Page:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu/889

 succession was disputed by three of his sons. In 1608 one of them, Zīdān, became supreme and reigned twenty years. To subdue rebellions Zīdān twice obtained the assistance of English troops from Charles I., and, like his father, employed large numbers of European artificers in the various palaces he built or completed. The two sons who succeeded him had both become drunkards from intercourse with these foreigners, but a third, Mahomet XIII., called from prison to reign in 1636, proved himself a wise and beneficent ruler. But his friendship for Europeans displeased the more fanatical among his subjects, and after a futile attempt on the part of a central Moroccan “saint” of great reputation to oust him, and the “Christians” on the coast as well, another family of sharifs was invited from Tafīlālt to undertake the task, and by 1649 they were masters of Fez.

Before tracing the history of the Fīlāli dynasty, which still holds its own, it will be convenient to refer briefly to the relations which subsisted then (17th century) and for many years afterwards, apart from wars with Spain and Portugal, between the Moors and Europeans. From the early part of the 13th century there are records of Christian mercenaries and others in the Moorish service, while intermittent trading expeditions had already brought the principal European ports of the Mediterranean into touch with Morocco. The settlement of European traders in Moorish ports does not appear to have commenced till later; but it soon became an important factor, for the Moors have always appreciated the advantages of foreign commerce, and thus the way was opened up for diplomatic intercourse and treaty privileges. Even while their rovers were scouring the seas and making slaves of the foreigners captured, foreign merchants were encouraged to trade among them under guarantees and safe-conducts. Thus originated all the rights enjoyed by foreigners in Morocco to-day, as subsequently confirmed by treaties. France was the first to appoint a consul to Morocco, in 1577, Great Britain only doing so a century later. For centuries the treatment of foreign envoys in Morocco was most humiliating, the presents they brought being regarded in the light of tribute. It was not till the year 1900 that the custom was abolished of mounted sultans under umbrellas receiving ambassadors on foot and bareheaded.

While, from the European point of view, the pirates of the Barbary coast were a bloodthirsty set of robbers, in no way to be distinguished from the sweepings of Western civilization who scoured the seas farther east, from the standpoint of the Moors they were the pious religious Warriors for the faith, who had volunteered to punish the Nazarenes for rejecting Mahomet, and it is difficult to realize the honour in which their memory is held save by comparison with that of the Crusaders, in which the positions were exactly reversed. The Moorish rovers approached as nearly to an organized navy as anything the country ever possessed, and at times they were fitted out by the state, to whom their prizes therefore belonged. They made descents on the opposite coasts, even as far as Devon and Cornwall, carrying off the population of whole hamlets.

Salli, Maʽmora (Mehediya), Laraish, Tangier, Ceuta, Tetuan, and Bādis were their principal rendezvous in Morocco, and their vessels, an assortment of almost every known build and rig of the day, varied greatly in numbers and size. It is probable, however, that contemporary writers greatly over-estimated their importance. They appear to have flourished chiefly throughout the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, and to have attained the zenith of their power during the latter part of the 17th century. A great impetus was given to their raids by the expulsion of the Moors from Spain in 1610, and their operations were facilitated later by the recovery of most of the Moorish ports. from foreign hands. The varying influence of the different European states could be gauged at first by the prices they were compelled to pay to ransom their captive subjects, and later by the annual tribute which they were willing to present to protect their vessels. Some countries continued the payment

well into the 19th century, although the slavery of Christians in Morocco had been abolished by treaty in 1814.

During the time that piracy flourished hundreds of thousands of foreigners suffered captivity, torture and death in Morocco rather than abjure their faith, the one condition on which a measure of freedom within Morocco was offered to them. The horrors of that time were keenly felt in Christendom, and collections were constantly made at church doors for the ransom of Moorish captives. Frequent expeditions for that purpose were undertaken by members of religious brotherhoods, not a few of whom themselves became martyrs. The lot of the European slave was infinitely worse than that of the negro who indifferently embraced Islām, and was at once admitted to equality in all points save freedom. They were principally employed on public works or in galleys under the task-master’s lash, both men and women being subjected to every indignity.

The record of the Fīlāli dynasty may now be considered. The first of this line proclaimed in Fez was Mahomet XIV., but the first of European fame was his brother, Rashid II., “The Great Tafīlātta,” as he was styled by the English, who then occupied Tangier, sultan from 1664 to 1672. With him opened a terrible epoch of bloodshed and cruelty, only once revived since–during the short reign of El Yāzīd (1790–1792)—the horrors of which for both natives and Europeans, are often indescribable. It reached its climax under his brother Ismā’īl. A man of wonderful vitality, his reign lasted 55 years (1672–1727), during which his fierce grasp never relaxed. Many hundreds of sons and countless daughters were born to him in a harem rivalling that of Solomon, for which he even asked a daughter of Louis XIV. Having, as he supposed, driven the English from Tangier, he laid unsuccessful siege to Ceuta for 26 years, but otherwise his military measures were confined to subduing internal enemies, in which he was supported by his faithful black troops, the Bokhāris, and also by a foreign legion of renegades.

For 30 years after Ismā’īl’s death one son after another was set up by the Bokhāris, seven succeeding—some of them more than once—till one, Abd-Allah V., who partook of his father’s bloodthirsty nature, ended his sixth turn of power in 1757. Then, at last, this dynasty provided a beneficent sovereign in the person of his son, Mahomet XVI., during whose reign of 33 years the land prospered. By him Mogador was built and Mazagan, the last hold of the Portuguese, recovered. He was followed by the wretch Yāzīd, his son by an English or Irish woman, whose reign was fortunately cut short while contending with four rival brothers, two of whom in turn succeeded him, the second, Sulaiman II., proving as wise a ruler as his father. Under his reign (1795–1822) piracy was abolished, but the policy, maintained till the end of the century, of having as little as possible to do with foreigners was initiated.

By Sulaiman’s direction the imperial umbrella passed to his nephew, Abd-er-Rahmān II., on whom he could rely to maintain his policy. Although disposed to promote foreign trade, he made a futile attempt in 1828 to revive piracy, which the Austrians frustrated by reprisals next year. Following this was the war of 1830 with France over the partition of Algeria, as a result of which the Moors renounced all claim to Tlemçen and entered into agreements the infraction of which led to a second war between the two in 1844, during which Tangier and Mogador were bombarded. A bombardment of Salli in 1851 secured for the French the settlement of various claims, and when Abd-er-Rahman died, in 1859, the Spaniards were threatening Tetuan.

War being declared, the Spaniards marched on the town, which they captured after two months, and held till peace was signed six months later on their own terms. The vanquished sultan, Mahomet XVII., reigned till his death in 1873, when his son, El Hasan III., succeeded, having the usual fight to secure the supremacy. In comparison with his predecessors El Hasan was mild and gentle, too much so to maintain continual