Desktop versionMobile version
OpenEdition Books

Insularités ottomanes

 | 
Nicolas Vatin
, 
Gilles Veinstein

Les étrangers et l'insularité ottomane

Ottoman Territoriality Versus Maritime Usage

The Ottoman Islands and English Privateering in the Wars with France 1689-1714

Colin Heywood

Full text

I would like to express my gratitude to the National Maritime Museum and in particular to Dr Nigel Rigby, Director of Research, for allowing me to make use of James Looker’s “Joumall” and other manuscripts in their possession. The award of a Caird Part-Time Fellowship (2002-3) at the National Maritime Museum allowed work on the “Journall” and on a number of other projects, including the post-conference revision of the present paper, to be carried forward. Earlier and some of the continuing work on these projects was also funded in part by a research grant from the Wellcome Foundation for the History of Medicine, which I would also wish to acknowledge

  • 1 Meyer, “English privateering in the war of 1688 to 1697”; Id., “English privateering in the war of (...)
  • 2 Bromley, Corsairs and Navies; Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise.
  • 3 Cf. López Nadal, “Mediterranean privateering,” especially p. 109-111, and Fontenay, “Il mercato mal (...)

1It is now more than two decades since the English maritime historian W. R. Meyer observed that the history of English privateering during the quarter-century of virtually unbroken conflict against Louis XIV had been a neglected study ever since the pioneering work undertaken fifty years previously by Sir George Clark.1 In reality, the subject had not been entirely neglected: the immensely stimulating work of the late J. S. Bromley had already largely appeared, even before Meyer wrote. Nonetheless, the posthumous publication of Bromley’s collected articles in 1987 and the appearance in 1990 of David Starkey’s exhaustive study of British privateering in the eighteenth century have been the main markers of a revival of domestic interest in the field.2 Some openings for further research, perhaps more geographical than chronological, still remain, as a reading of the above-mentioned works, and as reference to the work of European scholars on the same period such as Michel Fontenay and Garcia López Nadal makes apparent.3

  • 4 Cf. the observations in my “The Kapudan Pasha,” p. 413-414, n. 12, 13. 1 must here apologise for an (...)
  • 5 Cf, inter alia, the well-known works by Fisher, Barbary Legend; Earle, Corsairs of Malta and Barbar (...)
  • 6 Oriente Moderno, XX (LXXXI) (“The Ottomans and the Sea,” K. Fleet ed.).
  • 7 Zachariadou (ed.), The Kapudan pasha.
  • 8 In connection with the present paper I mention contributions to the Cambridge seminar by Elizabeth (...)

2One such opening, as I have observed in an earlier paper,4 remains the lack of any detailed study of English (or British, since, as will be seen, it must also include the Scots) privateering in Mediterranean waters east of the Sicilian narrows, and more specifically off the Aegean and Mediterranean littoral of the Ottoman Empire and in the waters surrounding its islands in the Aegean and eastern Mediterranean, at any time from the age of Drake to that of Nelson. This is the more surprising for two reasons. Firstly, English maritime activity in connection with the Barbary Regencies of Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli during these three centuries has not lacked its interpreters.5 Secondly, in recent years a growing interest in the sea has been manifested amongst Ottoman historians, a development signalised by a sudden proliferation of international symposia and seminars on the subject. One may note in particular conferences on “The Ottomans and the Sea,” held at the Skilliter Centre for Ottoman Studies, Newnham College, Cambridge, in March 1996;6 and on the office of the Ottoman Kapudan Pasha, held in Crete in January 2000,7 and also a Skilliter Centre Seminar on “Ottoman Piracy,” held on 5 February 2000, the papers from which remain mainly unpublished.8

  • 9 For example, of the 2,239 prizes condemned down to January 1712 in the course of the Spanish Succes (...)

3With regard to the present paper, the typology of English privateering activity in Ottoman waters, statistically insignificant as it undoubtedly was in terms of the overall pattern of English and Dutch (and French) privateering during the period of the wars against Louis XIV,9 may perhaps be discussed with profit in the context of Ottoman insularity, since it was in the island-crowded waters of the Aegean Sea – the Arches or the Archipelago of English shipmen – or within the port limits of Cyprus that the majority of maritime incidents involving the incursions of English (or Scottish) pirates or letters-of-marque ships and their coming into conflict with Ottoman concepts of terrestrial and maritime sovereignty mainly occurred.

  • 10 Details in Clark, “English and Dutch privateers,” p. 215-216.
  • 11 PRO SP 105/209, p. 58-59.

4British policy in the eastern Mediterranean, and specifically in Ottoman waters, with regard to the prosecution of the war at sea against France, was cautious in the extreme, both on the part of the Crown and of the Levant Company. The Admiralty had traditionally been reluctant to grant commissions of letters of marque to ships engaged in the Mediterranean trade, and it was not until 1694-1695 that the Privy Council authorised them for merchant ships of over 200 tons burthen, carrying at least twenty guns, and having half of their ships’ companies as landsmen.10 The Levant Company was ever fearful of Ottoman avanias against their trade and factories. Incidents were, wherever possible, to be avoided. In 1696 the Company thought fit to remind William Raye, consul in Izmir, with reference to the “trouble and expence occasioned by Capt. Masters taking the French tartan, so near the Castle, which we wish had never happened,” of “the strict command his majesty has been pleased to lay upon the Captains of his men of war, not to molest the Grand Signor’s Ports, but to leave them free for Enemies as well as friends to pass in and out.”11 This passivity contrasted with attitudes, even amongst English diplomats at the Porte, for a more aggressive stance where potential complications with the Ottomans would not be of relevance:

  • 12 BL Add MS 61535, Sutton to [Sunderland], Pera, 17 Oct. 1707.

“The French drive so great and general a Trade to all the Ports of the Turks Dominions, that I have several times taken the boldnesse to represent the great advantage, that might be reaped, if some Frigats were appointed to cruize together in the Winter & Spring about the Channel of Malta, the French ships going sometimes single, sometimes in whole Fleets without Convoy, & never yet with above two frigats of between 40 and 50 guns to attend them.”12

  • 13 BL Add MS 61535, Sutton to [Sunderland], Pera 10 July 1707.

5In Ottoman waters Sutton was constrained to urge greater flexibility on fleet commanders. In July 1707 he was summoned to an interview by the Grand Vizir to listen to Ottoman complaints that English men-of-war lying off Izmir “block up the Port of Smyrna by hindring the French from going in and out of it.” Sutton’s suggestion was that the commanders of HM ships should have liberty to cruise while the French merchant ships lay in port, rather than be obliged, as they then were, to “lye still near three months by the Castle of Smyrna, and therby occasion complaints without any advantage to the Publick.”13

  • 14 Vatin, “Un exemple de relations frontalières,” p. 349, n. 1; van den Boogert, “Redress for Ottoman (...)
  • 15 A fuller collection of Ottoman material for the elucidation of this problem remains to be undertake (...)

6What was the Ottoman view regarding maritime sovereignty? Recent studies by M. Nicolas Vatin and others have opened up this hitherto neglected field; M. Vatin’s view, amply documented in his study of the Ottoman maritime frontier with Rhodes in the four decades preceding the Ottoman conquest of the island (1522), is that, as far as the Ottomans were concerned, on peut s’interroger sur l’existence de frontières maritimes, mais le concept d’“eaux territoriales” était inconnu.14 This is not to say that this was equally the case in the late seventeenth century.15 Within this context, the aim of the present paper is the modest one of presenting a handful of unstudied maritime incidents which may serve to illuminate the legal and situational complexities generated by British commerce-raiding against French shipping in what we may still refer to (for want of a better term) as Ottoman waters, during the wars against Louis XIV.

7The first incident, that involving Capt. Charles Newnam, master of the Blackham Galley, a London armed merchantman and letter-of-marque ship, dates from the last year of the Nine Years’ War and had its origin in the months immediately preceding the signature of the Treaty of Ryswick; a further two incidents, one involving the activities of Dugal Campbell, a Scottish privateer, and the other those of a certain Benjamin Grey, the (apparently) English commander of a freebooting Mediterranean tartane, both occurred in 1709, in the latter years of the War of the Spanish Succession.

  • 16 Bromley, “The French Privateering War,” p. 213.
  • 17 PRO HCA 26/3, “[Register of] Letters of Marque or reprizalls from May 1695-10th of Septr. 1697 [,] (...)
  • 18 PRO HCA 26/2, f. 168.
  • 19 Looker’s “Journall” serves as the basis of my article “The Kapudan Pasha.” The manuscript is in the (...)

8“Privateer” is an imprecise term, as J. S. Bromley has pointed out, and many if not most of the British vessels encountered in Ottoman waters with hostile intent are better described as “armed traders,” commissioned, as the French term had it, en guerre et marchandises, sometimes deliberately, pour faire la course en chemin faisant.16 Most of the English vessels for which letters of marque were issued for voyages “within the Straits” during the wars against Louis XIV fall into this category. One such London armed merchantman, the Blackham Galley, “250 tons, 26 guns and 60 men,” was typical in its size, crew and armaments of English armed merchantmen of the years around the turn of the eighteenth century. Letters of marque for its 1696-1698 voyage to the Straits appear not to have been recorded in the relevant High Court of Admiralty register,17 but for an earlier voyage, undertaken in 1694, the letter-of-marque registration has been preserved.18Concerning the 1696-8 voyage of the Blackham Galley, I have already written at length on the basis of the invaluable detailed diary kept by the ship’s surgeon, John Looker. The Blackham’s only seizure under its letters of marque, that of a French-flagged settea off Tenedos, had serious repercussions, the political and diplomatic aspects of which are discussed at length in my above-mentioned article.19

  • 20 Bromley, “A Letter-Book of Robert Cole,” p. 39-41.

9Distinctly less legal even in form than the activities of the Blackham Galley were those more than a decade later of an unnamed vessel commanded by a certain Dugal Campbell. According to Robert Sutton, British ambassador at the Porte, Campbell had brought his ship into “these seas” – i.e. into the Ottoman waters of the Aegean – “for corn." The intended destination of the cargo he was seeking is not specified, but from the evidence it may be reasonable to deduce that such a cargo would have been destined for the support of the allied armies in Spain. Sutton, from his vantage-point in Istanbul, was able to discover that Campbell had been fitted out for cruising by certain (unnamed) English merchants in Minorca, armateurs in all but name: at this point in the war it should be noted that the allied commander in Spain was actively seeking to purchase corn from Algiers through the intermediacy of the English consul, Robert Cole.20 Campbell’s quest seemed to have succeeded when he came across and surprised a French barque laden with corn, lying in a creek on the island of Ipsera [sic: Antipsara], Campbell took the French ship as prize, and offloaded its cargo into his own vessel.

10Campbell then put to sea again, leaving his mate, one John Gardyne, and six men as prize crew on the French barque. The prize soon ran into bad weather, and was wrecked on the coast of the island of Negroponte (Eğriboz, Evvoia). The crew, with one exception, were saved and taken to Eğriboz, where the Ottoman authorities appear to have become involved for the first time. The French consul on Eğriboz, identified only by Sutton as “M. Charles,” accused the survivors of piracy and, being employed as interpreter in their examination before the local pasha, “by a false and treacherous interpretation” made the prize crew confess that their original vessel had been fitted out at Livorno to cruise against the Sultan’s subjects. On the basis of this falsified testimony a “hoggiet or public attestation” – i.e. a cadi’s hüccet – was made, and the surviving members of the prize crew were condemned to the galleys.

  • 21 BL MS Add. 61535, f. 43-44. Sutton to [Sunderland], Pera, 7 July 1709.

11The prisoners were shipped to Istanbul, where their situation came to Sutton’s notice. Although only Gardyne, Campbell’s mate and de facto master of the French prize, was a Briton – the other survivors were a Maltese, a Majorcan, and three Italians – Sutton made a successful application to the Grand Vizir for their release, and had the men sent down to Izmir for passage home on a friendly vessel.21

  • 22 For an extensive treatment of this topic, based primarily on 15th and 16th century Ottoman document (...)
  • 23 For the case of two Irish privateers operating in 1710 and 1711 – but where? – without benefit of l (...)
  • 24 The island of Leros, in the Dodecanese.

12The second incident from 1709 is provided by the near-piratical privateering activities of a certain Benjamin Grey, who may be assumed to have been English. The incident provides an attractive illustration of the consequences stemming from the Ottoman legal view that all re’âyâ, unless proved to be slaves, were legally free persons, and that the duty of the sultan and, by extension, of his servants, was to enforce this view.22 Grey – in effect a pirate, rather than a privateer – was in command of a tartane, and occupying himself with cruising in the Archipelago, without possessing either a commission, instructions, or letters of marque.23 He had already taken several prizes when he came into conflict with the local Ottoman authorities through his capture of a French settea, freighted by “Turks and Jews the Grand Signior’s subjects,” and bound for Jaffa. Grey caused the French settea to be brought into the port of Lero.24 At Lero Grey declared the Jews’effects to be good prize, while keeping the Jews and Turks captive on board. In the meantime, one of the sultan’s galleys entering the port, its commander, “hearing the Jews cry out, that they were plundered and made Slaves, & beg to be delivered,” seized first the tartane’s prize, and then the tartane itself. The levends from the galley’s crew set about plundering the tartane of its arms, ammunition, “and whatever else came to hand,” in the course of which a set of Maltese colours were discovered. Setting a guard furnished by local inhabitants on the tartane, the Ottoman galley commander carried off Grey and the remainder of his crew into custody on Chios.

  • 25 Details taken from Sutton’s despatch of 7 July 1709 to [Sunderland], loc. cit.

13Here again, as on Eğriboz, the local French consul and community nobly played their expected role, and “did all in their power to make [Grey] appear a Pirate.” This was not perhaps a difficult task, and in truth Grey’s position was not a strong one. As Sutton had already noted, he possessed neither a commission from the Queen nor any Admiralty letters of marque. Further, Grey was a notorious character amongst the French communities of the Aegean littoral, someone who, according to Sutton, had “rendered himself terrible to the French in the Arches, there being then no lesse then 3 or 4 Masters of French Vessels, which he had taken & sold.” Almost two years previously – i.e. some time in 1707 – he had commanded a French prize vessel fitted out at Izmir, with which, while en route to Livorno, that major Mediterranean entrepot for privateers from both sides, he took a further French ship as prize. Afterwards he was chased himself – by the French, or by the Algerines is not made clear – and as a result lost his ship on the coast of Sardinia. From there he escaped across the short stretch of the Tyrrhenian sea to Livorno, where certain members of the resident English merchant community, “judging him well acquainted with these seas,” gave him command of the tartane and put into his hands “a Mediterranean passe... dated in the year 1704 and subscribed by the Earl of Bridgwater and Admirall Churchill.” Shaky credentials indeed, which the Ottoman authorities at the Porte would look at very carefully when it came into their hands – as Sutton relates, he obtained the details from a copy of it taken by his secretary, “when it lay in the hands of Signor Mavrocordato to be interpreted.”25

14Sutton, for the second time in the space of a couple of months, went into action at the Porte in defence of a dubious character and his allegedly piratical crew. On the arrival of the galley at Istanbul, he wrote, he endeavoured to clear Grey and his men, despite their notoriety, and in the teeth of strong representations from the French ambassador, who was also doing his best to get Grey and his crew condemned to the galleys as pirates. Once again, Sutton was successful, but nonetheless the Ottoman authorities took a close interest in the details of the incident: on Sutton’s visiting the Kapudan pasha, who had promised to release the tartane and its crew, on the occasion of the embarkation of the Ottoman fleet, the Kapudan pasha “afterwards took a note of the men, and the places where they were born,” and submitted what was termed a “representation” – clearly a tezkere – to the Grand Vizir, to the effect that the tartane was found “with Maltese colours hanging out,” that the “greatest part” of the seamen were Maltese and Livornese, “enemies to this Empire,” but that if the Grand Vizir so ordered it, he would set Grey and the English [sic] sailors at liberty and cause their tartane, and all that had been taken from them, to be restored.

  • 26 Ibid.

15The outcome was that the Grand Vizir issued a further command that matters should be expedited in accordance with the Kapudan pasha’s representations, and accordingly a firmân was delivered to Sutton for the restitution of the tartane, and Grey with six English seamen were handed over to him. The ten Maltese and Italians from the tartane’s crew, however, were detained. Sutton thereupon presented another memorial to the Grand Vizir, demanding their release. A vizirial command was accordingly issued, “at sight whereof the Capitan Pasha promised to set them free,” but being then on the point of departure he procrastinated, first sending his kahya to the Porte, and then visiting the Grand Vizir himself, “and so managed the matter with him as to take the boldnesse to depart without executing his order.”26

  • 27 BL Add. MS 61535, f. 7-8. Sutton to Shrewsbury, Pera, 12 March 1706/7.
  • 28 [Ahmed II]. Firmân to the [grand] vizir, the kapudan pasha Yusuf Pasha, and cadis of Izmir and Saki (...)

16The Kapudan pasha’s noncompliant attitude to the Grand Vizir’s order to release the Maltese and Italian members of the tartane’s crew should not occasion much surprise: Maltese piracy in the Archipelago was a constant problem for the Ottoman authorities. In March 1707 Sutton reported that “the Capitan pasha will go this summer with the Gallies & the greatest part of the ships into the Archipelago & Mediterranean, to keep those seas clear of the Maltese & gather the usual tribute from the islands.”27 On the other hand, there is plentiful evidence in both consular reports and the accounts of travellers that Ottoman attempts to prevent the depredations of Algerine corsairs against “Frankish,” more specifically English, shipping in the Archipelago and ashore at Izmir and elsewhere remained largely a dead letter.28

*

  • 29 Cf. the contemporary Italian translation of a slightly later ‘arzuhal of Ibrahim, cadi of Izmir, ad (...)
  • 30 PRO SP 105/335 (Izmir Consulate Turkish Entry Book), f. 48 v°, 1: 25 Muh. 1102/19/29 Oct. 1690: Tra (...)
  • 31 [William Raye] to the kapudan pasha Yûsuf Pasha, Izmir, 30 Oct. 1692 [OS], Contemporary Italian tra (...)

17What then can be said concerning Ottoman attitudes to the piracy or privateering which was carried on in “their” waters and particularly in and around the islands of the Archipelago? A clear distinction seems to have been made by the Ottomans between English (or British) privateers across the spectrum of legality and the British crews of such vessels, all of which seem generally to have been treated with leniency, even with indulgence; and privateers and crews (or part-crews) of southern European (scil. Catholic/Spanish, Italian or Maltese) origins. These last were regarded as harbî kâfirler, inveterate enemies of the Porte, their ships to be hunted down by Ottoman galleys, their nationals, wherever encountered, even on “friendly” vessels, to be enslaved and sent to serve in the Ottoman fleet. On the other hand, the Ottoman attitude to the maritime participants in King William’s War, France on the one side, and England and the United Provinces on the other, was one of studied neutrality and a desire to keep out of the conflict, whatever the current ascendancy at the Porte of one or the other side. Evidence for this can be gathered from a buyuruldu from the kapudan pasha Hüseyn Pasha, addressed to the cadi, commissioner for customs (gümrük emini) and police chief (voyvoda) of Izmir in October 1690, prohibiting the embarkation of Muslims on Allied – i.e. Dutch and English – ships (le Navi de’ Confederati) in view of the state of war “amongst the Infidels,” it having been noted at the Porte29 that whenever ships belonging to one side were seized by the other, any Muslims on board the captured vessel were enslaved and their merchandize taken as prize, and that the ambassadors of the said powers resident at the Porte were unable either to prevent this happening or to secure the liberation of the slaves.30 This view was shared by at least the English, on the evidence of an ‘arz from Consul Raye to the then kapudan pasha Yûsuf Pasha, dated October 1692, requesting that the provisions of the earlier buyuruldu be strictly enforced.31

  • 32 PRO HCA 26/3. The ships in question were 1°) the Cheisly Galley (15 May 1696, f. 83); 2°) the Trumb (...)
  • 33 PRO HCA 26/3, f. 83.
  • 34 The other owners of the De Grave were Sir Alexander Rigby, Stephen Pembury, John de Graves, Samuel (...)

18In the last fourteen months of the Nine Years’ War five armed merchantmen known to have operated in Aegean waters can be identified in the pages of the relevant Letter of Marque Register.32 All were well armed. The Cheisly Galley (Capt. John Mayne, 220 tons, 50 men), licensed for “one voyage to Newfoundland and the Streights and back,” carried (in addition to victuals for eight months) 20 guns, 15 barrels of powder, 15 rounds of great shot, and 250 weight of small shot (i.e., for each gun), and 50 small arms.33 The Trumbull Galley (Capt. Henry Duffield) was larger than the Cheisly by fifty per cent: 330 tons and 80 men, licensed for “one voyage to Smyrna and back again to England,” victualled for twelve months and carrying 30 guns, 20 barrels of powder, 20 rounds of great shot, a hundredweight of small shot and 50 small arms. Vastly larger than the Trumbull was the De Grave, whose burthen tonnage of 880 exceeded by 130 tons that of the Blackham, the Cheisly and the Trumbull combined. The De Grave, whose first-named owner was Sir Richard Blackham, the eponymous “chief owner” of the Blackham Galley, carried a crew of 200. Licensed for one voyage to the Straits and return, she carried a formidable armament of 52 guns, backed by 100 barrels of powder, 18 rounds of great shot, “about 5 Tons” of small shot and 80 small arms.34

  • 35 PRO HCA 26/3, t. 150.
  • 36 PRO HCA 26/3, f. 164. By the time the Blackham encountered the Delavall at Messina on her own homew (...)

19In the final weeks of the war, when the diplomats gathered at Ryswick were already in the last stages of their negotiations, letters of marque were issued for the last two Levant merchantmen to appear in the Nine Years’ War Letters of Marque Registers. The Mermaid Galley, Capt. Ralph Thorpe, carrying 12 months’victuals and licensed on 18 June 1697 for “one voyage to the Straits and back againe,” was of much the same size and armament as the Trumbull: 320 tons, with 22 guns and four patereroes, 26 barrels of powder, 20 rounds of great shot, four hundredweight of small shot, and 50 small arms.35 Finally, on 20 July 1697, the last entry in the register is for the Delavall Galley. The Delavall, commanded by the ill-starred Jonas Cock, was licensed for one voyage to Lisbon and the Straits. Ten days later, on 29 July, “pursuant to a warrant from the Lords of the Admiralty,” the licence was revoked.36

  • 37 PRO HCA 30/774.
  • 38 PRO HCA 30/774, f. 222, 231, 245. The Panther (by then under Captain Robert Robinson, and listed as (...)

20Of the prizes taken in these last years of the war by some of the English vessels mentioned, some notice may be taken. In the Nine Years’ War Prize List37 the Panther, under the bellicose Captain Samuel Fuller, is recorded as capturing the St. Dominique (Captain Joseph Viard) and the St. Thérèse (Captain Francis Rondon), taken into Livorno on 7 December 1696; the Trumbull, acting in consort with the Clowdisley Galley (Captain George Matthews) took the Jesus Maria Santa Anna, a small vessel of 30 tons carrying spirits, tallow, hide, and beeswax, which they brought into Messina on 24 February 1697.38

  • 39 PRO SP 105/155, f. 191 (old p. 383).

21The belligerent activities in Ottoman waters of the armed merchantmen chartered out of London was not always welcome to the conservative, not to say timid, elements of the Levant Company. The Court of Assistants – effectively its board of directors – worked themselves up into a fine lather at their meeting on 27 October 1696, in response to news that a certain Captain Pickering had taken a French ship, the Madonna di Carmine (Captain Boysson), out of “Lymasol on the island of Cyprus,” an act which it “was apprehended may prove of dangerous consequence to the Company.”39

  • 40 Ibid.
  • 41 PRO SP 105/115, Levant Company to Paget, 16 June 1697.

22The response of the Court of Assistants was to put in a caveat at the Admiralty to stop the condemnation of the Madonna di Carmine as legitimate prize and, taking advice from Sir William Trumbull, the company’s governor, to seek to approach the king and furnish him with copies of earlier memorials “formerly presented to their Excellencies the Lords Justices’ concerning the ships [scil. English privateers] armed out of Leghorn.”40 The affair of Captain Pickering and the Madonna di Carmine was to rumble on until the end of the war. In June 1697 the Levant Company wrote to Paget that the French, “by their Interest [at the Ottoman court] and Importunity,” and despite the king’s message and a favourable report drawn up by the anglophile Kapudan Pasha Mezzomorto Hüseyn Pasha, had prevailed with the francophile grand vizir Elmas Mehmed Pasha to insist the restoration of the Madonna di Carmine and her cargo. The Company urged Paget to ensure that it was not rendered liable to answer “these Demands,” bringing up the still unconcluded dispute over the seizure of the Serpent ketch and the old rankling business of the Swan, a “ship richly laden,” taken in 1689 by a French man of war “out of the road[stead] of Milo,” for which “great loss” no redress was ever obtained, despite Sir William Trumbull’s efforts with the grand vizir and the kaymakam of the time.41

  • 42 Ibid.

23For the Levant Company, Ottoman territorial limits were, in a real sense of the term, off-limits. In relation to what it termed “the affairs of the limits of the Grand Signior’s Ports,” in the last weeks of the war it reiterated its view that this was “merely a matter of state and so out of our sphere to intermedle with,” asking Paget to refer to the king’s instructions to him, Trumbull, as governor of the company, having put Paget’s letter to him into the hands of Shrewsbury, desiring him to recommend it to the king.42

  • 43 PRO SP 105/1 15, Levant Company to Consul Raye (Smyrna), 28 Sept. 1697.
  • 44 Ibid. Levant Company to Sherman, 28 Sept. 1697. Paget had drawn a warrant on Sherman for $ 6000 for (...)
  • 45 PRO SP 105/155. Levant Company to Consul Raye, 28 Sept. 1697. Cf. Company to Smith, treasurer at Iz (...)
  • 46 Ibid.
  • 47 See PRO SP 110/88.
  • 48 See above, n. 11.
  • 49 Cf. PRO SP 105/334 (Izmir Consulate Turkish Entry-Book), f. 48 r°, contemporary Italian translation (...)

24On the other hand, the Company could be philosophical over what it termed “the troubles and inconveniencys our affairs are brought under by reason of severall French ships taken by our Privateers.”43 Late in September 1697, at the very end of the war, when the Blackham incident had caused Paget to journey hurriedly to Edirne, “whither his Lordship was suddainly called by the importune clamours of the French upon the taking severall of their Ships by our Privatiers,” the Company observed, in a letter to Sherman, treasurer of the English factory at Istanbul, that “we do not see how it [scil. English privateering] can be prevented during the continuance of the warr."44 On the same day the Company wrote approvingly to Consul Raye at Izmir: “you did well in giving your best assistance to Captain Newnam to defend him against the violent proceedings of the Turks,” adding that “we doubt not you continue to do so farr as you could conveniently, but at his own charge and expense.”45 The Company also approved of Raye procuring hüccets in favour of Captain Fuller regarding the manner of his taking “the French ship” near Foca, “as we hope may secure us against all demands on that account.”46 The Ottoman islands – speaking here of the Archipelago – seem to be a half-way world, in the Ottoman empire but not entirely of it, when compared with the surrounding littoral of the Aegean. It is not surprising, for example, that English merchant vessels outbound were searched for escaped slaves or contraband at the Dardanelles, before exiting the Straits into the Aegean, firmans being issued to the commandants of the castles there giving clearance for a particular vessel.47 It is not surprising either that the affair of the Blackham Galley involved English privateering in Ottoman territorial waters but specifically in insular ones. One may contrast these situations with that at Izmir, where English men of war lay off “the Castle” – i.e., the castle at Sancak Burnu, known to European mariners as St Jacamore’s Castle -, a menacing presence but, as observed earlier, under strict orders not to act against French merchant vessels coming in and out of the port.48 Joseph Blondel, the French consul at Izmir in the early years of King William’s War, clearly thought otherwise, and sought to involve the local Ottoman authorities in initiating action at the Porte against the English.49 On the other hand, there is the example of the Panther lying in wait off Foca for a rich French vessel, and sending its longboat into port at Izmir with violent threats against the French. At Izmir, too, legal proceedings could be instituted and enforced by the Ottoman authorities against the Blackham, something which the muhâfiz of Tenedos had clearly been either unwilling or unable to do in the heat of the incident which precipitated the Blackham’s later arrest.

25One other question, which as far as I am aware had not been raised, is why the Ottomans themselves hardly ever followed the example of their co-religionists and nominal subjects in Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli, and themselves permitted the financing by locally-based armateurs of licensed commerce raiding as practised by Barbary corsairs, Dutch, English, French and Maltese alike in the waters around the Aegean islands. Alone of the Mediterranean states, great and small, the Ottomans seem not to have engaged in or licensed commerce raiding, and one must ask why this was the case.

  • 50 Cf. Barbour, “Privateers and pirates”; Bromley, “Outlaws at Sea”; Id., “The Channel Island privatee (...)
  • 51 Slot, Archipelagus Turbatus, p. 195-202.
  • 52 Looker, “Journall,” p. 130.
  • 53 Ibid. On the connections of the Eatons at Izmir and later in England see Anderson, An English Consu (...)
  • 54 Randolph, The Present State of the Islands, p. 32-33.
  • 55 Looker’s phrase, “poor Rouges,” as applied to pirates reverberates at this period: a quarter of a c (...)
  • 56 Looker, “Journall,” p. 37-39. Capt. Newnam’s humanity in this regard (as in others) seems to stand (...)

26In theory the Aegean archipelago, with its dispersed islands, economically challenged but potentially enterprising populations, and hidden anchorages athwart major shipping routes to and from Istanbul and Izmir, should have been an ideal breeding ground for enterprising armateurs. Parallels may be drawn with, for example, the armateurs of the Channel Islands, who played such a significant role with their small fast vessels in the guerre de course against Louis XIV, or the pirates and buccaneers of the Caribbean. Both groups were island-based, both operated from bases where metropolitan sovereignty was at best mediated through quasi-autonomous local institutions, or at worst was virtually non-existent.50 In fact, there is considerable evidence that there was local privateering, Muslim as well as Christian, in the Archipelago, as Ben Slot has amply documented.51 Nonetheless, more can be said, and there is evidence, as yet not fully explored, that the tentacles of privateering spread deep into the “legitimate” English merchant community in Turkey. Below-stairs gossip can help: one day in July 1697 John Looker, on board the Blackham Galley at the time at anchor in the port of Izmir, records in his “Journall” the arrival there of the English [vice-]consul at Milos, on business to see “Mr Eaton” on the account of the fire-eating master of the Panther, Captain Fuller.52 Eaton was one of the leading English merchants at Izmir; and Milos was a notorious pirate lair.53 Bernard Randolph, who had gained a detailed knowledge of the Archipelago in the course of his travels twenty years earlier, described Milos as a harbour where “Privateers do usually come to make up their Fleets, and it is most commonly their rendezvous at their first coming into the Archipelago” – “to almost the ruin of the island,” despite the privateers’ donations to the Capuchin church and convent there.54 According to Randolph, whose work was published in 1687, i.e. ten or more years after the events which he describes, “of late” the privateers “have not so much frequented it.” For Randolph, “privateers” vessels were all clearly either Maltese or Livornese; not surprisingly, therefore, in February 1697 Captain Newnam and the Blackham had encountered at Milos Maltese cruisers and their raggle-taggle and half-starved crews, “a parcell of poor hungry Rouges [sic],” people “no better than pirates,” as James Looker described them.55 Captain Newnam had haled their commanders on board the Blackham for close interrogation, and had concluded, in face of the threadbare nature of their explanations and the decidedly dubious ships’ papers which they proffered, that though they were indeed French subjects, they were poor, reduced to the extremities of existence. Accordingly, with a becoming humanity, he let them go.56 Here, however, is a nexus of connections which certainly needs to be investigated further.

  • 57 G. Roberts], Adventures among the Corsairs, p. 1-2. The Arcana Galley, 247 tons, 160 men, commanded (...)
  • 58 Looker, “Journall,” p. 160-161.
  • 59 Ibid., p. 163.

27Neither Randolph nor Roberts has much to say regarding English privateering in the Aegean, though as we have seen it certainly existed. It is worth noting, therefore, that Roberts’ own ship, the Arcana Galley, which he himself describes as “H.M. hired ship,” and which was cast away while careening in the harbour at Nio on 12 June 1692, had at the time a French prize in tow.57 On occasion English privateers operated almost within sight of Izmir: on 8 October 1697, several weeks after the conclusion of the Treaty of Ryswick, Captain Young, master of the De Grave, made prize of a French settea near “Long Island,” and thus almost within the Izmir port limits. The settea was en route from Crete loaded with oil; Young’s laboursaving stratagem was to man and send out his sloop, which effected the capture. It should be noted that Consul Raye attempted to reverse the seizure, apparently without success.58 The De Grave’s operations were certainly feared by the French: three days later, on 11 October – the day, it should be noted, when news of the conclusion of peace between England, Holland and France was definitively known at Izmir – there arrived in port a Turkish vessel carrying the French consul at Candia (i.e., Iraklion) and his family, who had avoided travelling from Crete on a French vessel for fear of the De Grave.59 It is in this context that the issue of the maritime context of Ottoman territoriality, which is still far from being fully investigated, needs also further study based on the patient collection and examination of many hundreds of individual incidents at sea or in port.

Bibliography

Archivial Sources

BL: British Library (London).

Looker’s “Journall”: manuscript (MS PHB/6) in the possession of the National Maritime Museum (Greenwich).

PRO: Public Record Office (London).

Quoted Works

Anderson (Sonia), An English Consul in Turkey: Paul Rycaut at Smyrna, 1667-1678, Oxford, 1989.

Barbour (Violet F.), “Privateers and pirates of the West Indies,” American Historical Association Review, XVI, 1911, p. 529-566. DOI: 10.2307/1834836.

Belhamissi (Moulay), Histoire de la marine algérienne (1516-1830), Algiers, 1983.

Belhamissi (Moulay), Marine et marins d’Alger (1518-1830), 3 vols., Algiers, 1996.

Bromley (J. S.), “A Letter-Book of Robert Cole, British Consul-General at Algiers, 1694-1712,” in Id., Corsairs and Navies, 1660-1760, London and Ronceverte, 1987, p. 29-42.

Bromley (J. S.), Corsairs and Navies 1660-1760, London and Ronceverte, 1987.

Bromley (J. S.), “The Channel Island privateers in the war of the Spanish succession,” in Id., Corsairs and Navies, 1660-1760, London and Ronceverte, 1987, p. 339-388.

Bromley (J. S.), “The French privateering war, 1702-13,” in Id., Corsairs and Navies 1660-1760, London and Ronceverte, 1987, p. 213-241.

Bromley (J. S.), “Outlaws at sea, 1660-1720: Liberty equality and fraternity among Caribbean freebooters,” in Id., Corsairs and Navies, 1660-1760, London and Ronceverte, 1987, p. 1-20.

Clark (G. N.), “English and Dutch privateers under William III,” Mariners’ Mirror, VII, 1921, p. 162-167, 209-217.

Clark (G. N.), The Dutch Alliance and the War against French Trade, Manchester, 1923.

Danişmend (İsmail Hakki), İzahlı Osmanlı Tarihi Kronolojisi, 6 vol., Istanbul, 1971-1972.

Davies (J. D.), Gentlemen and Tarpaulins: the Officers and Men of the Restoration Navy, Oxford, 1991.

Earle (Peter), Corsairs of Malta and Barbary, London, 1970.

Fontenay (Michel), “Il mercato maltese degli schiavi al tempo dei Cavalieri di San Giovanni (1530-1798),” Quaderni Storici, XXXVI-2, 2002, p. 391-414.

Fisher (Godfrey, Sir), Barbary Legend: War, Trade and Piracy in North Africa, 1415-1830, Oxford, 1957.

Ginio (Eyal), “Piracy and redemption in the Aegean Sea during the first half of the eighteenth century,” Turcica, XXXIII, 2001, p. 135-148. DOI: 10.2143/TURC.33.0.484.

Heywood (Colin), “English diplomatic relations with Turkey, 1689-1698,” in W. Hale and A. I. Bag15 (eds), Four centuries of Turco-British relations, Walkington (E. Yorks.), 1984, p. 26-39.

Heywood (Colin), “The Kapudan Pasha, the English ambassador and the Blackham Galley an episode in Anglo-Ottoman maritime relations,” in E. Zachariadou (ed.), The Kapudan pasha. His Office and his Domain, Rethymnon, 2002, p. 409-438.

López Nadal (Gonçal), “Mediterranean privateering between the treaties of Utrecht and Paris, 1715-1856: First reflections,” in D. J. Starkey, E. S. van Eyck van Heslinga and J. A. de Moor (eds), Pirates and Privateers. New Perspectives on the War on Trade in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries, Exeter, 1997, p. 106-125.

Meyer (W. R.), “English privateering in the war of 1688 to 1697,” Mariners’ Mirror, LXVII, 1981, p. 259-272.

Meyer (W. R.), “English privateering in the war of the Spanish succession,” Mariners’ Mirror, LXIX, 1983, p. 435-446.

Oriente Moderno, XX (LXXXI) n.s. 1, 2001 (“The Ottomans and the Sea,” K. Fleet ed.). URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/i25817741.

Randolph (Bernard), The Present State of the Islands in the Archipelago (or Arches), Oxford, 1687. URL: http://name.umdl.umich.edu/A70955.0001.001.

[Roberts (G.)], Mr Roberts’ Adventures among the Corsairs of the Levant, etc., in Hacke (Captain William), A Collection of Original Voyages, London, 1699, pt. IV (separately paginated).

Slot (B. J.), Archipelagus Turbatus. Les Cyclades entre colonisation latine et occupation ottomane c. 1500-1718, 2 vols., Istanbul-Leyde, 1982.

Starkey (David J.), British Privateering Enterprise in the Eighteenth Century, Exeter, 1990.

Van den Boogert (Maurits), “Redress for Ottoman victims of European privateering. A case against the Dutch in the Divan-i hümayun (1708-1715),” Turcica, XXXIII, 2001, p. 91-118. DOI: 10.2143/TURC.33.0.482.

Vatin (Nicolas), “L’Empire ottoman et la piraterie en 1559-1560,” in E. Zachariadou (ed.), The Kapudan pasha. His Office and his Domain, Rethymnon, 2002, p. 371-408.

Vatin (Nicolas), “Un exemple de relations frontalières: l’Empire ottoman et l’Ordre de Saint-Jean-de-Jérusalem à Rhodes entre 1480 et 1522,” Archiv Orientální, LXIX, 2001, p. 349-360.

Vatin (Nicolas), “Une affaire interne. Le sort et la libération des personnes de condition libre illégalement retenues en esclavage sur le territoire ottoman (xvie siècle),” Turcica, XXXIII, 2001, p. 149-190. DOI: 10.2143/TURC.33.0.485.

Wolf (John B.), The Barbary Coast: Algiers under the Turks 1500 to 1830, New York, 1979.

Zachariadou E. (ed.), The Kapudan pasha. His Office and his Domain, Rethymnon, 2002.

Annexes

Appendix. Seven Ottoman-connected Documents relating to Maritime Affairs in the Archipelago, 1690-1697

Introduction

Six of the seven documents published below are from PRO SP 105/335, the unique surviving Turkish Entry Book from the English consulate at Izmir for the late seventeenth – early eighteenth century. The remaining document comes from the diplomatic correspondence of William, 6th Lord Paget, currently on deposit in the Library of the School of oriental and African Studies, University of London. Due to limitations of space, it has not been possible to include translations into English or an extended commentary on the documents published here. All of them have been made use of in the main body of the present paper.

Five of the seven documents (nos. 1-3, 5-6) survive only in their contemporary Italian translations. The Turkish originals of nos. 1-2 and 5-6, which are documents of Ottoman provenance have not been traced. The original of Doc. no. 3 would have been produced in the Turkish chancery of the Izmir consulate. Document 7 is an original production from the chancery of the Ottoman kapudan pasha. With the exception of the well-known and stereotypical initial and closing formulae of Doc. 4, which have been omitted, all documents are published in extenso below, together with the accompanying annotations supplied by the dragomans of the Izmir consulate. Contemporary insertions in the texts have been placed between curly brackets.

(1). [1101/1689 ?]

Hüseyn Pasha, Kapudan Pasha [?]. Buyuruldu addressed to the cadi, gümrük emini (il Daziere) and voyvoda of Izmir, prohibiting the embarkation of Muslims on European ships. 25 Muharram 1102 (= 19/29 Oct. 1690) [sic], but probably issued on the same date in A.H. 1101 (= 29 Oct. / 8 Nov. 1689).60

Contemporary Italian translation. Copy. Izmir, English consulate, Turkish entry book.

PRO SP 105/335, f. 48 v°, 1 (original foliation: f. 104 left).

Traduttione del Bujuruldi, ò sia Ordine del Chusein [sic] Pasha Capitan Pasha, che li Musulmani non si Imbarcassero sopra le Naui ffranchi 1691[sic]

Al Dottissimo, et honore vole Giudice di Smime, e a gli Gloriosi frà pari loro, il Daziere e Voivoda, et altri primali della sopradetta Scala, le di cui gradi, s’augmentino. Si dà parte che dalli Mercanti, et altri, alcune persone credendo d’esser sicuri, e salui s’imbarcano nelli Vascelli de’confederati per andar in Cairo, et in altri luoghi; Percio havendo gl’Infedeli, ffrancesi, Inglesi, ffiamenghi trà di loro Guerra, et invidia e trovati ò incontrarli che saranno nel Mare si combattono, e noto al’atissima Porta, che tutti Muslimani che si trovino dentro d’esse Navi le fanno Schiavi, e sacheggiano i loro Beni, e facoltà, havendo data parte anche gl’Ambasciatori che si trovano habitanti nel felice Soglio come che non hanno il pottere d’impedirlo, ne liberar li Sciavi. Sopra questo è stato prohibito con proclamatione Reggia che non intrassero in nissuna maniera li Muslimani sopra le Navi de Confederati. Hora essendo data espresso Commandamento di prohibirli in Conformità s’ha data questo Bujuruldi; Onde piacendo Iddio nell’arrivo si debba secondo del proceduto Imperial Commandamento dar ordini espressi, acciòche li Muslimani non s’imbarcassero sopra le Navi de’Confederati che si trovino nelle vostre Scale, e Porti. Impediteli, e guardatevi di non trascurare gl’Ordini, ne di far alcuna contrarietà del proceduto, e mandata Commandamento, e per vbbidire in Conformità del sopradetto Commandamento, si manda il presente Bujuruldi, cioè Ordine. Scritto ali 25. di Mucharem. 1102. Cioè verso il fine di Settembre [sic] 1691.

[Annotated:] Passato nell custodito Registro nell’Anno 1107. nel tempo di Salish [sic] Cadi di Smime.

(2). [1102/1690]

Petition (‘Ar-u âl) of Ibrahim, cadi of Izmir, regarding the taking of certain French vessels by English and Dutch men-of-war in October 1690.

III. Safer, n.y. (but certainly A.H. 1102, = 14/24 Nov – 22 Nov/2 Dec. 1690).

Contemporary Italian translation. Copy. Izmir, English consulate, Turkish Entry Book.

PRO SP 105/335, f. 48 r° (original foliation: 103 right).

Traduttione del Arz del Caddi toccante la presa di certi Bastimenti ffrancesi da nostre Nave di Guerra in Ottobre 1690.

Si rappresenta alla felice Porta dalla parte del Giudice di Smime.

Comparue in presenza della nobil Legge il presente Ator di questa rappresentatione Il Console ffrancese Giosepe Blondel habitante in Smime, confederato, asserendo, e dicendo, che li Vascelli Inglesi et Olandesi hanno presa una nostra Saitia che era venendo dal cairo nella Città di Smime, et un altra che usiua da Smime, con facolta dentro d’esse di Mussulmani auanti li Castelli di ffogia, e San Giacomo nelli luoghi che ab antico erano sicuri, e sotto Custodia, et hora li Vascelli Inglesi, et Olandesi restano nelli sudetti luoghi fuoro auanti al Castello di San Giacomo, e ffogia, e vogliono prenderle Saitie nostre che vanno, e vengono in questa Città di Smime. Et hauendo richiesto d’esser esaminato dalli principali del detto Paese, se mai questo luogo doue prendono li nostri Vascelli, ab antico fusse sicuro, e sotto Custodia, e dopo la Interogatione dicendo di voler far, dar parte, e rappresentare del uero successo di questo affare alla felice Porta. Et essendo chiamato in presenza della nobilissima Legge, Il Console Inglese habitante in questa Città, comparuero li Primali del Paese, Mehmed Effendi, Mahmud Efendi, Osman effendi, Mehmed Agha, Musli Agha, et altri inolti insieme in {presenza} della nobil Legge, et essendo domandati risposero, che il detto Luogo ab antico esser stato sicuro, e mai intesero che né meno dalli Inimici di ffede, ne da altri fù mai preso alcun Vascello nel detto Luogo, e dopo d’haver dato notitia ogni un di loro che il detto luogo era stato sempre sicuro, e mai presero Vascello la. Et ordinando al detto Console Inglese per parle della NobilLegge, che li Vascelli che hanno preso in quel luogo con la Robba di Mussulmani che era dentro di renderla alli loro Patroni, rispose che noi habbiamo Guerra con il Re di ffrancia, et in ogni luogo che i nostri Vascelli incontraranno li suoi Vascelli li prendono, e li hanno preso, e dicendo di no voler darne li Vascelli ne la Robba di Mussulmani che era dentro, e dicendo il Console ffrancese che di qui inanzi li nostri Vascelli che hanno di venir di Guerra da ffrancia quando trovaranno li Vascelli Inglesi, et Olandesi al sopradetto luogo, e nel Porto della medesima Città, e faranno bruciar, e prenderli, ne meno io posso ouiar il loro combatimento; Et essendo cosi il suo richiesto si é rappresentato alla felice Porta. Del resto l’Editto, e di vostra Eccellenza. Scritto alli vltimi della Luna di Safer.

L’Abjetto Ibraim
Giudice di Smime

[Annotated:] In this Arz was falsly omitted that part of the Consuls Answer; That the King of Englands Ships had always a due Regard to the Gran Sig:rs Ports, and Castles, and could take no Enimies Vescells under Command of them; Nor had they taken under Command those ffrench Vessells which were then demanded.

(3). [1692]

Petition (Ar-u âl) from [William Raye], English consul in Izmir, to Yûsuf Pasha, Kapudan Pasha, requesting Muslim merchants be prohibited from embarking on European ships. 30 October [OS] 1692.

Contemporary Italian translation. Copy. Izmir, English consulate, Turkish entry book.

PRO SP 105/335, f. 48 v°, 1 (old f. 103 left).

Traduttione del Arz presentata dal Sigr. Console al Usuph Pasha Capitan Pasha, che li Turchi non si Imbarcassero sopra nissune navi ffranche Data in Smime Ottobre. 30. 1692.61

Felicissimo, e misericordioso mio Signore, sia sano. Il Memoriale del vostro Servo, e questo; Qualmente, per il passato essendo proceduto, sublime

Commandamento, dalla parte dell’altissima Podestà, acciòche non si imbarcassero gli Mercanti Mussulmani nelle Navi deConfederati, Et in conformità havendo favorito il suo Buyuruldi l’antecessor Capitan Pasha vostra fratello vizir Ibrahim Pasha,62 similmente si è supplicato da vostra Eccellenza di favorirci col suo conforme il passato, diritto alli Ill:mo Caddi di Smime, Emini di Dogana, Voivoda, et altri Vfficiali. Del resto il Commando è di Felicissimo, e misericordioso mio Sig:re Suo Servo Il presento Console Inglese.

(4). [1104/1693] (cf. facsimile, p. 166)

[Ahmed II.] Firmân, in response to a petition (‘ar-u âl) from William Lord Paget, English ambassador to the Porte, issued to the vezîr, the present kapudan [pasha], Yusuf Pasha (bi’l-fi’l apudanim olan vezîrim), to the cadis of Smyrna and Chios (Izmir ve Saiz ailari), to the castellans of fortresses in maritime jurisdictions (deñiz olan aâlariñ kal’e dizdârlari) and their emîns, and the functionaries (iş erleri) of other provincial notables (a’yân-ivilâyet, concerning the depredations of certain North African irregular sea troops (Cezâyir ve Tunus ve Tarâbûluslariñ gemi levendâtindan ba’ilari) against English merchants and others at Izmir and elsewhere. Edirne, I. Zî’l-ka’da, 1104 (24 June – 3 July 1693, O.S.).

Contemporary copy and Italian translation (not published). Izmir, English consulate, Turkish Entry Book. PRO SP 105/335, ff. 17 v°-18 r° (old foliation “17” [on facing pages]).

5... Ingiltere ralliği vükelâsindan

6 olub Isafûrdiyâ vilâyetinde vâi ‘ Bodeser hâkimi ve Astâne-i Se ‘adetimde muîm Ingiltere elçisi olan idvet-i umerâ-yi’l-milleti’l-mesîiyye Baron Senyor

7 Vilelmo Paget63 utimat ‘avâibihi bi’l-ayr Der-gâh-i mu’allâma ‘arzu âl edüb Cezâyir ve Tunus ve arâbûluslariñ gemi levendâtindan ba’zilari64medîne-i Izmir ve Saizde

N° 4 Firmân for the Cadi and other officials at Izmir.

8 olan İngiltere onsoloslarini ve tuccâr ve tercümân ve simsâr ve adamlarmi alâf-i şer’-i şerîf ve ‘ahd-nâme-i humâyûna muğâyir bir bahâne île utub

9 kimisini atl ve kimini dai cerh ve arb ve bi-ğayr-i haḳḳ akçelerin alub tuccârlarina ve adamlarina durlu cevr ve eiyyet edüb żulm ve ta ‘addîden âlî olmadilarin65

10 bildirüb ‘ahd-nâme-ihumâyûnuma muhâlef vaz’ve ta’addî olunmayub żâhir olan ta ‘addîleri men ‘ ve def’olunma bâbinda hükm-i humâyûnum ricâ eyledüki ecelden ‘ahd-nâme-i

11 humâyûnuma murâca’at olunduda Tunus ve Cezâ’ir korsanlari Ingiltere iralniñ ve sâ’ir dostlu üzere olan irallariñ tuccär ve adamlarin ‘ahd-name-i humâyûna muâlef

12 ve riâ-yi humâyûnuma muğâ’ir rencîde ve esbâb ve mâllarin gâret etmekle gâret olunan emvâl ve erzâ her ne ise girü verilüb ve adamlari iolunma

13 içün mu’ekked ve muşaddad evâmir-i şerîfe verilüb bu firmân-i şerîfimden oñra Tunuslu ve Cezâyirlu girü ‘ahd-nâme-i humâyûnuma muğâyir tuccâr-i mezbûri rencîde ve esbâb ve mâllarin gâret

14 ederler-ise madâmki gâret olunan esbâblari verilmeye min ba’d ol maûleleri Memâlik-i Mahrûsemizde olan liman ve iskelelere uû Tunus ve Cezâ’ir ve Moton ve

15 oron iskelelerine omayub beglerbegiler ve hükkâm ve sâ’ir zâbitlar men ‘ ve redd ve terh edüb ruẖṣat vermeyeler deyü ‘ahd-nâme-i humâyûnumda masûr ve muayyid

16 bulunmağin ‘ahd-nâme-i humâyûnum mücebince ‘amel olunub alâfîle rencîde ve remîde olunmama emrim olmişdur.

Buyurdumki ükm-i şerîfimle

17 ṿusûl buldukda bu bâbda âdr olan firmân celîlu’l-adrim ve ‘ahd-name-i humâyûnum mücebince ‘amel eyleyüb min ba’d alâfina rizâ ve cevâz göstermeyesin Ingiltere kirallari

18 Astâne-i Se’âdetimiziñ adîmî dostlarindan olmağla tuccâr ve adamlarmi gereki gibi imâyet ve seyânet edüb alâf-i şer’-i şerîf ve ‘ahd-name-ihumâyûnuma muğâ’ir kimesneye

19 dal ve rencîde etdirmeyesin...

(5). [(1107)/1696]

Hüseyn Pasha, kapudan pasha. Letter to the English consul at Izmir regarding the limits of Andros and Kos or Istanköy. Foca, [June 1696].

Contemporary Italian translation. Copy. Izmir, English consulate, Turkish entry book.

PRO SP 105/335, f. 49 r° (old p. 104).

Traduttione della Lettera scritta dal Chusein Pasha Capitan Pasha66 al Sig.r Console toccante li pretesi Limiti d’Andro, e Coos, o sia Stanciu, e che le Navi ffranche non combattessero, ne pigliassero l’vn, l’altro dentro quelle Limiti: Data in Giugno 1696.

Al Glorioso trà gli Signori della Natione di Giesù nostro Amico II Console d’Inghilterra. Essendo trà gli vostri, et altri Mercanti da alquanti Anni in qua discordie, et inimicitia, volendo Impadronirsi in Mare un del altro; particolarmente nelle parti di Turchia, che é Casa di Sicurezza; E non essendo all honore della Podesta, e Signoria, il Combattersi, e rapir, gli Beni, et Effetti forzaltamente, amazzandosi un con l’altro avanti li Castelli, e Porti ove arrivano. Possibile non essendo stato di venir al aggiustamento, per le passate Differenze sin hora che restino, Però da qui inanzi le Naue Mercantili, ffrancesi, Inglesi, holandesi, Ragusi, et altre Naui che vengono nelle parti di Turchia incontrati che saranno, dentro delle Bocche d’Andrò, e Coo, debbano lasciare l’inimicitia che hanno intra di loro essendo stimato li spradetti luoghi Casa di Salute, e Sicurezza, e mentre che si trovano nelli detti luoghi non debbano combattersi; E per esser esseguite queste Regole per l’auuenire, si sono passati nel custodito Registro; Et in Conformità per esser ubbedito, fù scritto etiam alli altri Consoli, che si trovano in Smime che dimorando le loro Naui nominate di Guerra à Sangiak burun vicino à Smime, possano venir le Navi Mercantile, e passare, e doppo haver passato dal Canto della Naue di Guerra, di alzar Bandiera, e far allegrezza, e salutar un con’altro, e dalla parte di chi si sia se procedesse alcuna ignominiosa Attione, o danno contra alle predette Conditioni, si debbe esser pagato il danno. Dal resto stia con Salute.

Dal Porto di ffogia
Hussein Pasha

(6). [1109/1697]

[Mustafâ II.] Firmân addressed to the cadi of Izmir ordering the release from sequestration of the Blackham Galley. Edirne, I. Cum. I, 1109 (5-14 Nov., 1697, O.S.) [?].67 Contemporary Italian translation. Copy. Izmir, English consulate, Turkish entry book.

PRO SP 105/335, f. 51 r° (old p. 106).

Traduttione del Commandamento del Gran Sig:re diritto al Caddi di Smime per la liberatione della Nave nominata Blackham ffrigat.

Giudice delle Giudici de’fedeli, il meglior frà 11 Sig:ri che professano l’unità, Miniera di Virtù, e di Cortezza, Mostratore della Giustitia, e verità, notato al Popolo, Herede del Senso de’Profeti, Dottato di avantagiosi, favori del Giudice de Smime, che la sua Scienza sia avanzi. Al Gionger del presente Segno Imperiale sia noto come il honorato Vizir Glorificato Conseliere, propositore delli affari Publici col suo penetrante pensiero, Definitore de più Importanti Negotij del genere humano, fortificatore del fondamento della Prosperità, Corroboratore delle parti della Signoria il Conservato per la misericordia di Dio, mio favorito Capitan Pasha Vizir il Chusein Pasha la di cui Sublimità il Signor Iddio perpetui. Sia noto come per Lettera sua al mio felice Soglio nel nostro custodito Dominio di Bastimenti di Mercantia, che vanno, e vengono per maggior Sicurità, e contentezza essendo lor desiderio che ci sia fatti Limiti né luoghi destinati il Capitan d’Inghilterra nominato Nunam non havendo molestato, ne pigliato Bastimento ffrancese, dandosi intendere per vero, e certo fù trattenuto, et imprigionato nel porto di Smime. ma il Bastimento, che fù trattenuto non essendo il Capitano, che hà pigliato il Bastimento ffrancese, per certo, e per vero, e per haver dalosi intendere cosi. Lei ch’e il Giudice il sopradetto Bastimento con il concesso di Eccellentissimo Visir fù ordinato, e Commandato, che il detto Bastimento sia deliberato per virtù del mio Imperial Commandamento mandatovi, che capitata che sarà debbiate far la essecutione, che il prenominato Bastimento con la voluntà, et intentione di Eccellentissimo Capitan Pasha che ci sia totalmente liberato, per virtù, e senso del presente Commandamento. Prestando ffede all Insegno, et honorata marca nella preservata, e celebrata Città di Adrianopoli. Data al principio della Luna passata nominata Gemasilpulà [sic] Anno del profeto 1109 Cioè verso il principio di Decembre 1697.

(7). [N.d. (1695-1701)]

Hüseyn Pasha, kapudan pasha, to [William, Lord Paget, English] ambassador at the Porte. No place of issue; no date, but issued during the [second] term of office of Mezzomorto Hüseyn Pasha (scil. 11 May 1695-21 July 1701).

Original. Single sheet of brownish paper, the recto slightly polished, measuring approximately 60 x 33 cm (text area 26 x 24 cm). The document has been folded laterally 12 times; the uppermost part of the document, containing the invocatio and the “area of respect,” has been torn away. The document has been much affected by damp and mould, with consequent damage not affecting the text, apart from considerable offsetting.

Recto: Invocatio torn away; five and a half lines of text (elevatio of the words elςi beg in line 1); pençe of Mezzomorto Hüseyn Pasha in the lower left corner.

Verso: Seal-impression in lower right comer, backing the pençe; address at the head of the verso.

Having heard that an English ship is about to depart [from Istanbul?] for Egypt, üseyn Pasha seeks Paget’s interposition with its captain to delay departure and allow one of the kapudan pasha’s men, travelling on important private business, to take passage in it.

[recto]: adâatlu müveddetlü dostimiz Elςi Beg huzûrlarina/enhâ-yi muibbâne budurki:

Benim adâatlu dostim elςi beg, Ingiltere sefînelerinden bir sefîne Misr arafina revâne ve’azîmet üzere istimâ’ olunub, Misr cânibina gidecek/ adamimiz ol sefîne île göndermek içün mektûb tahrîr ve arafiñiza irsâl olunmuşdur. lnşa’llâh ta’âla vuûlmda ma’mûldirki ol sefîne apudanin götürdüb / tenbîh ve adamimiz varub sefîneye suvâr oluncayadegin tarîr etdirüb alikomağa himmet eyleyesiz, usûs-i mezbûr mühimm olmağla, sefîneye adamimiz varmazdan mukaddem/yollamamağa takayyid oluna ve bundan böyle dai tarafimizi atirdan irac etmeyüb, dostlikdan âlî olmiyalarki müceb-i ezdiyâd-i cill-ü-dâd olduğunda iştiyâk/olunmiya. Bâkî hemvâre selâmet bul.

[pençe]: afkar 7- ‘ibâd Hüseyn Kapudan Paşa

[verso]: Istanbul’da Ingiltere Elçisi sadâkatlu müveddetlü dostimiz Elςi Beg huzûrlarina tescîl

[seal-impression (oval, 19 x 15 mm)]: [illegible68]

Notes

1 Meyer, “English privateering in the war of 1688 to 1697”; Id., “English privateering in the war of the Spanish succession.” Cf. Clark, “English and Dutch privateers”; Id., The Dutch Alliance.

2 Bromley, Corsairs and Navies; Starkey, British Privateering Enterprise.

3 Cf. López Nadal, “Mediterranean privateering,” especially p. 109-111, and Fontenay, “Il mercato maltese degli schiavi,” both with further references to their authors’extensive bibliographies.

4 Cf. the observations in my “The Kapudan Pasha,” p. 413-414, n. 12, 13. 1 must here apologise for and correct a misstatement in the above paper (p. 409, n. 1): HMS Crowne (cf. the “Journal” of Samuel Atkins, MS National Maritime Museum JOD/173) was not active on convoy duties in Ottoman waters in the period covered by Atkins’ journal: despite her extended voyage in Mediterranean waters at that time she did not venture further east than the Ionian Sea. Later, in 1686-1687, she was used to convey Sir William Trumbull to Istanbul (cf. Davies, Gentlemen and Tarpaulins, p. 105).

5 Cf, inter alia, the well-known works by Fisher, Barbary Legend; Earle, Corsairs of Malta and Barbary, and Wolf, The Barbary Coast. Fisher’s book, it has to be said, is a partisan compilation based on his less than exhaustive use of the Barbary States papers in the Public Record Office. Earle’s work is stronger on Malta than on North Africa, while Wolf’s survey is an insightful work of synthesis by a first-rate historian. The recent extensive study by Belhamissi, Marine et marins d’Alger, despite some lack of methodological rigour, is of great interest as the first substantial work in the field by a North African historian. I am greatly indebted to Dr Aicha Ghettas, of the University of Algiers, for kindly bringing this reworking of the author’s earlier and much shorter Histoire de la marine algérienne to my attention and obtaining for me in Algiers a set of this otherwise unobtainable work.

6 Oriente Moderno, XX (LXXXI) (“The Ottomans and the Sea,” K. Fleet ed.).

7 Zachariadou (ed.), The Kapudan pasha.

8 In connection with the present paper I mention contributions to the Cambridge seminar by Elizabeth Zachariadou, “Itinerant corsairs in the Aegean (14th-15th centuries),” Nicolas Vatin, “Tableau de la piraterie dans les eaux ottomanes en 1559-1560” (see his paper “L’Empire ottoman et la piraterie en 1559-1560”), and Eyal Ginio, “Piracy and redemption in the Aegean” (see his paper in Turcica).

9 For example, of the 2,239 prizes condemned down to January 1712 in the course of the Spanish Succession War, only “more than 80” were taken into Mediterranean ports by London-registered letter of marque ships (Meyer, “English privateering in the war of the Spanish succession,” p. 436, 440). The ports involved mentioned by Meyer – Barcelona, Naples, Alicante, as well as Lisbon in the approaches to the Straits – were all in the western basin of the sea. Only two prizes – taken by Captain Moses in the Adriatic Galley in 1711 – are mentioned by Meyer as exceptions: one was taken into Zante (Zakynthos), off the Gulf of Patras, and the other into Suda Bay on the north coast of Crete (ibid., p. 440).

10 Details in Clark, “English and Dutch privateers,” p. 215-216.

11 PRO SP 105/209, p. 58-59.

12 BL Add MS 61535, Sutton to [Sunderland], Pera, 17 Oct. 1707.

13 BL Add MS 61535, Sutton to [Sunderland], Pera 10 July 1707.

14 Vatin, “Un exemple de relations frontalières,” p. 349, n. 1; van den Boogert, “Redress for Ottoman victims”; Ginio, “Piracy and redemption in the Aegean.”

15 A fuller collection of Ottoman material for the elucidation of this problem remains to be undertaken. Cf., however, for an experienced Ottoman administrator and seaman’s view, a letter written most probably by the famous kapudan pasha, Mezzomorto Hüseyn Pasha to the English consul at Izmir, undated but possibly circa 1109/1697, which seems to suggest that the English view that the Ottomans regarded only those parts of a port or an anchorage which were within cannon-shot of a protecting fortress as in any sense territorial. ([Mezzomorto] Hüseyn Pasha to [William Raye], Foca, n.d., contemporary Italian translation (PRO SP 105/335, f. 49 r°, a letter suggesting that the areas of sea within the straits (bocche) of Andros and Kos (T.: Istanköy) should be regarded as Cas[e] di Salute, e Sicurezza during the present hostilities).

16 Bromley, “The French Privateering War,” p. 213.

17 PRO HCA 26/3, “[Register of] Letters of Marque or reprizalls from May 1695-10th of Septr. 1697 [,] the end of the War,” contains no entries for the period between 17 Oct. 1696 (f. 131) and 23 Feb. 1697 (f. 132). The Blackham also fails to appear as a prize taker in HCA 30/774, an Admiralty list of prize takers and ships taken as prize 1689-97.

18 PRO HCA 26/2, f. 168.

19 Looker’s “Journall” serves as the basis of my article “The Kapudan Pasha.” The manuscript is in the possession of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich (MS PHB/6). I am currently preparing the text for publication under the auspices of the Hakluyt Society. The eventual official decision on the part of the Porte that the Blackham’s seizure of the French saetta off Tenedos had not taken place in Ottoman waters is contained in a firmân addressed to the cadi of Izmir, ordering the vessel’s release from sequestration. Mustafa II to the cadi of Izmir, I. Cum. I, 1109 (5-14 Nov. 1697, OS), an Italian translation of which is preserved amongst the records of the English consulate at Izmir (Turkish Entry Book, PRO SP 105/335, f. 51 r°) and published in full below, Appendix, Doc. 6.

20 Bromley, “A Letter-Book of Robert Cole,” p. 39-41.

21 BL MS Add. 61535, f. 43-44. Sutton to [Sunderland], Pera, 7 July 1709.

22 For an extensive treatment of this topic, based primarily on 15th and 16th century Ottoman documentation, see Vatin, “Une affaire interne.”

23 For the case of two Irish privateers operating in 1710 and 1711 – but where? – without benefit of letters of marque, but with a firm belief in their own authority to act against the French, see Meyer, “English privateering in the war of the Spanish succession,” p. 442. It is highly likely that further cases of British vessels engaging in piracy-cum-privateering in Ottoman waters but without crown authorisation remain to be uncovered.

24 The island of Leros, in the Dodecanese.

25 Details taken from Sutton’s despatch of 7 July 1709 to [Sunderland], loc. cit.

26 Ibid.

27 BL Add. MS 61535, f. 7-8. Sutton to Shrewsbury, Pera, 12 March 1706/7.

28 [Ahmed II]. Firmân to the [grand] vizir, the kapudan pasha Yusuf Pasha, and cadis of Izmir and Sakiz and other officials, concerning the depredations of certain North African irregular sea-troops (Cezâyir ve Tunus ve arâbûluslariñgemi levendâtindan ba‘ilari) against English merchants and others at Izmir and elsewhere. Edirne, I. Zilkada 1104 (24 June – 3 July 1693 OS), PRO SP 105/335, f. 17 v°-18 r°, published in the Appendix below, Doc. 4.

29 Cf. the contemporary Italian translation of a slightly later ‘arzuhal of Ibrahim, cadi of Izmir, addressed to the Porte, regarding this problem, III. Safer [1102]/14/24 Nov. – 22 Nov./2 Dec. 1690 (PRO SP 105/334, f. 48r; Doc. no. 2 in the Appendix below, which is discussed below, n. 49.

30 PRO SP 105/335 (Izmir Consulate Turkish Entry Book), f. 48 v°, 1: 25 Muh. 1102/19/29 Oct. 1690: Traduttione del Bujuruldi, ò sia Ordine del Chusein Pasha Capitan Pasha, che li Musulmani non si Imbarcassero sopra le Naui ffranchi 1691[sic] (cf. below, Appendix, Doc. 1). Nonetheless, even Hüseyn Pasha himself was not above seeking from the English ambassador assistance in securing a passage for a member of his own household on an English vessel bound (from Istanbul ?) to Egypt (see Doc. 7, below).

31 [William Raye] to the kapudan pasha Yûsuf Pasha, Izmir, 30 Oct. 1692 [OS], Contemporary Italian translation. PRO SP 105/335, f. 48 v° (published in the Appendix below, Doc. 3).

32 PRO HCA 26/3. The ships in question were 1°) the Cheisly Galley (15 May 1696, f. 83); 2°) the Trumbull Galley (29 May 1696, f. 99); 3°) the De Grave (6 March 1697, f. 134); 4°) the Mermaid (18 June 1697, f. 156); and 5°) the Delavall Galley (20 July 1697, f. 164).

33 PRO HCA 26/3, f. 83.

34 The other owners of the De Grave were Sir Alexander Rigby, Stephen Pembury, John de Graves, Samuel Lockley, James Smith, Francis Minshull, Peter Eaton, – Bloome, John Mumford and the “declarant,” i.e. Captain William Young. PRO HCA 26/3, f. 134.

35 PRO HCA 26/3, t. 150.

36 PRO HCA 26/3, f. 164. By the time the Blackham encountered the Delavall at Messina on her own homeward voyage, in January 1698, Captain Cock was no more: according to Looker’s “Joumall,” he had shot himself “with 3 pistoles” while at sea (“Joumall,” f. 111 v°).

37 PRO HCA 30/774.

38 PRO HCA 30/774, f. 222, 231, 245. The Panther (by then under Captain Robert Robinson, and listed as 350 tons, 24 guns and 68 men) appears in the years after Ryswick as a pirate-catcher in the service of the New East India Company (CSP(D) 1699-1700, 321). The Clowdisley (or Clowdesly or Cloudesly) Galley (registered variously as 266 tons or “abt. 300 tuns burthen,” 26 guns) was a privateer, and appears several times in the letters of marque registers during these years. On 4 Nov. 1691 she was licensed until 1 April 1692, presumably for a voyage to the Levant, commander Charles Stocker, with a crew of 140. Her armament was particularly noteworthy: she was carrying (in addition to the 26 guns) eight pedreros, 25 rounds of great shot for each gun, 30 barrels of powder, five hundredweight of small shot, fifty “fusils,” twelve brass blunderbusses, six musquetoons, 18 pair of pistols, 50 cutlasses, 50 bayonets, 12 half-pikes and a number (unclear) of “hooke javelins.” PRO HCA 26/1, f. 159.

39 PRO SP 105/155, f. 191 (old p. 383).

40 Ibid.

41 PRO SP 105/115, Levant Company to Paget, 16 June 1697.

42 Ibid.

43 PRO SP 105/1 15, Levant Company to Consul Raye (Smyrna), 28 Sept. 1697.

44 Ibid. Levant Company to Sherman, 28 Sept. 1697. Paget had drawn a warrant on Sherman for $ 6000 for his expenses, to be paid at Edirne. The Company later changed its tone. In a further letter, dated 18 March 1697[/8] in response to Paget’s of 19 and 25 November and 23 January from Edirne, Paget found himself violently attacked by the Company for going to Edirne “not on our affairs”: “the ship Blackham Galley was cleared before you left Constantinople and the Pretence concerning the Limits of the Grand Signior’s ports may reasonably be supposed to be determined with the war...” Paget, the Company “supposed” – quite correctly -, had gone to Edirne on matters of state and must repay the $ 6000 to the factory treasurer at Istanbul.

45 PRO SP 105/155. Levant Company to Consul Raye, 28 Sept. 1697. Cf. Company to Smith, treasurer at Izmir, undated but probably of the same date.

46 Ibid.

47 See PRO SP 110/88.

48 See above, n. 11.

49 Cf. PRO SP 105/334 (Izmir Consulate Turkish Entry-Book), f. 48 r°, contemporary Italian translation (published below, Appendix, Doc. 2) of an ‘arzuhal issued by Ibrâhîm, cadi of Izmir, at the request of Blondel, regarding the siezure by English men-of-war of two French saettas, one off Foca and the other allegedly under the command of the castles at Izmir, in October 1690. In the ‘arzuhal Consul Raye is alleged to have refused either to restore the captured ships or to hand back their cargoes to their Muslim owners, on the grounds that “we are at war with the king of France, and wherever we encounter his ships, we sieze them” (noi habbiamo Guerra con ilRe diffrancia, et in ogni luogo che i nostri Vascelii incontrarannoli suoi Vascelli li prendono), and that the French were no better. The translation-text is annotated, however, “In this Arz was falsly omitted that part of the Consuls Answer; That the King of Englands Ships had always a due Regard to the Gran Sig:rs Ports, and Castles, and could take no Enimies Vescells under Command of them; Nor had they taken under Command those ffrench Vessells which were then demanded.” It is worth recalling that, as Gonçal Lopez Nadal has observed, the Royal Navy inflicted the greatest disruption upon French trade in the Mediterranean during King William’s War, greatly exceeding the number of seizures made by other Spaniards – apart from the Majorcan privateers – Dutch, Italians and even the Barbary corsairs (Lopez Nadal, “Mediterranean Privateering,” p. 110-111).

50 Cf. Barbour, “Privateers and pirates”; Bromley, “Outlaws at Sea”; Id., “The Channel Island privateers.”

51 Slot, Archipelagus Turbatus, p. 195-202.

52 Looker, “Journall,” p. 130.

53 Ibid. On the connections of the Eatons at Izmir and later in England see Anderson, An English Consul in Turkey, p. 90.

54 Randolph, The Present State of the Islands, p. 32-33.

55 Looker’s phrase, “poor Rouges,” as applied to pirates reverberates at this period: a quarter of a century later Defoe borrowed the term “poor rogues” to describe the – undoubted – pirates who were strung up by the British navy at Cape Coast in 1722. For Defoe’s borrowing of the term see Bromley, “Outlaws at Sea,” p. 2-3 and n. 8.

56 Looker, “Journall,” p. 37-39. Capt. Newnam’s humanity in this regard (as in others) seems to stand out in contrast to the lack of it amongst many if not most shipmasters of the period (cf. Bromley’s remarks, loc. cit.).

57 G. Roberts], Adventures among the Corsairs, p. 1-2. The Arcana Galley, 247 tons, 160 men, commanded by Capt. John Merry, was in fact a private man-of-war, fitted out and maintained at the expense of Robert Clayton, merchant, of London, and others, “to be imployed as a man of war against the French by virtue of a Commission...” (PRO HCA 26/1, f. 165). She carried 26 guns, 16 pedreros, 40 barrels of powder, 40 rounds of great shot [per gun], and 2000wt [sic] of small shot, but only 70 small arms.

58 Looker, “Journall,” p. 160-161.

59 Ibid., p. 163.

60 The dating and attribution of this document raises a number of problems. The register heading dates it to 1691; the text to 25 di Mucharem. 1102. Cioè verso il fine di Settembre 1691. 25 Muh. 1102 is in fact equivalent to 19/29 Oct. 1690. However, Mezzemorto Hüseyn Pasha’s brief first period of office as kapudan pasha lasted only for one month and five days, from 23 Rebi‘ I to 28 Rebi‘ II 1101 (25 Dec. 1689/4 Jan. 1690 – 29 Jan./8 Feb. 1690). One argument is that, assuming the day/month element of the date of the document is correct, attribution of it to 25 Muh. 1101 (28 Oct./9 Nov. 1689) would permit its content to fit the context of the recent outbreak of the Nine Years’ War between England and Holland (as the only two maritime powers of William III’s Grand Alliance active in Ottoman waters), and France, which would place it in the last weeks in office of Kalayh-koz Ahmed Pasha (kapudan pasha from Safer 1100 = Dec. 1688; Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı Kronolojisi, t. V, p. 201). By the time the document was entered into the [cadi’s] register, in 1107, Hüseyn Pasha was again holding the office of kapudan pasha (he was reappointed in Ram. 1106/May 1695). It may be from this fact that the discrepancies between the dating and the attribution of the document arise. On the other hand, Doc. 3, below, would suggest that this may be the document referred to there as having been issued at Consul Raye’s request by the kapudan pasha [Misirli-oğlu] Ibrahim Pasha, in which case we must accept the date of Doc. 1 as being in reality 25 Muh. 1102 (19/29 Oct. 1690) and reattribute it to Misirli-oğlu Ibrahim Pasha.

61 I.e., 1 Rebi‘ 1 1104. “Usuph Pasha” is Helvacı / Palabıyık Yûsuf Pasha, kapudan pasha from 26 Rebi‘ II 1103 to 25 Rebi‘ II 1 106 (6/16 Jan. 1692 – 3/13 Dec. 1694).

62 I.e., Mısırlı-oğlu Ibrahim Pasha, kapudan pasha for the second time 28 Rebi‘ II 1101 – 26 Rebi‘II 1103 (29 Jan./8 Feb. 1690 – 6/16 Jan. 1692)

63 William, 6th Baron Paget of Beaudesert, ambassador extraordinary from William III to the Porte, 1692-1703. On Paget’s career see, briefly, Heywood, “English diplomatic relations with Turkey.”

64 Translation: alcuni dalla Soldadesca, delle Navi d’Algeri, Tunesi, e Tripoli.

65 Translation: pigliano con qualche pretesto... ingiustamente le loro Denari... con bastonarli, ferirli, et amazzar alcuni, con far diuersi strapazzi, et Ingiustitie...

66 Mezzomorto] Hüseyn Pasha, kapudan pasha from 27 Ram. 1106 (1/11 May 1695) to his death on 14 Safer 1113 (10/21 July 1701).

67 If we accept the translator’s Gemasilpulà [sic] as a correct reading of the original document’s Cumadâ’l-ula, then the equivalent A.D. date is as given here. If, however, the translator’s A.D. equivalent of verso ilprincipio di Decembre 1697 is accurate, then we must redate the hicri original to I. Cum. II 1109 = 5/15 – 15/25 Dec. 1697 (the translator reckoning, of course, by the Julian calendar).

68 The poor quality of the photocopy made some decades ago of the above document, on which the above text is based and which is the only form in which the document is presently accessible, prevents both its reproduction as a plate and the accurate reading of the seal-inscription.

List of illustrations

URL http://books.openedition.org/ifeagd/docannexe/image/1472/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 173k

Author

© Institut français d’études anatoliennes, 2004

Terms of use: http://www.openedition.org/6540

Buy

Print version

Loading

Unavailable