The History of Peter the Great, Emperor of Russia · Voltaire
Conclusion of the Affairs of Pruth.
It is necessary in this place to repeat an event already related in the History of Charles XII. It happened during the suspension of arms which preceded the treaty of Pruth, that two Tartarian soldiers surprised and took prisoners two Italian officers belonging to the czar's army, and sold them to an officer of the Turkish janissaries. The vizier being informed of this breach of public faith, punished the two Tartars with death. How are we to reconcile this severe delicacy with the violation of the law of nations in the person of Tolstoy, the czar's ambassador, whom this very vizier caused to be arrested in the streets of Constantinople, and afterwards imprisoned in the castle of the Seven Towers? There is always some reason for the contradictions we find in the actions of mankind. Baltagi Mahomet was incensed against the khan of Tartary, for having opposed the peace he had lately made, and was resolved to shew that chieftain that he was his master. The treaty was no sooner concluded, than the czar quitted the borders of the Pruth, and returned towards his own dominions, followed by a body of eight thousand Turks, whom the vizier had sent as an army of observation to watch the motions of the Russian army during its march, and also to serve as an escort or safeguard to them against the wandering Tartars which infested those parts.
Peter instantly set about accomplishing the treaty, by demolishing the fortresses of Samara and Kamienska; but the restoring of Azoph, and the demolition of the port of Taganroc, met with some difficulties in the execution. According to the terms of the treaty it was necessary to distinguish the artillery and ammunition which belonged to the Turks in Azoph before that place was taken by the czar, from those which had been sent thither after it fell into his hands. The governor of the place spun out this affair to a tedious length, at which the Porte was greatly incensed, and not without reason: the sultan was impatient to receive the keys of Azoph. The vizier promised they should be sent from time to time, but the governor always found means to delay the delivery of them. Baltagi Mahomet lost the good graces of his master, and with them his place. The khan of Tartary and his other enemies made such good use of their interest with the sultan, that the grand vizier was deposed, several bashas were disgraced at the same time; but the grand seignior, well convinced of this minister's fidelity, did not deprive him either of his life or estate, but only sent him to Mytilene to take on him the command of that island. This simple removal from the helm of affairs (Nov. 1711,), and the continuing to him his fortunes, and above all the giving him the command in Mytilene, sufficiently contradicts all that Norberg has advanced, to induce us to believe that this vizier had been corrupted with the czar's money.
Norberg asserts furthermore, that the Bostangi basha, who came to divest him of his office, and to acquaint him of the grand seignior's sentence, declared him at the same time, 'a traitor, one who had disobeyed the orders of his sovereign lord, had sold himself to the enemy for money, and was found guilty of not having taken proper care of the interests of the king of Sweden.' In the first place, this kind of declarations are not at all in use in Turkey: the orders of the grand seignior always being issued privately, and executed with secresy. Secondly, if the vizier had been declared a traitor, a rebel, and a corrupted person, crimes of this nature would have been instantly punished with death in a country where they are never forgiven. Lastly, if he was punishable for not having sufficiently attended to the interests of the king of Sweden, it is evident that this prince must have had such a degree of influence at the Ottoman Porte, as to have made the other ministers to tremble, who would consequently have endeavoured to gain his good graces; whereas, on the contrary, the basha Jussuf, aga of the janissaries, who succeeded Mahomet Baltagi as grand vizier, had the same sentiments as his predecessor, in relation to Charles's conduct, and was so far from doing him any service that he thought of nothing but how to get rid of so dangerous a guest; and when count Poniatowsky, the companion and confidant of that monarch, went to compliment the vizier on his new dignity, the latter spoke to him thus. 'Pagan, I forewarn thee, that if ever I find thee hatching any intrigues, I will, upon the first notice, cause thee to be thrown into the sea with a stone about thy neck.'
This compliment count Poniatowsky himself relates in the memoirs which he drew up at my request, and is a sufficient proof of the little influence his master had in the Turkish court. All that Norberg has related touching the affairs of that empire, appear to come from a prejudiced person, and one who was very ill informed of the circumstances he pretends to write about. And we may count among the errors of a party-spirit and political falsehoods, every thing which this writer advances unsupported by proofs, concerning the pretended corruption of a grand vizier, that is, of a person who had the disposal of upwards of sixty millions per annum, without being subject to the least account.[89] I have now before me the letter which count Poniatowsky wrote to King Stanislaus immediately after the signing the treaty of Pruth, in which he upbraids Baltagi Mahomet with the slight he shewed to the king of Sweden, his dislike to the war, and the unsteadiness of his temper; but never once hints the least charge of corruption: for he knew too well what the place of grand vizier was, to entertain an idea, that the czar was capable of setting a price upon the infidelity of the second person in the Ottoman empire. Schaffirow and Sheremeto, who remained at Constantinople as hostages on the part of the czar for his performance of the treaty, were not used in the manner they would have been if known to have purchased this peace, and to have joined with the vizier in deceiving his master. They were left to go at liberty about the city, escorted by two companies of janissaries.
The czar's ambassador Tolstoy having been released from his confinement in the Seven Towers, immediately upon the signing of the treaty of Pruth, the Dutch and English ministers interposed with the new vizier to see the several articles of that treaty put into execution. Azoph was at length restored to the Turks, and the fortresses mentioned in the treaty were demolished according to stipulation. And now the Ottoman Porte, though very little inclinable to interfere in the differences between Christian princes, could not without vanity behold himself made arbitrator between Russia, Poland, and the king of Sweden; and insisted that the czar should withdraw his troops out of Poland, and deliver the Turkish empire from so dangerous a neighbour; and, desirous that the Christian princes might continually be at war with each other, wished for nothing so much as to send Charles home to his own dominions, but all this while had not the least intention of furnishing him with an army. The Tartars were still for war, as an artificer is willing to seize every opportunity to exercise his calling. The janissaries likewise wished to be called into the field, but more out of hatred against the Christians, their naturally restless disposition, and from a fondness for rapine and licentiousness, than from any other motives. Nevertheless, the English and Dutch ministers managed their negotiations so well, that they prevailed over the opposite party: the treaty of Pruth was confirmed, but with the addition of a new article, by which it was stipulated that the czar should withdraw his forces from Poland within three months, and that the sultan should immediately send Charles XII. out of his dominions.
We may judge from this new treaty whether the king of Sweden had that interest at the Porte which some writers would have us to believe. He was evidently sacrificed on this occasion by the new vizier, basha Jussuf, as he had been before by Baltagi Mahomet. The historians of his party could find no other expedient to colour over this fresh affront, but that of accusing Jussuf of having been bribed like his predecessor. Such repeated imputations, unsupported by any proofs, are rather the clamours of an impotent cabal, than the testimonies of history; but faction, when driven to acknowledge facts, will ever be endeavouring to alter circumstances and motives; and, unhappily, it is thus that all the histories of our times will be handed down to posterity so altered, that they will be unable to distinguish truth from falsehoods.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.