APPENDIX IV
Ahmed Kuprili’s age is uncertain: “only thirty years of age”—Lord Winchilsea to Secretary Nicholas, Nov. 11-21, 1661 [S.P. Turkey, 17]; “Not exceeding 32 years of Age”—Sir Paul Rycaut, 1661 [Memoirs, p. 82]; “The Vizier, they say, exceeds not the age of two and thirty yeares”—Geo. Etherege[315] to Joseph Williamson, “R. 8 May 1670” [S.P. Turkey, 19], which would make him at his accession only 24. John Covel in 1675 writes: “He is, they say, 44 years old, though, for my own part, I guesse him not above 40, if so much” [Diaries, p. 195]. Covel’s guess would make Ahmed at the time of his accession 26—an estimate which coincides with Hammer’s statement: “Kœprilu Ahmed, alors âgé de vingt-six ans” [Histoire de l’Empire Ottoman, vol xi. p. 113].
Concerning his merits contemporary English opinion is unanimous. “He was one of the best Ministers that People ever knew” [Life of Dudley North, p. 72]. “This great Kupriogle was a Man of Honour ... and just” [Covel’s Account of the Greek Church, Pref., p. lii.]. “He is prudent and just, not to be corrupted by money, the general vice of this country, nor inclined to cruelty as his father was” [George Etherege, loc. cit.]. “Very prudent, honest ... not given to blood as his father, not mercenary, an enemy to avanias and false pretences ... just in his decrees” [Lord Winchilsea, “Memorandums touching the Turkish Empire” (1669), in Finch Report, p. 522]. Sir Paul Rycaut gives him the character of “a prudent and Politick Person,” speaks of his “gentleness and moderation,” and adds that “he was not a Person who delighted in bloud, and in that respect of an humour far different from the temper of his Father. He was generous, and free from Avarice, a rare Vertue in a Turk!... In the administration of Justice very punctual and severe” [Memoirs, p. 333].
Equally unanimous is the evidence as regards his favour to the English. “I shall apply myself to the Vizier and doubt not to have all satisfaction from him, being assur’d of his good will to us and aptness to favor us in all our reasonable demands”—Sir Daniel Harvey to Lord Arlington, Jan. 31, 1669 [-70]; “Your Lordship may be assurd our merchants heer in Turkie are soe farr from meeting with any obstruction in their affayrs, that they have all the countenance and incouradgment the publick ministers which reside in those places where we have factories can give them and that not without some preference to other nations”—the Same to the Same, April 30, 1671; “As to the honour and privilege which our Nation enjoyeth here, and security of our persons and estates under the Turkes, it is beyond the example of former times”—Paul Rycaut, Smyrna, July 26, 1675 [S.P. Turkey, 19]. Cp. “He was very observant of the Capitulations between our King and the Grand Signior, being ready to do Justice upon any corrupt Minister who pertinaciously violated and transgressed them” [Memoirs, p. 333]. “And whereas under the Government of Kuperlee Ahmet Pasha ... our Merchants enjoyed great security and freedome in the Trade....”—Charles II. to the Grand Vizir, Whitehall, Dec. 28, 1680 [Register, 1668-1710, pp. 99-100, S.P. Levant Company, 145].
FOOTNOTE:
[315] The celebrated Restoration dramatist. He had gone with Sir Daniel Harvey to Turkey as his Secretary and, in the winter of 1669-70, accompanied him to Salonica, where the Ambassador had his audience of the Grand Signor. Of this, Sir George Etherege’s first step in the diplomatic service, no mention is made in the article on him in the Dictionary of National Biography. The one letter from him on Turkish affairs and personalities preserved at the Public Record Office makes us wish for more: a better informed or better written document does not exist in all the Turkey State Papers.
APPENDIX V
Two such instances may be quoted as affording an instructive parallel to the present case. In 1661 the Algerines complained “That the ship the Goodwill, bound, with the persons and goods of several Turkish passengers from Tunis to Smyrna, meeting with some Maltese galleys, without any dispute or contest, resigned them up all with their estates into the hands of the Grand Signor’s enemies. That another ship, the Angel, had done the like to the Venetian fleet and rather sought excuses to cover the treachery than means to avoid the enemy”—Lord Winchilsea to Secretary Nicholas, Adrianople, Jan. 13, 1661-2 [S.P. Turkey, 17].