The audacious poet paid for his wit with his life, but the satire remained popular. Ibrahim became less and less careful in religious matters as his power became more assured. A contemporary wrote:

The opinionated pasha at the beginning of his power was very docile in every respect to the Holy Law, besides which it was his custom to consult wise men in every affair of his desire; and his faith in Islam was so strong that if some one brought a Koran to him, he would gracefully rise to his feet and kiss it and lay it on his forehead and hold it level with his breast, not one inch below. But later when he went to Baghdad as serasker and mixed with infamous or foolish people, his character changed to such a degree that he did not regard the lives of innocent men more highly than fine dust, and if some one brought him as a gift a Koran or a beautifully‐written manuscript, as he saw him approaching he would become angry and refuse it, saying, “Why do you bring them to me? There is no end to the good books that I possess,” and sometimes he would revile the men.190

The Venetians seem to have regarded Ibrahim as favorable to them, and needy Christians in the empire turned to him for help and sometimes were freed by him from captivity and death.191 His parents remained Christians. It is doubtful whether these last facts would arouse any feeling against the grand vizir; but the disregard of Moslem sensibilities noted above was very unwise and would give his enemies a point of attack although it was rather unlikely by itself to influence greatly the confidence of the sultan, a monarch noted for his unusual tolerance towards beliefs outside of Islam. But Ibrahim permitted himself another imprudence that was far more dangerous.

As we have studied Ibrahim’s career, we have seen the vast power that he gradually gathered into his hands, and we have noted the amazement with which European legates listened to his own accounts of his standing in the state. He was practically the ruler of the Ottoman empire, but there was one fact that he forgot; he was absolutely at the disposal of the sultan and could be disgraced or executed at the latter’s caprice—he was but the shadow of the “Shadow of God” on earth.192

On the Persian expedition he made the grave mistake of assuming the title of Serasker‐Sultan. Although as von Hammer points out193 the title of sultan was commonly borne by small Kurdish rulers in the country in which Ibrahim then was, yet at Constantinople there was but one sultan, and to usurp his title was to lay one’s self open to the charge of unlawful ambition.194 Moreover as Ahmed Pasha had assumed the title upon his revolt in Egypt, the association with disloyalty must have been very strong to Suleiman. There were plenty of courtiers ready to interpret his action thus in reporting to the sultan. Here was a charge that Suleiman could hardly ignore even though he might disbelieve it for a while.

The immediate cause of Ibrahim’s fall was his quarrel with Iskender Chelebi.195 A relationship between the two men had long existed and for years had been unfriendly. When Ibrahim was sent to Egypt Iskender was in his train. Ibrahim’s wealth and power were a source of envy to the defterdar, while the latter’s personality seems to have become disagreeable to the grand vizir. On the expedition to Persia the smouldering hatred between the two men broke into flame. When Ibrahim proposed to take the title of Serasker‐Sultan, the defterdar attempted to dissuade him and thus aroused Ibrahim’s resentment. There was also an ostentatious display of wealth, the defterdar and the grand vizir each attempting to send to the army a larger number of more richly equipped soldiers, and each considering the other’s contribution mean. Insults were exchanged. At length Ibrahim accused the defterdar of taking money from the royal treasury, and brought witnesses against him who were probably in Ibrahim’s pay. It became a war to the death between the two enemies. Ibrahim doubtless knew that if Iskender lived he himself would be sacrificed. So he accomplished the disgrace and execution of the treasurer but he did not thereby secure his own safety. Iskender Chelebi, accused of intrigues against his master, as well as mismanagement of the public funds, was hanged at Baghdad. As he went to the gallows he sent a Parthian shot at his murderer. Calling for pen and paper, he made a written statement that not only was he guilty of conspiring with the Persians but that Ibrahim was equally guilty, and that the latter had plotted to attempt Suleiman’s life, lured by Persian gold.196 However we may doubt Iskender’s honesty in making a statement that would draw down on his enemy his own fate, the Turkish sultan would be unlikely to question it, for among the Turks the testimony of a dying man or one led to execution is of very great weight. In law it outweighs that of forty ordinary witnesses.197

Suleiman’s conviction of his vizir’s guilt was further strengthened, as the Turkish chronicles relate, by a vision in which the murdered defterdar appeared surrounded by a celestial halo. He reproached Suleiman for submitting to the usurpation of his grand vizir, and finally threw himself on the sultan as though to strangle him.198 Suleiman, once convinced of Ibrahim’s guilt or of the menace he was to his power, acted secretly and silently. He did not confront his favorite with accusations nor give him a chance to exculpate himself,199 but disposed of him swiftly. As Lamartine says,200 “Ibrahim’s life ended without reverses and perhaps without other crimes than greatness.” A brilliant career for thirteen years, even though followed by sudden disgrace and death, is a fate that might be envied by many. The abruptness of Ibrahim’s fall is paralleled many times in Turkish history, which is full of sensational rises and falls. In the history of his life alone, we have seen Ahmed Pasha of Egypt and Iskender Chelebi rise to great heights and quickly descend to disgrace and death. It was the almost limitless possibility of rising, and the ever present danger of falling that constituted the fascination of Turkish public life. One could hardly start with a handicap too severe to prevent him from attaining greatness. On the other hand one was never sure of retaining for twenty‐four hours the power, wealth and rank that he had attained, for a momentary caprice of the monarch might end it abruptly. Even the sultan himself might suddenly be overthrown and fill a dungeon cell or a grave, while his successor taken from a harem or a prison ascended the mighty throne. Nowhere have life and its possibilities been more uncertain than on or near the Ottoman throne.

Let us consider in conclusion the question of Ibrahim’s relations to Suleiman. Was he a traitor or not? Baudier says that Suleiman confronted Ibrahim with his own letters to Charles V and Ferdinand and that he had secret intelligence with the Austrians. In the papers collected by Gévay which seem complete as to the correspondence between Ibrahim and the Austrian ruler, there are no such letters, nor are they found in any other collection nor mentioned by the Austrians themselves. On the contrary, we have despatches from Ferdinand to Ibrahim written July 5th, 1535, March 23, 1535, and March 14, 1536, after his death, urging Ibrahim’s continued offices and expressing gratitude for his efforts to keep peace between the two countries.201

The charge of collusion with the Austrians which we have examined and discussed in connection with the siege of Vienna we here dismiss as being supported by very insufficient data. What had Ibrahim to gain by accepting money or position from Charles? Could the latter give him the half of what Suleiman lavished on him? The similar charge made by Iskender Chelebi when at the gallows, that Ibrahim had been induced by Persian gold to plan the assassination of the sultan falls to the ground for the following reasons; lack of any other witness than Iskender202 and the discredit that attaches to a witness who was the vizir’s fiercest and most desperate enemy, together with the fact that the Persians could offer Ibrahim nothing commensurate with his wealth and power as grand vizir.

I think then we may definitely put aside the charges of his being bought with either Persian or Austrian gold. But the most serious charge remains. Did he aspire to overthrow his master, and himself become sultan? Again our sources are silent or ambiguous. Let us inquire of the Turkish historians. “He fell into the net of the imagination of kingship and power,”203 says Osmanzadeh, which might mean no more than the megalomania of which he gave so many signs. Sadullah Saïd Effendi expresses himself with an equal vagueness: “Perhaps Ibrahim was caught in the net of the thought of partnership of the empire.”204 Petchevi makes no charge. Solakzadeh and Abdurrahman Sheref consider Ibrahim’s death a just punishment for his treatment of Iskender, but prefer no severe charge.205 The Venetians make no accusation beyond the very vague one that “he loved himself better than he did his lord, and wished to be alone in the dominion of the world in which he was much respected.”206

Guillaume Postel takes up some of the accusations against Ibrahim and treats them as follows: The accusations were: 1st. Complicity with the defterdar in looting. This Postel accepts, telling how Ibrahim had looted wherever he had marched. 2nd. His being a Christian, which we need not consider further here. 3rd. An understanding with the Emperor. 4th. An understanding with the Shah of Persia. 5th. A desire to be sultan. 6th. A desire to raise Mustafa, Suleiman’s son, to the throne. Postel says that Ibrahim certainly had no understanding with the emperor, as is proved by the fact that the latter did not use the unexampled opportunity of the Persian war to invade Turkey, an argument which seems to us strong. To this he adds the weak argument that Ibrahim could not bear to hear the emperor spoken of. The charge of an understanding with the shah was based on the early losses in the Persian campaign which Postel disposes of as not being the fault of Ibrahim. The charge of wishing Mustafa on the throne is baseless and unreasonable, as the grand vizir could certainly not gain by a change of masters. As to the charge of wishing to be sultan, Postel dismisses that with the single argument that it was a much too dangerous to attempt.

In the absence of any data inculpating Ibrahim of desiring the throne, we are confined to probabilities. That he loved power and became very ambitious must be recognized. Whether he were mad enough to think he could replace Suleiman on the throne which until this day has never been held by any other than a member of the family of Othman, and that he could hold such a position in the face of an enraged public, Mohammedan to the core as to its army and priesthood; whether he could have so far lost his judgment as to conceive that, Christian slave as he was, he could possibly be in a more advantageous position than the one he already held by the grace of Suleiman, we cannot answer except by the fact that in public affairs his brain was still cool and clear. How far, if at all, he was unfaithful to his master and friend is buried with him in the convent at Galata.

Ibrahim Pasha’s brilliant career was closed. What were the achievements of his thirteen years of power? He had carried the Turkish arms to the gates of Vienna in the west and to Bagdad and Tebriz in the east, and his almost uniformly successful generalship had added to the great renown in which the Ottoman army was held. Sometimes alone, and sometimes under the sultan, he had shown himself an able strategist, and fearless soldier. He had established diplomatic relations with Europe, one of his last acts being the first treaty with the French, and in diplomacy he had shown himself intelligent, true to Suleiman’s interests, and strong if not subtle. As an administrator, his brief power in Egypt was used wisely, and his governorship of Roumelie was able and strong, if not rising in a marked degree above the standards of his day. He was possessed of dignity, impressiveness of manner, and a magnificence in which he vied with his imperial master. He certainly had cared for his own interests, obtaining enormous wealth and power, but that he had ever neglected his master’s interests is unproved, and many times he showed himself loyal rather than venal.

Ibrahim’s importance in Turkish history lies partly in the great diplomatic changes and the conquests which he achieved together with Suleiman, and partly in the fact that he was the first grand vizir taken from the people who exercised much power, and that with him began the rule of vizirs and favorites which became a very important fact in later Turkish history. While we recognize the danger of such rule, yet we also feel that Turkey had a better chance under such men of ability as Mehmet Sokolli Pasha and the Kiuprelli vizirs than under the chance sultans of the Ottoman family, which has produced few great rulers since Suleiman the Magnificent.

To western students the interest in Ibrahim’s history lies not only in his bringing Turkey into friendly contact with Europe, but perhaps more in the very perfect and highly developed illustration he affords of the curious anomalies, the romantic possibilities, the strangeness of Turkish rule, as well as in the light that his career throws on European rulers and armies of the same century.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Official Correspondence, Treaties and Other Documents

Albèri. Relatione degli Ambasciatori Veneti. 3 series, 9 vols. Venice, 1839–63.

Ameer Ali, Syed. Mohammedan Law. Compiled from authorities in original Arabic. Calcutta, 1893–4. 3 vols. Also A Critical Examination of the Life and Teachings of Mohammed, London, 1873.

Aristarchi Bey, G. Législation Ottomane ou Recueil des lois, règlements, ordonnances, traités, capitulations, etc. de l’Empire Ottoman. Constantinople, 1873.

Brown, H. Calendar of State Papers in Venice. London, 1898.

Bradford, W. Correspondence of the Emperor Charles V and his ambassadors of the courts of England and France. London, 1850.

Charrière, E. Correspondence, Mémoires, et Actes Diplomatiques. Paris, 1848–60. Négociations de la France dans le Levant, ou des Ambassadeurs de France à Constantinople et à Venice.

Gévay, Anton von. Urkunden und Actenstücke zur Geschichte der Verhältnisse zwischen Oesterreich, Ungarn und der Pforte im XVI und XVII Jahrhunderte. 3 vols. Wien, 1840.

Koran. Sales’ translation. Palmer’s translation.

Monumenta Hungariae Historica. Pesth, 1847.

Noradunghian, G. Actes Internationaux de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1897.

Parliamentary Papers. Slave Trade, 1860 (London).

Sanuto, M. I Diarii di Marini Sanuto. 50 vols. Venice, 1879–1903.

Suleiman I. Letters of Victory. Mejmoua Menshaat el Selatin.

Testa, Baron I de. Recueil de Traités de la Porte Ottomane. 10 vols. Paris, 1864–1901.

Tomasseo. Relations des Ambassadeurs Vénétiens sur les Affaires de France au XVI siècle. Paris, 1846.

Van Dyck. Consular report on the Capitulations of the Porte. Cairo, 1881.

Young, George. Corps de Droit Ottoman. 5 vols. Oxford, 1905.

II. Travels and Accounts of Turkish Customs

Albrecht, W. Grundriss des Osmanischen Staatsrechts. Berlin, 1905.

Baudier, M. The History of the Imperial Estate of the Grand Seigneur. Trans. by E. Grimeston. London, 1635.

Busbequius. Travels in Turkey, 1557. Ambassades et Voyages, 1557. Life and Letters of O. G. de Busbecq, by C. B. Forster and F. H. S. Daniel. London, 1881.

D’Ohsson, Mouradjea. Tableau Général de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1788–1824.

Fatma Alieh Hanum. Les Musulmanes Contemporaines. Trois Conférences traduites de la langue turque par Nazimé Roukié. Paris, 1894.

Marsigli. Stato militare dell’ Imperio Ottomano. 2 vols. Hague, 1732.

Nicolai, Nicolo de. Le Navigationi e Viaggi fatti nella Turchia, 1580.

Pouqueville. Travels in Greece and Turkey, 1798. Trans. London, 1880.

Postel, G. De la République des Turcs et des moeurs et loy de tous Muhammedists. Poictiers, 1560.

Roberts, Robert. Familien, Sklaven und Erbenrecht im Koran. Leipzig, 1907.

Tavernier, I. B. Nouvelle Relation de l’Interieur du Serail du Grand Seigneur. Paris, 1675.

Tott, Baron de. Memoirs of the Turks and the Tartars. Trans. from the French. London, 1785.

Snouck Hurgronje. Mekka. Haag, 1899.

Vambéry. Das Türkenvolk. Leipzig, 1885.

III. Histories, General and Particular

Abdurrahman Sheref. Tarih Osmanieh (Ottoman History). Stambul, 1895.

Armstrong, Edward, The Emperor Charles V. London, 1892.

Brosch, Moritz. Geschichten aus dem Leben Dreier Gross‐viziere. Gotha, 1899.

Burg. The Height of the Ottoman Power. Cambridge Modern Hist. vol. i, p. 700–705; also vol. ii, p. 782–785.

Brown, Horatio. Venice. An Historical Sketch of the Republic. London, 1893.

Cambridge Modern History. Vol. II, The Reformation.

Cahun, Léon. Introduction à l’Histoire de l’Asie Centrale. Les Turcs et les Mongols. Paris, 1898.

Cantimir, S. A. S. Demetrius. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Translated by Joncquières. Paris, 1743.

Coxe, William, History of the House of Austria. London, 1899.

Driault, E. La Question d’Orient. Paris, 1900.

Ellesmere, F. L. G. E. Earl of. The Sieges of Vienna by the Turks. From the German of K. A. Schimmer, and other sources. London, 1879.

Hammer, J. von. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Both in the German, and in a French translation. 18 vols. Paris, 1837.

Hill, David J. History of Diplomacy. Vol. I. New York, 1905.

Janssen, J. History of the German People to the Close of the Middle Ages. London, 1896.

Jorga. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reichthums. Gotha, 1908–10.

Karamsin. Histoire de Russie. Paris, 1819–25. Trans. by St. Thomas and Jauffret.

Kemalpaschazadeh. Histoire de la Campagne de Mohacz. Trans. by Pavet de Courteille. Paris, 1859.

Khalifeh, Haji. History of the Maritime Wars of the Turks. Translated by Mitchell. London, 1831.

Knolles. History of the Ottoman Empire. London, 1603.

Kretchmayr, H. Gritti. Wien, 1896.

Kupelwieser, Leopold von. Die Kämpfe Oesterreichs mit den Osmanen bis zur Schlacht bei Mohacz, 1526. Ibid., vom Jahre 1526 bis 1537. Wien and Leipzig, 1899.

Lamartine. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1899.

Lane‐Poole, S. The Story of Turkey. New York, 1888.

Lavisse et Rambaud. Histoire Générale du 4me siècle à nos jours. Paris, 1893–1901.

Menzies, Sutherland. Turkey Old and New. London, 1883.

Mignot. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Paris, 1771.

Muir, Sir William. Life of Mohammet. London, 1894.

Osmanzadeh. Hedekatul Vuzara (Garden of Vizirs). Stambul, 1271 A. H.

Pastor, Ludwig. Geschichte der Päpste. Freiburg, 1889.

Petchevi. Tarih (History). Stamboul, 1570.

Rambaud. Histoire de Russie. Paris, 1873.

Ranke, Leopold. The Turkish and Spanish Empires in the Sixteenth Century. Leipzig, 1877.

Ricaut, M. le Chevalier. Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman. Hague, 1709.

Robertson, Wm. Charles the Fifth. New York, 1829.

Sandys. History of the Ottoman Empire. London, 1610.

Solakzadeh. Tarih Misr (History of Egypt). Constantinople, 1729.

Sadullah Säid. 1862. Constantinople.

Soleymannameh, Bulak, 1872. Anon.

Stratford de Redcliffe. The Eastern Question. London, 1881.

Urquhart, David. The Military Strength of Turkey. Turkish Question Pamphlets. London, 1869.

Ursu, J. Politique Orientale de François Premier. Paris, 1908.

Zinkheisen, J. W. Geschichte des Osmanischen Reiches in Europa, Gotha, 1854.

Zeeller, J. La Diplomatie Française vers le milieu du XVI siècle. Paris, 1880.

IV. Special Articles

Columbia Law Review, vol. vii, 1907. A Historical Sketch of Mohammedan Jurisprudence. Abdur Rahim.

Edinburg Review, vol. 203. Venetian Diplomacy of the Sublime Porte during the Sixteenth Century. London, 1906.

Extrait du livre d’Abou‐l‐Hosain Ahmed el Kodouri sur le Droit. Sur la Guerre avec les Infidèles. Trans. by Ch. Solvent, Paris, 1829.

Hakluyt’s Voyages. Edition of 1812.

Introduction to Vol. XLIX, Sixteenth Century. Joseph Barbaro.

Travels to Tana and Persia. Joseph Barbaro.

Travels of a merchant in Persia.

Narrative of the most noble Vincente d’Allessander.

Report of Master Anthony Jenkinson from Aleppo.

Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant. A brief relation of the siege and taking of Rhodes, from the French to English by Lord Thomas Dockway, 1624. The Fardle of Facions. William Watreman, 1555, London.

Journal Asiatique. First Series, vol. iv. Paris, 1824 J. von Hammer. Sur l’Histoire Ottoman de Prince Cantimir. Also vol. x, series I. Memoirs sur les Relations de François I avec la Porte.

Journal Asiatique, vol. xvi, 1897. Le Voyage du Levant de Phillippe du Fresne‐Canaye 1573. H. Hansen.

Revue Historique, vol. lxxvi‐lxxvii, 1901. L’Ambassade de la Forest et de Marillac à Constantinople 1535–1538. Bourilly.

Revue d’Histoire Diplomatique, vol. xv, 1901. Le Voyage d’un Ambassadeur de France en Turquie au 16me siècle. Jean de la Forest.

Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xv. Kogabey’s Abhandlung über den Verfall des osmanischen Staatsgebaüdes seit Sultan Suleiman dem Grossen.

Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xii, 1858. Geschichte Suleimans des Ersten. Th. Noldecke.

Zeitschrift der Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, vol. xiv. Das Sklavenwesen in der Türkei. Leipzig, 1860.

Original Narrative of the Adventures of the Count Christopher von Zedlitz in the Turkish camp. Ed. by Ellesmere.

FOOTNOTES: