wrist [we have] set down the truth of the histories in the register of certainty which will in time result in a variety of benefits and surely give rise to a beautiful thought. It is well known that as the need occurs here and there to record events, many stories and works which should be mentioned or recalled are buried in ne­ glected and forgotten comers, either because of the inadequacy of the writers or speakers, or the indifference of the readers and listeners. Therefore, just as our ancestors and brothers, by mastering the events and histories, have shared with us the benefit of a thousand years of knowledge and information, so too. . . have we written this little work . . . for our descendants... .loe The Description of the Journey The narrative of the embassy can be divided into the following sec­ tions: the description of the journey from Istanbul to Krakow; a digression on the geography of Europe previously discussed; the description of Poland and its current political situation; impressions of Berlin; a digression on Frederick’s ambitions; the embassy recep­ tion and an invitation to Potsdam by Frederick to discuss details of the alliance; Berlin entertainments and a conversation with Frederick; the description of the return journey, and finally, a description of Frederick and his military organization. From Istanbul to Krakow Ahmed Resmi wasted little time describing the journey from Istanbul to the Danube. Twenty days out of Istanbul, he began, the embassy arrived in Maçin on the Danube, where they were met by the guide of the Moldavian governor. (10) In Maçin, they boarded a galley, and crossed to Galatz, which, with Maçin and îbrail, formed the three legs of a step stool on the shores of the Danube. Between Galatz and ibrail lay an island in the middle of the Danube of more than two hours length which was used as a port for both. This port was constandy busy with the arrival and anchorage of merchant ships. '* Prusya, 67-8. The page numbers will hereafter be notes as with the description of the Vienna embassy: see ries and map of the journey. There arc two interesting fense: the emphasis on accuracy and the need to educate. Ahmed Resmi returns in Hulásat.

recorded in the text and the appendices for glossa­ points in this effusive de­ Both are themes to which

74

CHAPTER TW O

After three days in Galatz, the embassy moved on to Jassy, head­ quarters of the voyvoda. The ambassador was setded in a mansion on a lake, especially prepared for visitors from the Deulet-i Aliye. (10-11) They stayed fifteen days in Jassy, resting and preparing their supplies. Jassy was nestled in the embrace of the rivers Prut and Siret, stretched along a ridge that ran east to west and was girded on the south by a small river. The center of the city was prosperous with a number of stone buildings and the governor’s palace. These were surrounded by the wooden houses and garden plots of the poor. Across the way, situated on two hills, were two large churches. To protect both the palace and the churches from marauders, the town was surrounded by fences and gates like a fortress. Well maintained gardens and orchards were in the area and the local waters were known for their coolness and sweetness. Whereas the Siret joined the Danube between ibrail and Galatz, the Prut flowed into the Danube beside Bucak and Timarova. Because of the abundance of these riv­ ers, the timber harvested in Moldavia could easily be transported to the Galatz harbor. From there, it was carried to Istanbul by Black Sea vessels.109 The embassy travelled from Jassy to Hotin by boat, arriving on 4 September 1763. Hotin, according to Ahmed Resmi, was situated on the Dniester River, a strong fortress which “stretched to the heav­ ens.” (12) According to legend, it dated from the time of Jesus. As it was the border of Moldavia, it was defended and maintained by the voyvoda. In 1617, it had fallen into the grasp of Polish infidels as a result of the treachery of Voyvoda Gaçparî. It was returned to the Ottoman Empire following Sultan Osman’s (1621) campaign. In the middle of 1673, it again fell into Polish hands during the Kameniçe campaign, but the following year was tom from them and restored to its former dignity. In 1711, the Russian Tsar fearlessly stormed Moldavia, necessitating the fortification of Hotin, with the help of God, to forestall the calamity of defeat. (12-13) In 1713, Sultan Ahmed had refortified the castle on the southern side and restocked it with all the necessary supplies. As a result, the fortress was now a proper 11,9 This rather comprehensive description of the Ibrail-Jassy region is not only unusual for its detail, it also suggests that one of Ahmed Resmi’s tasks was to gather information about the non-Ottoman territories he was to visit. As this area was the primary battlefield of the 1768 to 1774 war, the informadon would become invalu­ able within five years rime, and may account for Ahmed Resmi’s subsequent con­ tinuous presence as part of the battlefront chancery.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

75

arsenal as of old. The protection of Hotin was assigned either to a vizier or a local commander (emir) and the surrounding setded areas given to local troops (yerli kulu) as land grants (ocakliks). The neigh­ borhood abounded in gardens and orchards.1101*In the course of the two day stay in Hotin, Ahmed Resmi was met by a doctor in place of the expected Prussian escort. The doctor assured him that Frederick awaited him eagerly, that his official guide would greet him in Silesia, that a number of obstacles had prevented the escort from coming to meet him, and that he, the doctor, would serve him in that capacity until the Silesian border. The Hotin Governor ( Vali) signaled to the Polish officers in Izvaniçe, directly across the river, of the desire of the embassy to cross. “Welcome distinguished guest,” they said. “We have ordered the appointment of a captain and thirty soldiers to escort you safely to the Silesian border; however, we cannot supply their mounts or their food.”“ 1 The following day the official exchange ceremony took place. The border lay half an hour west of Hotin. It was there that a passage by raft across the Dniester had been arranged. Various Ottoman offi­ cials boarded one raft with Ahmed Resmi, and escorted him to the middle of the river, where they were met by another raft from Izvaniçe containing two or three Polish officials. After the proper exchange of greetings and expressions of friendship, Ahmed Resmi was escorted by his new hosts to Izvaniçe. The stay there was unpleasant. The embassy was housed in a small castle north of Izvaniçe “ . . . a des­ picable place, with vile air.” Because the ambassador and his entou­ rage were forced to remain there ten days in order to hire carriages and horses, enduring great hardship, the majority of the embassy sickened.“2 110 (12-13). Gaspâri is Gaspard Gradani, ruler from 1619-1620. The Russian Tsar is Peter the Great (1682-1725). Sultan Ahmed refers to Ahmed III (1703-1730). 111 (15); also Beydilli, 82, note 15. Apparently, Ahmed Resmi expected Frederick to pay for his expenses in Poland. The passage expresses his surprise at the insignifi­ cance of the greeting and the disagreeable necessity of paying for his escort to the Silesian border. The doctor, one Dr. Hevclcke by name, reported it slightly differendy to Rexin: it was as if Ahmed Resmi had been “struck by lightning” (Volz, 34). Frederick steadfasdy refused to defray the embassy’s Polish expenditures, even going so far as to disavow any promises made by Dr. Hevelcke about payment in Krakow (Frederick 23:134; also Beydilli, 82). No evidence has been discovered about pay­ ments for expenses in Poland - on the contrary, the documents suggest that Otto­ man official responsibility ended at the Polish border. 11J (16). Ahmed Resmi was also no doubt suffering from the contretemps con­ cerning the expenses - to take ten days to hire carriages and horses seems a bit excessive even in those days.

76

CHAPTER TW O

Everything was finally arranged, and the embassy left Izvaniçe for its destination on 20 August.113 Two hours from Izvaniçe lay the fortress of Kameniçe, or “stone casde.” Ahmed Resmi was so taken with the notion of its long history and fame that he expressed a desire to visit it. As no obstacle was raised, the embassy stopped to stroll around and was entertained in the house of a local officer for two or three hours, affording Ahmed Resmi the opportunity to ob­ serve all parts of the casde. (16-17) The fortress, he explained, was situated on a broad plain, surrounded by a flowing river and a moat and dike system 70 feet (30 argtn) wide. It sat on a rock shelf, and was a middle-sized fortress, which having no need of towers or walls, appeared to have sprung out of nowhere. On the south side of the fortress, a small casde and redoubt had been built which was con­ nected by a long stone bridge as high as a minaret to the main casde. The building was largely in ruins, prompting Ahmed Resmi to ask why they allowed an essential fortress like this to fall into such a state? Their reply was that there was no enemy or spoiler except the Ottoman Empire, whose peace with the Poles was strong and eternal, so there was no reason to go to the trouble of repairing it. (17) Ahmed Resmi was reminded by this exchange of the “painful history” of the Kameniçe campaign of 1672/73. To punish the Poles for their bad behavior and “twist their ears,” the casde was con­ quered by overwhelming force. Minarets had been added to the two big churches within the fortress, making them “luminous mosques.” By the terms of the peace of 1699, the Treaty of Karlowitz, how­ ever, the casde had been returned to the Poles. As a souvenir of the Muslim presence, Ahmed Resmi continued, one of the minarets and one of the pulpits had been left in their original state. The mosque still bore the following inscription: “When you look at this building, you will find in it the health and well-being that no man can sup­ ply.” Ahmed Resmi finished his description of Kameniçe with a fer­ vent prayer for the quick return of the casde to its former Muslim state, with the calls to prayer clamoring out as before.114 in (16). This date (10 Safer) is simply wrong, as the embassy had arrived in Hotin on 4 September 1763. 114 (17-18). This passage is very representative of the simple and attractive style of Ahmed Resmi’s writing. Drawn by curiosity to Kameniçe, he describes it in detail easy to visualize. Then, an innocent question leads him to muse on its history and lament that it was lost to the world of Islam. The Kameniçe campaign was the northernmost penetration of the Ottomans into Polish territory. Ottoman control of the fortress lasted only from 1672-1699.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

77

Ahmed Resmi’s next stop of note was Lwow, following eight days of passing through towns and villages mosdy situated on lakes. (1819) Lwow was one of the cides of the province of Podolia, as was Kameniçe. By Ahmed Resmi’s description, it was a pretty place, with fortified oudying areas and gardens. During the siege of Kameniçe, in 1672, he continued, the Crimean Khan Selim Giray and the Aleppo Governor Kaplan Pa§a were ordered to plunder the surrounding countryside, and they reached as far as this area, doing their best to damage Lwow as much as possible with cannon and rifle. As a memory of their deeds, a cannonball had been deemed worthy of being hung in the arch of the main door of one of the churches. The histories record that at the time of the peace, [the city] saved itself by an indemnity of 80,000 kuru§. (19) Ahmed Resmi noted in passing that the color of the earth changed at Lwow from red-black to sandy. Three days later, the embassy arrived at the town of Mostiska, which belonged to the Cossack chief (Hetman). Two days were spent there, as guests of the Hetman. From there, the embassy crossed the San River, which was equal in size to the Dniester, ar­ riving in Jaroslav, twelve hours distant from Mostiska. This city had a rather old castle and was considered one of the esteemed cities [of Poland]. Krakow, six days hence, was the embassy’s next stop of note. Krakow was a fortress on the Silesian border, Ahmed Resmi noted, the ancient seat of the Polish kings where they were crowned and later buried. It was situated on the Vistula River, which resembled the Morava. The Vistula flowed to the east, arching like a bow as it passed towns and villages. After reaching the current capital of War­ saw, it continued to Danzig, on the shores of the North Sea. The port of Danzig was the center for commerce and the distribution of provisions by land and by sea, so the Polish countryside profited greatly by this river. No matter how small a piece of territory around Danzig might be in the hands of another people, it was considered part of Poland as it was under the protection of the Polish state.115 A Description of Poland Poland, Ahmed Resmi continued, was a large principality with bor­ ders on the Dniester, as well as Moldavia, Russia, Silesia, the

(19-20). Danzig was ultimately absorbed by Prussia in 1793. Ahmed Resmi no doubt alludes to the precariousness of its situation during this period.

78

CHAPTER TW O

Transylvanian Mountains and the North Sea. (28) It was a republic in which every region and every city had a different administration, and they neither paid attention to one another, nor obeyed the kings. In spite of the fact that the social and administrative arrangement was in such chaos, it was a prosperous and flourishing land. The neighboring countries were all desirous of finding a way of benefit­ ing from this country, but for two hundred years they had prevented one another from invading. For this reason, the Poles were tranquil in their lands and each region protected itself by alliance with a [different] state. The Poles had subjected two groups, the Russians and the Jews, continued Ahmed Resmi. The Russians were respon­ sible for heavy work like agriculture, while the Jews were in charge of buying and selling, and of customs duties and taxes. The Poles profited from the works of others, and busied themselves with the pleasures of life. The city dweller dressed in a long robe {dolama) like that of the Tatars with a jacket (cepken) and a light cap (kalpak) made of sheep skin. They took pride in their appearance saying that out of affection for the people of Islam they wore similar clothing. Ahmed Resmi continued with a brief analysis of Polish affairs: it had been an unbroken custom that when the King of Poland died, all the neighboring Christian countries, by virtue of age-old consid­ erations which circulated among them, would move into action to influence the selection of the new king. (28)116*On this occasion, the French and the Austrians interfered with words only. The Russians and Prussians, as everyone knows, because of their proximity to Polish 116 Ahmed Resmi was in Poland at the tíme of the death of Augustus III, 5 October 1763. The matter of Polish succession had become an acute one, prompt­ ing Rexin and the Russian representative in Istanbul in December 1763 to meet with the Ottomans and sign a non-interference agreement concerning the election of a native candidate as Polish king. (Beydilli, 85; Volz, 48; also Frederick, 23:1657, for Frederick’s views on the matter.) The Ottomans repeated the pledge in March 1764 to the rest of the diplomatic representatives, and again quite specifically to the French ambassador Vergennes in July of 1764. Vergennes had actively sought Ot­ toman interference in Polish affairs since late 1763 (see Aksan, “Ottoman-French,” 55.) A document dated 13 Safer 1178/12 August 1764, CH 3104, summarizing the Prussian-Russian-Ottoman discussions, is officially signed by Rexin and Obreskov. Ahmed Resmi’s quandary concerning his arrival in Poland is revealed in an un­ dated request to the sultan, stating that Ahmed Resmi’s stay with the Hetman (Johann Klemens Branicki) in Poland might be construed as influencing the elections (CH 674). Nigar Anafarta, Osmanlt Imparatorlugu ile LehtsUm (Polonya) Arasvtdakt MunasebetUrle llgili Tarihî Belgeler (Istanbul, 1979), 44-5, lists a series of documents relating to this event, T O P E 5184, E 7019/280, E 7019/11 (see also Beydilli, 82, note 14). Ahmed Resmi’s stay in Poland was therefore necessarily abbreviated by Augustus Ill’s death. Pages 21-7 of the text of the embassy constitute “A Digression on the geography of Europe” described above.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

79

territory, were most anxious to ensure the election of a king from amongst the Poles.117 So, using the pretext of gathering provisions as an excuse, the Russians sent troops into Poland in order to finish the matter. They arrived in Warsaw and significandy increased the number of troops in the capital, so much so that five to six months’ supplies for the city were exhausted in five to six days and it was rumored that quarrels broke out as a result of famine and shortages.118 The Poles were used to all the comforts of life, Ahmed Resmi reiterated, and were a pusillanimous people, so the most trifling action inspired in them awe and fear. In this instance, they said that the Tatar army on one side and the Russians on the other were plundering their country and they had been seen burying their goods under­ ground to hide them and scattering hither and yon. (29) Two days out of Krakow, the embassy arrived in Tamow, on the Silesian border, where they were met by their official Prussian guide.119 Because it had snowed at the beginning of October, the embassy remained there three or four days, replenishing its supplies. Then, the last leg of the journey to Berlin was begun. After six days, Ahmed Resmi arrived in the city of Breslau, the capital of Silesia, then ad­ ministered by one of the king’s generals. This city, situated on the Oder River, possessed a solid and defensible casde with well-main­ tained surrounding areas. The river surrounded the fortress with two or three levels of wide and deep moats. Additionally, the river joined another and passed Berlin in one direction. By another means, in another direction, it passed the previously described Hamburg and flowed into the North Sea. Breslau was a commercial center and as such, a prosperous and useful city. The herds of animals and other cargoes which started out in Wallachia, Moldavia, Poland and Akkerman were first brought to and sold in Breslau and then sent to various other cities and towns. A city more famous for its abundance and profitability or for its prosperity and solidity was not to be seen.120 The Ottomans insisted upon non-interference, in concert with Russia and Prussia, but misunderstood Catherine II and Frederick’s real motives, to judge from the anger at Poniatowski’s election. (Anderson, “European,” 256 and Bonneville de Marsangy, 2:307, 311.) "* (29). The matter of shortages preoccupied Ahmed Resmi during the RussoTurkish War, 1768-1774. It is interesting to see it surface in this earlier work. 119 (29). Major von Pirch: see Frederick, 23, 66-8, for Pirch’s complete instruc­ tions about conducting the embassy, dated 2 August 1763. Ahmed Resmi was to be considered an “envoyé extraordinaire.” 150 (30). The Oder and Spree/Elbe river systems do not connect. Here and else­ where Ahmed Resmi confuses the two large rivers.

80

CHAPTER TW O

The embassy moved on to Gtogów in four days and then to Frank­ furt in three more. Once again, Ahmed Resmi noted the prosperous and stable nature of the local fortress, located on the Oder River banks. Frankfurt also served as one of the border fortresses of Brandenburg province. Four days more and the embassy arrived at a place near Berlin, the “source of their pride and joy,” called Weisersee, much like a farm on a lake shore. Here, the embassy was allowed to rest six or seven days. Then during the second week of November 1763, the embassy proceeded into Berlin with great pomp and ceremony. (31) It had been ordained that the embassy was to be housed in a richly adorned mansion on the very western edge of the city. “The people of this region”, Ahmed Resmi continued, “were a strange bunch who had never seen a Muslim in their lives nor had they heard of an embassy of such magnificence, so they came with their families from distances of five to six days, gathering in the vil­ lages and towns through which we passed. From the time we stopped for the night until the moment we broke camp they were at our side, watching our every gesture. It is impossible to describe the press that resulted.” This was especially true on the day that the embassy entered Berlin. “It is difficult to describe the pains they took to see us. Big and little, young and old, they piled layer upon layer in the windows of the three-to-five story houses that lined the road. It is impossible to exaggerate the degree of respect and the extent of the friendliness they proffered.”121 Impressions of Berlin The city of Berlin, as described by Ahmed Resmi, was the capital of the king of Brandenburg and for that reason its like was not to be found in the surrounding area. Forty or fifty years earlier, it had been a middle-sized city, when the king’s grandfather, wishing to

121 (31-32). Ahmed Resmi arrived on 9 November 1763 (Volz, 37). He was ob­ viously captivated by his reception in Berlin, so much so that he narrated the events in first person plural, a departure from his general impersonal and modest tone. The simplicity and genuineness of this description must have made an impact on his readers back home. See Yirmisekiz Çclcbi’s similar experience, Gôçek, 44; also Mubadele, 91, where Abdiilkerim likens the crowd to that of the day of judgement. The people were struck speechless by his splendor (92). Frederick’s rather austere approach to diplomacy probably meant that normal folk were unused to the osten­ tation, the countryside having been subjected to rather constant war since 1740. This was also the first embassy from the Ottoman Empire to arrive in Berlin, and undoubtedly the first Muslims seen by most of the spectators.

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

81

enlarge it, had ordered the construction of canals in two or three places in the city, over which had been installed about thirty wooden bridges on hewn stone foundations. These canals resembled the Kagithane River. The king had ordered a likeness of himself in bronze seated on a horse installed at the head of a stone bridge.122 As time passed, houses, gardens and factories for industries requiring water, such as flour, sugar and textile mills, had been built on the river. Day by day, the houses and shops had grown more numerous. So that the city should have no need of anything from outside, such as tools or other articles of commerce, factories had been constructed to make cloth, and other kinds of goods. As the river was navigable, everyone made use of it. Full of endless numbers of pzm-like galleys and jayfa-like barges coming and going. The river connected to the Oder near Breslau and ended up in the north Sea at Hamburg and was never free of fleets of transport ships bringing provisions and goods downstream and up. The newly constructed houses were built in a straight line, shared a wall and resembled one another. The streets were a uniform width of forty to fifty arjwi [roughly 90 feet wide]. The north of the city was defined by the river while the other three sides were surrounded by a rather slight city wall. The longest day was sixteen and one-half hours. It was a beautiful city on the fifty-first latitude. (33-34) On the banks of the river were located the king’s palace and arsenal. In and around these were to be found gardens and palaces, fields and hunting preserves. In 1760, the Austrians and the Russian armies one after the other sacked the city and caused a lot of damage to the property of the inhabitants. Those inhabitants, however, had beautified their city once again with their houses. As the environ­ ment was free of extremes, there were many beautiful men and women. (34) Their houses were of stone, three or four stories high. In order to protect their belongings from the cold in winter and the heat in summer, it was necessary to build one floor of their houses

l'n (32). This is one of the few Ottoman/Islamic descriptions of an actual statue of a monarch, theoretically forbidden in an Islamic context. The king described is Frederick I, 1688-1713, Frederick the Great’s grandfather and the first ruler of the new Prussian Kingdom, from 1701. He was renowned for his love of show and splendor and made Berlin his headquarters. Berlin was a city of 70,000 under Frederick William I, Frederick the Great’s father (Harris, Absolutism, 165fT). The Kagithane River refers to the Sweet Waters of Europe, the imperial recreation area on the Golden Hom in Istanbul.

82

CHAPTER TW O

underground. The tops of their houses were covered with a thick kind of tile shaped like a protruding trough which seldom needed replacing. Fear of fire had made them take precautions. In addition to day and night watchmen, each street had five to ten wells with pumps and buckets on stakes at the ready.123 Because the city walls were very long there were still a number of empty places with houses and gardens installed on one side only. All kinds of plants and flow­ ers were to be found, brought from all over the world to be raised here. In the winter they used stoves to protect the plants so even coffee trees and other strange varieties could be seen.124 It was for­ bidden to import cloth and other commercial items, so the people had to make do with local products which were, as a result, very expensive. The people of Berlin were very fond of porcelain and the rich had special rooms set aside to display their collections. From time to time, they strolled in these rooms as though strolling through a gar­ den. They originally had had their porcelain brought from China and India but since the appearance of Saxony porcelain, they had grown particularly attached to it. Once their inclination to buy and sell chinaware had exceeded proper bounds, with a bowl going for twenty ducats (altin) and a decorated plate for five to ten ducats, the king prohibited the import of Saxony porcelain, so that his money would not leave the country. Instead, he brought craftsmen from Saxony and established a brand new factory which may in a few years time resemble that of Saxony.125 Brandenburg province was sandy and its agricultural products did not suffice to feed the popu­ lation, so most of the supplies were imported from Saxony and Po­ land while the saddle and pack animals came from Wallachia, Moldavia and Bucak.126 123 (33-35). Ahmed Resmi would appear to be impressed with the commerce of Berlin, and struck by the order, discipline and uniformity of architecture of the city, commenting on the heavy roofing tiles of Europe. It is worth remembering the constant threat of fire in Istanbul, a largely wooden city, apart from the imperial structures, (see P. G. Inciciyan, XVIII Asxrda Istanbul (Istanbul, 1956), 83-7, for a list of the major fires of the period.) 124 (35). A precaution which was unnecessary in the milder climate of Istanbul. Abdiilkerim also comments on the use of greenhouses and stoves in Mubadele, 112-3. 125 (36). Ahmed Resmi describes in two or three sentences the eighteenth century’s absorption with luxury goods, and the rising popularity of local porcelain. That Ahmed Resmi refers to Saxony as separate territory may mean he has incorporated pre-1757 information: Saxony was part of Prussia by the time of his visit. I2b (36). The passage accurately reflects developments in the Ottoman tributary’

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

83

The king was said to spend most of his time in Potsdam, a city seven hours distance from Berlin, because he feared the spread of information concerning his affairs by the large number of ambassa­ dors and officials in Berlin. The people of Berlin were Lutheran and they were free of religious quarrels. There were no idols in their churches. They took pride in their monotheism and evinced great enmity towards Catholics. They did not refute the prophecy of Muhammad and were not ashamed to say “We are becoming Mus­ lims.” (“Musliman oluruz demekten ar olmazlar.”).127 The Ambitions of Frederick Ahmed Resmi next set out to describe Frederick and his imperial ambitions. As Silesia was often spoken of as a territory under dis­ pute, the opportunity to explain its situation had arisen here, he began. Such a discussion needed a worthy introduction, so the “pen that depicted wonders was prompted into composition.” A short history followed on the rise of Islam and its spread into Anatolia, the settle­ ment of the Dani§mend, Selçuk and other tribes in the eleventh century and the rise of the Ottomans in the thirteenth century. The reigns of Selim I and Süleyman I and the subsequent battles with the Safavids were well-known, continued Ahmed Resmi. After about 1543, a weakness spread over the soldiers of the world and any in­ dividual who appeared and established a new state subsequently lacked the zeal to continue, falling into struggles to maintain his existence. In our own time, noted Ahmed Resmi, Mir Üveys and Nadir Shah, whose uprisings and conquests had continued for twenty to thirty years, never succeeded in extending their power beyond their own territory. Frederick, however, was heedless of self preservation and accom­ plished things simply by planning and zeal. Boiling in his brain was the intense ambition to conquer the German states and maybe even all of Europe. First, he conquered an outstanding and profitable region territories - the competition between Istanbul and Western Europe markets had begun to swing in Western Europe’s favor in this period. 127 (37). This passage prompted B. Lewis to declare that Ahmed Resmi “was probably mistaken in thinking that the Berliners were on the point of embracing Islam’’ (.Muslim Discoveiy, 116). It also made the editor of the Ebiizziya edition pause to reflect that Ahmed Resmi should not have used “shame’’ (ar) in reference to those who had the good sense to choose the true path (Prusya, 37, note). Ahmed Resmi had in fact just remarked on Lutheranism. His informant probably meant: “We could be Muslims.’’

84

CHAPTER TW O

like Silesia, equal to his own former seat of Brandenburg. Then he focused on Saxony, and thus, in place after place, by beating his adversaries, it appeared as if he would achieve his original aim. However, just as the changing nature of the world was an immu­ table law of God, so too the Christian states had continuously ad­ hered to rules concerning quarrels and the maintenance of equilib­ rium among themselves, giving a title and a principality to those of more lowly stature, so that they should not exceed their bounds by making a treaty with an enemy; or, forming an alliance by marriage with a prominent, noble family in order to achieve what they wanted. The conditions by which they could be prevented [from destroying the balance] were well established, should they proceed without the consent of the major powers. That is why Russia and France sided with Austria in order to cut off Frederick’s vigor and violence and confíne him in his original position. First, Prussia, bordering on Russia, was laid waste by Russian mobs, without a battle; then Brandenburg was attacked and overcome. Then, during 1760, they approached Berlin and its environs, the source of all the king’s pride. They spread like mange throughout most of the settled areas, one after the other, destroying everything, and extracting countless safe passage payments from the inhabitants. They raided and plundered the king’s arsenal and mansions and were the reason for the quenching of his fiery attack and the abatement of his destructive ambition. Three condi­ tions forced the conclusions of a peace treaty: the change of govern­ ment in Russia, the exhaustion of both the army and the treasury of the Austrians, and the alliance between Frederick and the Ottomans. The question of Silesia, however, remained a “large, indigestible morsel.” It lay between Bohemia, the backbone and source of pride of the Austrian emperor, and Poland. On the north, it was joined to Brandenburg and on the south, it bordered on the region of Timi§oara near Hungary. It was a region composed of several dukedoms which could raise about 30,000-40,000 soldiers, and was known for the wealth of its produce and the excellence of its food. It included a number of famous fortresses such as Breslau, which was also a com­ mercial center. Austria could no more think of abandoning Silesia than Brandenburg could think of giving it back, in spite of all the misfortune attached. It was perhaps an incurable disease, an exhausting preoccupation like the plague, between the two nations. The only consolation for the Austrians, who considered themselves the rightful owners, was to wait a more favorable moment. For Brandenburg, to

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

85

be forced to give it up would be a source of shame, and would mean that the hardships of the last twenty-five years had been for nothing. The threat of being beaten by the enemy was of course a source of anxiety and astonishment. Thus, Brandenburg’s only re­ course was to divert the enemy’s attention away from Silesia by at­ tacking from another direction, or to attempt to offer some of the enemy’s territory to his neighbors in an effort to weaken the enemy’s power. It was clear that he had no choice but to persist in seeking the results he desired.128 An Invitation to Potsdam After arriving in Berlin at the beginning of November 1763, Ahmed Resmi resumed, the ambassador and his entourage were installed in a house furnished for them on the western side of the city. Ten days later, the ambassador met with the chief minister to submit the grand vizier’s letter and establish the protocol for the reception by the king.129 Then the preparations for the submission of the sultan’s gifts began. The “magnificent ceremonial tent” was first set up at the embassy’s headquarters to check for any deficiencies, then it was sent with its attendants to the palace a day before the official reception and set up and furnished in an appropriate spot. The following day, the remaining gifts, apart from the horses, were wrapped and labeled and loaded onto horses. These presents were then escorted to the palace by special members of the embassy and an interpreter. They were set up in a comer of the reception hall on Persian carpets. 128 (40-43). This passage starts out uncharacteristically high-style, with rhymed prose and ellipsis in the expression of ideas. Fairly standard chronicle writing, with ample coverage (here condensed) of the Ottoman heritage, it lends credence to a theory that it, as well as some of the other sub-sections, might have been written on a separate occasion, while Ahmed Resmi was on the road, for example, or culled from another text which was also common practice. The European events Ahmed Resmi described arc those of the beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession in 1740 through the Russian and Austrian occupation of Berlin for a few days in 1760 (Williams, 253). The change of government in Russia obviously refers to the death of Elizabeth and the accession to the throne of Tsar Peter, the Prussophile. Ahmed Resmi was an eyewitness to the destruction caused by the successive wars, arriving in Berlin only a few months after the Treaty of Hubertusberg in February 1763. Frederick and Maria Theresa had indeed reached an impasse over Silesia. As Williams notes: “For the remainder of his reign, Frederick was condemned to cease­ less diplomatic and military activity designed to head off Austrian attempts at re­ venge.” (381) Ahmed Resmi’s understanding of Frederick's predicament is apparent, and his comments reveal an active interest in European affairs. vn Count Finckenstein was Frederick's chief minister at the time.

86

CHAPTER TW O

Then the three gift horses were adorned and placed in the care of the men appointed from the sultan’s stables. Ahmed Resmi’s own horse was saddled with the finest tack and blanket, and led by grooms, as it was the custom for the ambassador to ride in the carriage sent by the king. The ambassador’s retinue rode on horses supplied by the king, although they were equipped with Ottoman tack. The procession to the palace numbered about sixty, preceded by the es­ cort provided by the king.130 Reception protocol followed Austrian custom, Ahmed Resmi noted, from a book shown to them at the palace. The ambassador and fifteen of his retinue moved into the reception hall, with the sultan’s letter in the hands of the Embassy Secretary and the sultan’s crest in the hands of the Majordomo. The King, dressed in a light blue velvet outfit, “dusty with daily use,” was waiting on a raised dais covered with purple velvet, on which stood a silver throne and a table for the official letter. First, Ahmed Resmi conveyed his official message from Sultan Mustafa concerning the letter of friendship and the gifts. Thereafter, the letter and the crest were placed in the king’s hands one by one. He [Frederick] measured [the value of] the crest out of the comer of his eyes and placed it on the table next to him. Then, through an interpreter, the king welcomed the ambassador and thanked him for the good wishes of his master. The reception fin­ ished, the embassy returned home in the same way it had come. Following the departure, Ahmed Resmi afterwards learned, the king requested that the gift horses be paraded around the palace court­ yard by the sultan’s grooms while he watched from a window. He then ordered these same servants to remove the saddles and turn the horses over to his own men, all the time “lost in joy at the sparkle of the bejewelled saddles and gilded trappings.” Even though it was not his custom to give anything to anyone, Ahmed Resmi notes, he gave a watch and several pieces of gold to the sultan’s stable boys.131 It had been decided that Ahmed Resmi would remain in Berlin for six months as guest of the king, because it was winter, and that the equivalent of what had been given to the king’s ambassador in Istanbul for eighteen months for his maintenance would be given to Ahmed Resmi during his six month stay. Then the king returned to 130 (44). A drawing based on contemporary accounts of the procession can be found in Volz. 131 (46). The date of the reception was 21 November 1763 (see Frederick, 23:191). As this was the first reception of an Ottoman ambassador by Prussia, Frederick

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

87

his normal residence in Potsdam. Several days later, an invitation arrived from the king for Ahmed Resmi to join him in Potsdam to visit his palace and observe the military maneuvers which he himself had organized.132 After two or three days of attending the chase in the Potsdam woods with his brother-in-law, Ahmed Azmi, Ahmed Resmi was invited to a private interview with the king. Following a friendly and kind reception, the king brought up the matter that was actually on his mind, demonstrating on a map the advantages [of an alliance]. Ahmed Resmi answered, by his account, in a manner so as not to cause Frederick to despair.133 Potsdam, noted Ahmed Resmi in passing, was on the western side of Berlin at a distance of seven hours. It was a middle-sized city on the same river that flowed through Berlin. Most of it had been cre­ ated by the king, with richly adorned palaces and gardens and hunt­ ing lodges (houses). Most of the king’s time was spent in Potsdam, away from the bother of ambassadors, and free from the turmoil of the affairs and complaints of his courtiers. He was constandy occu­ pied, however, with considering the ways to administer his country obviously had no precedent to follow. Ahmed Resmi makes it clear that the value of the presents Frederick received was not lost on him. Frederick wasted no time capitalizing on their potential worth, discreedy selling them. The wording of the text tempts one to believe that Ahmed Resmi found all of this amusing but it may just be any normal ambassador's indignation at Frederick's informality (his dusty clothes) and a proper pride in the magnificence of his master’s gifts. Frederick was obviously tight-fisted, particularly at this time when he was in the midst of repara­ tions following the Seven Years’ War (Williams, 382; Scott, 155). 132 The invitation to Potsdam was part of Frederick's strategy to stir up specula­ tion in Moscow and Istanbul about potential alliances. Berlin diplomatic represen­ tatives were astonished as none of them had ever been similarly honored (Scott, 64). In the midst of negotiating an alliance with Catherine II, Frederick made use of Ahmed Resmi’s visit to starde Moscow into an agreement. On 22 November 1763, the day after his official reception with the ambassador, Frederick wrote Finckenstein that he should arrange a visit by Ahmed Resmi to Potsdam. Further, he noted, “ .. . pour donner à penser à certaines gens sur ce voyage, je voudrais qu’il eût un air comme s'il y avait du mystère caché. C ’est en conséquence qu’il faudrait qu'il commençât à aller à Charlottenburg, comme par un simple motif de curiosité, pour voir cette maison de plaisance, et qu’il poursuivit de là son voyage ici.” Such an undertaking was in his mind as early as 10 November 1763, in a letter to Finckenstein (Frederick, 23: 177-8). In another letter to Comte de Solms, Frederick’s represen­ tative in Saint Petersburg, Frederick noted that he planned a private interview with the Turkish ambassador (Frederick, 23:191). 133 (47). The interview took place on 29 November 1763. On 30 November, Frederick reiterated the proposed points of the alliance in a letter to Ahmed Resmi (Frederick, 23:201-2). Frederick noted that his recent separate peace treaty with Russia (May 1762) had created a rift between Austria and Russia, and that Pnissia's current influence over Russia would keep Russia from interfering with the Polish

88

CHAPTER TW O

and pursue strategies of war, noting them and reminding his men of state and commanders of those things they needed to know, by sug­ gestion and demonstration. A Conversation with Frederick During his stay in Berlin, Ahmed Resmi and his entourage were assiduously feted. A carriage was placed at their disposal, and the notables of the city saw to it that they were well entertained. Every second or third day, the king’s relatives and other officers and gentle­ men invited them to their homes and gardens, especially on the biggest and most joyful holiday, $eker ziyafed (“Candy Feast:” Christmas?). A great deal of energy was spent to pass the time, in accordance with the proverb: “Dâruhum ma damta fî dàrihim” (approximately, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do”). During the long nights of the wintertime, the king came to Berlin from Potsdam and contrary to custom spent about two months there, expending some effort in organizing the theater (hayalhane) called “comedy.” On a number of occasions Ahmed Resmi was invited and a special box {sofa) was set aside for him. The king would come with his relatives and friends, demonstrating pleasure in, and kindness to the gathered assembly. The dancing girls and actors told stories about their match-making between lover and beloved, and in the intervals, music and joyful songs were played. In this way, three or four hours passed quite pleasantly.134

election of a native king. It was in Ottoman interests to prevent the election of an Austrian prince to the throne of Poland or the perpetuation of the Saxony line. Frederick proposed a defensive alliance that would call for diversionary tactics should either one of the signatories be attacked by Austria. Prussia would create a diversion in Austrian territory and the Ottomans would do the same in Hungary. Frederick undertook no guarantees against Russia, however, as Prussia neither bordered Rus­ sian territory nor had the necessary Black Sea fleet to undertake such an attack. The exception of Russia of course was totally unacceptable to Istanbul. It certainly throws into doubt the sincerity of Frederick’s proposals. Frederick wrote Finckenstein the same day that he should inform his diplomatic representative in Russia of the recent meeting so as to dispel doubts about his intentions (Frederick, 23:202). Ne­ gotiations with Catherine II about an alliance had been underway since she had assumed the throne in July of 1762. Frederick was optimistic that an alliance with the Ottomans was possible. The climate was apparently also right in Istanbul, with both Mustafa III and Grand Vizier Kose Mustafa Bahir Pa$a desirous to conclude such an alliance, but it was decided that the details should wait until Ahmed Resmi’s return to Istanbul, one of the factors which determined Frederick to hasten Ahmed Resmi’s departure from Berlin. m (49). Hayalhane was often used for the western theater, there being no equiva-

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

89

Sometimes another gathering called a masked ball, was organized, where men and women intermingled (karmakarq, literally, all mixed up). They threw a red silk or tafetta cloak-like thing over themselves and covered their faces with masks resembling men’s faces, thus preventing them from recognizing one another. As they began to wander around the pleasure palace (kärhane) and their feelings were aroused, everyone took the hand of a lady who caught his fancy. All jealousy and protectiveness were set aside. They swayed (ihtizaz, for dancing), moving up and down and far and wide. Thinking they were hidden by the disguises, they would go where they pleased, arm in arm. After the gathering, a feast for the king was spread out in one of the rooms of the kärhane. Here the gloomy masks were removed. The king asked only his favorites to stay with him, eating and drinking joyfully until five or six in the morning. Those who were privileged to attend were justly pleased and proud.135 During this time, the king came one night to the house of a no­ table who lived near the ambassador’s residence and called Ahmed Resmi to his side. Frederick began by asking if the Devlet-i Aliye in­ tended to go to war in the next few years. He followed that with a question about the Prut campaign of 1711. Why, he asked, had the Ottoman Empire treated the Russian Tsar (Peter the Great) leniently when it was possible to capture and enslave him? Ahmed Resmi’s answer is worth reporting in full: “At the time you mention,” he began, “the Devlet-i Aliye had only recently been at war with four kings for seventeen years. The sultan would not permit the inhabit­ ants of such a vulnerable place to be destroyed. So, simply to repel

lent in the Ottoman context. The play he saw was I Portentosi Effeti della Madre Natura at the Schloss Theater on December 19 (Volz, 42) - in the commedia dcll’arte tradition with dancing, singing and light-hearted plots. (49 50). Ahmed Resmi’s description of a masked ball (held December 22) is one of the fullest to reach Ottoman readers in this period. It conveys the freedom and exuberance of a ball in a slightly voyeuristic manner. A sedate Muslim was no doubt horrified by the liberated manners of the men and women. Karhane means both brothel, i.c., a pleasure palace, as well as work place, or factory. Ihtizaz which Ahmed Resmi used for dancing literally means “vibrate, tremble, agitate.” Theater and balls were not the only events arranged for Ahmed Resmi. He visited a second­ ary school (Realschule) and was present at lessons and an exam. He heard music and a sermon at the Jerusalemerkirchc, visited a sugar refinery, the royal foundry, and porcelain and textile factories. On the 31st of December, Ahmed Resmi was present at a sitting of the Royal Academy of Science and saw several chemical experiments, (sec Volz, 41 3) The exclusions are as interesting as the inclusions in Ahmed Resmi’s version of events.

90

CHAPTER TW O

the attack and act as a barrier like the ‘wall of Alexander’ to the flood-like military onslaught, a commander was quickly appointed. The tsar fell prisoner to his own bad acts and was face to face with hardships like eating the leaves of trees, so in order to make haste to save himself, he was prepared to surrender Azov casde. As ‘forgive­ ness is the charity of victory,’ it was a natural act of generosity on the part of the sultan to grant his wish.” Although the king appeared to accept that, Ahmed Resmi continued, it was clear that Frederick himself, having been extremely vexed by the Russians, was mortified at the kindness which had been shown them by the Ottomans fiftyfour years earlier.136 As six months had passed and the end of winter approached, Ahmed Resmi was invited to the palace on 22 April 1764 to receive Frederick’s reply to the official letter of Mustafa III. The King received him in a different room of the palace. The usual ceremonies took place. After Ahmed Resmi had informed Frederick of his desire to return to Istanbul, and of his having arrived to accept the letter, Frederick expressed his thanks to the embassy and his confidence in the friend­ ship which would bring about what he desired in Istanbul. After the letter had been given to Ahmed Resmi, the Minister of State pre­ sented him with some small gifts.137 The Return Journey At the beginning of May 1764, Ahmed Resmi left Berlin, arriving in Breslau fourteen days later. The embassy stayed there five to six days, arranging transportation, and then pushed on to the Polish border. The next stop mentioned by Ahmed Resmi was on 5 June 1764, in Horodenka, a town fifteen hours from Hotin which constituted the border between Poland and Moldavia. There they were greeted by the guide of the Moldavian governor as before, and crossing the

136 (51-2). The 1699 Karlowitz Treaty did follow some seventeen years of con­ tinuous campaigning. Baltaci Mehmed Paja, Grand Vizier and Commander of the Army at Prut, was excoriated for his allowing Peter the Great to escape so easily (OT 4:1, 86-91). 137 (52-3). The date of the ceremony is recorded elsewhere as 20 April 1764. Ahmed Resmi’s departure was not as harmonious as his own account of it would suggest. Frederick was anxious for Ahmed Resmi to leave because he no longer needed him, having just signed a defensive alliance with Catherine II (11 April 1764, Scott, 167). According to Scott, this accounts for the brevity and ill-tempered departure ceremonies (Scott, 168). O f equal importance, as Ahmed Resmi did not have signatory powers, his continued presence in Berlin simply delayed the possibil-

AHMED RESMI IN VIENNA AND BERLIN

91

Prut at the town of Chernovtsy, they arrived in Potçan, where they stayed three days because it was a holiday (the Feast of the Sacrifice, 10 Zilhicce), and because of continuous rain. (53-54) In three more days, the embassy arrived in Jassy, capital of the Moldavian Voyvoda Ligor III (Gregory Alexander Ghica, March 1764-February 1767), who chanced to be there. They once again put their carriages and horses into order and proceeded to the Danube by way of Berlat and Foksani, having heard that the Galatz and Maçin route would be difficult because of the season. Foksani was the border town be­ tween Moldavia and Wallachia, so they were greeted there by the Wallachian Voyvoda's guide, after a three days’ journey from Jassy. Without stopping at Bucharest, they arrived at Oltenita, between the Danube and the Argeç rivers. They crossed at last into Ottoman territory at Tutrakan at the beginning of July 1764. After ten months of longing (