The Interviewees
Interview with Dr Gemma Masson - April 2023
1- The eighteenth century in the Ottoman Empire was marked by a shift in the methods of international interaction. Was this a wider European phenomenon or a real-politic on the side of the Ottomans that they had reached the limits of power and expansion after the failure of the second siege of Vienna in 1683 and the defeats that followed?
I definitely see 1683 as a turning point. If we imagine Ottoman movement into Europe as a pendulum swing, it reached its apex and began to move back in 1683 at Vienna. The Ottomans were also consistently at war, not only with their European campaigns but also against Persian Safavids on their Eastern borders. Combine a war on two fronts with the financial crises of the seventeenth century and a war on two fronts was no longer sustainable. Diplomacy would be the better option. Additionally the Empire was undergoing internal social and political reforms during this time which would take time, attention and resources. War still occurred but it was no longer the default status when dealing with foreign powers.
2- During the 18th century the ‘Grand tour’ where English aristocrats embarked on a ‘rite of passage’ was very popular and some of the more adventurous also made it to the Ottoman Empire. Have you had a chance to examine some of that written material and do certain authors from that period stand out for you?
There are many travel writings for the eighteenth century of Europeans in the Ottoman Empire, whether they are all officially labelled ‘Grand Tour’ or not. For this period the accounts of Thomas Shaw, Charles Perry and Richard Pococke exemplify this genre of writing. I recommend Rachel Finnegan’s book English Explorers in the East for details on the work of these men as it charts the biographies of the accounts themselves.
3- During the 18th century ambassadors were partly appointed by the powerful trade monopoly of the Levant Company. Do you detect any tensions in this arrangement where the diplomatic corps being paid by that company with the proviso of the focus being on smooth trade and perhaps were not always working in harmony with London when potential diplomatic crises arose?
Nothing stands out save for the tensions already mentioned in the talk over whose preference of ambassador took priority. Good diplomatic relations facilitated good trade deals so the two agendas would go hand in hand neatly. Michael Talbot’s work gives us a more detailed look at the eighteenth century so that would be my recommended reading.
4- The first Ottoman ambassador was resident in London only in 1793 and in general Ottomans did not recognise the equality of other sovereignties or the sanctity of diplomatic protection, when war arose. Do you think this was because so few Ottomans such as merchants resided beyond their borders so the need was not seen and the foreign representatives in Istanbul were deemed sufficient for the bilateral trade relations regulations? What was the trigger to change the Ottoman perception of external representation?
It is true that most tales are of Europeans going into the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were very good at attracting talent and skills they desired and welcomed Europeans with those skills For example Baron De Tott was significant in Ottoman military developments in technology during the eighteenth century. These would be the kind of connections that the Ottomans encouraged so work was done by Europeans, with their knowledge and contacts, but under the auspices of the Ottomans themselves. Possibly the shift came about as part of the reformers emerging in the Ottoman Empire, certainly by the end of the eighteenth century the status of Europe has greatly changed (France in revolution which impacted relations with the Ottoman for example). Additionally, I see external representation as a natural progression of moving away from hard power (military conquest) to soft power (diplomacy).
5- In the global context, how important a post was the British Ambassadorship? Did Britain strive to send its most able or was it often aristocrats with good connections?
The most coveted post for British Ambassadors was the Paris Embassy but to be an Ambassador to Istanbul was still a valued post. Often ambassadors were from noble families but not always, sometimes an ambassadorship was a prelude to knighthood, as in the case of Robert Sutton. With the importance of diplomacy an ambassador would need to be educated and able, of course, there would have been some duds! At the very least a man who had had a gentlemanly education and possibly moved into a respectable occupation such as the church or law. Having connections would be important in order to even be considered but we see from Suttons appointment that even without a title or a great deal of fortune he was able to secure the post.
6- How damaging was the French revolution to the French diplomatic presence and prestige in the Ottoman Empire and did this greatly help British influence as no doubt Ottomans would have been very wary of revolutionary ideas taking seed in their own soil? Were the French able to reclaim their former position in the Levant once the situation settled down?
The Ottomans were, naturally opposed to French Revolutionary ideals, not only for the views on the existence of a monarch but also the secularism revolutionary ideas brought. This facilitated an opportunity for the British Ambassadors to gain favour with the Ottoman government. While the Ottomans were largely neutral regarding what happened in France they did not want the movement coming to the Empire. However Pascal Firges has made the case for an Ottoman policy of tolerance to the French in the Levant during the revolutionary era. The Ottomans had long practised tolerance to other nations living within their lands as long as they posed no direct threat to the state power structure.
7- Sir Robert Sutton (ambassador in Istanbul 1700-1717) was clearly an able diplomat and negotiator. His despatches were later published and how illuminating are his writings in terms of how diplomacy was conducted in his time and relations of every country with the Ottoman Empire? Was it normal for diplomats of the time to receive supplementary income, in his case the Czar of Russia in exchange for his mediation between the Russian court and the Ottomans, at the time?
Sutton has often been praised for the detail and insight of his writings. He took his job seriously and keenly observed not only Ottoman-British relations but also the actions of all diplomatic powers in their interactions with both the Ottomans and each other. For example he recorded a great deal of information regarding the Pruth River Campaign which his superiors were happy to receive. Regarding supplementary income, I do not know of any laws which prevented ambassadors from earning elsewhere. Especially if ambassadors were independently wealthy they may very well have invested in trade themselves, if anything this would be an incentive to keep diplomatic matters running smoothly.
8- Lady Mary Wortley Montagu was clearly a keen observer and as a prolific writer left her impressions of Turkey in ‘The Turkish Embassy Letters’, but as a woman she had restrictions on where she could go and whom she could speak to. Do you think she was able to fill in that gap via her husband who was the ambassador?
I would not say Lady Mary interested herself with the day to day diplomatic affairs which made up her husband’s role. She wanted to immerse herself in the Ottoman culture and learn about their practices, which she did to the fullest of her ability! Furthermore, rather than see Lady Mary as the one missing out in the partnership I prefer to see what she brought to her husband’s role. Not simply the running of a household and hostess duties but also the backroom diplomacy that could happen between women who could then report back to and influence their partners. None of Lady Mary’s writings reflect this however as her letters aim to recount information on Ottoman culture to her friends, not the ins and outs of politics.
9- Samuel Medley was the butler to George Hay, the ambassador in Istanbul 1729-1736 and wrote a detailed diary / day book from 1733. How unusual is such a record from a lower rank member from the diplomatic corps and how illuminating is it in terms of how the ambassadorship functioned and general city life? Are there any complementary records that can be linked to entries in the diary, e.g. from guests of the ambassador or even suppliers to the embassy?
Such accounts are rare, whether this is a question of literacy or inclination on the part of the servant classes is unclear. The diary contents are more of a day book whereby Medley listed what duties he had carried out that day, it is more than likely that this was simply a reminder for himself to keep track of his tasks. In terms of how the ambassadorship functioned it certainly gives readers a peek behind the curtain to how far diplomatic households interacted with the wider Istanbul society. Personally I feel it speaks to how European households were run at the time more than anything else. Medley does not concern himself with the work of his master beyond recounting who the Earl dined with, which would impact his duties as a servant in the household. The Early despatches could be a useful comparison to Medleys day book as we may see, for instance, what was discussed when certain guests came to dinner.
Interview conducted by Craig Encer